Archive for the ‘Guns’ Category

Talk about an odd coincidence.

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

After yesterdays animated discussion, I was standing in the local taco joint looking at the day’s Times Herald Record…

Swan Lake tot dies from hunting accident; NYC man charged with manslaughter

Apparently a negligent douchebag hunter was not only using a bait trap, but after hitting one deer, he fired off a second round that missed, went through the thin walls of a trailer, and shot a 16 month old in the neck. Now I adore hunters, but this guy was a scumbag. He was firing within 500 feet of a building that he did not own, which was occupied by people he did not know. This guy should get the needle. There’s a difference between an accident – and a crime which was the result of negligence.

The thing that caught my attention, more than the tragic story – is that it didn’t take long for an opportunistic politician to make news by proposing to ban high powered hunting rifles like the one that was used in the killing of the toddler.

After child’s death, Sullivan to consider ban on high-powered hunting rifles

The story clearly outlines that the hunter who used the gun was a negligent jackass. Since we can’t ban jackasses, I don’t see why we should have to ban guns. They’ll surely find another way to screw up while the majority of .300 Winchester Magnum rifle owners use them responsibly. If anything, what must be revisited – is the 500 foot restriction. I think it’s patently absurd to allow anyone to fire a weapon that powerful within as little as 500 feet away from a home.

The maximum effective range of a .300 Winchester Magnum is 1270 yards, or 3,810 feet – meaning that if you’re good enough, and shoot at something 3800 feet away with this rifle – you could hit it hard enough to kill it.

The law which mandated the distance requirement could be modified to perhaps lessen the likelihood of a similar occurrence, however banning the gun itself is a slippery slope which should be avoided at all cost.

Gun Controls and Misconceptions…

Monday, November 17th, 2008

Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008

I found this during my looking around this morning. It interests me that this
furor about a possible re-institution of the assault weapons ban seems to be
swirling after Nov. 4th, but we heard nothing like the current outrage in June
and July when this was authored by Republicans, and introduced to the
appropriate congressional sub-committee. What’s worse, this re-authorizes the
the vague language of the original, and is similar to the wording set forth in
the NJ Attorney General’s guidelines for the enforcement of this states own ban.

In my own opinion, restricting armor defeating ammo types and calibers might
make sense. Let’s be honest, who needs a FN 5.7 or a .50 BMG Barrett except the
military? If nothing else, the price of the ammo alone makes it impractical for
any kind of sporting, and your average calibers are much better for defense
applications. Outlawing 100 round drum magazines might make sense, because one
doesn’t reasonably hunt deer OR target shoot with 100 continuously fed rounds I
would argue that you don’t effectively defend your home that way either (though
some “Soldier of Fortune” types might disagree…). Mandating that manufacturers
take specific measures to prevent easily transforming a semi auto into a full
auto would make sense to me, because then you would prosecute individuals who
defeat those safeguards on a much more specific basis of what IS dangerous,
rather than what APPEARS to be. You would prosecute manufacturers who don’t meet
a set of specific standards based in the interest of professional responsibility
and public safety, rather than on an arbitrary list of cosmetic features.

A vague blanket like this one just leaves the individual law enforcement
officer, and subsequently the larger legal system open to endlessly litigate and
interpret a law that is too broad. I may not agree with the NRA’s seemingly knee
jerk reactionism and implied ethos of “gimme my guns or else”, but this
legislation is irresponsible for everyone, because it doesn’t set out to resolve
anything, but to give the appearance that it might (ie. the study it mandates to
be performed by the AG as regards the bill’s supposed impact on crime.)

Don’t be afraid of Obama’s supposed anti-gun stance, but be afraid of this
bill, because it looks like these Republicans were looking to promote their own
anti-gun agenda well before anyone knew the election’s outcome!