Rifles do not have mounts for "rocket propelled grenade launchers". This author knows absolutely nothing about guns. This is at best a sad attempt to publicize her terrible previous book, and at worst the wind-up to her next hack job book where she will convert back from pro- to anti- second amendment.
Actually the first one, is a perfect (and possibly one of the few) examples of a rifle based rocket propelled grenade. Though you wouldn't consider it a launcher as its just afixed to directly to the barrel.
The author (or more likely their copyeditor) possibly succumbed to buzzword bingo, when simply saying "an under barrel mount" would have been sufficed.
But the message of the article I feel has its merits, and hopefully that isn't lost because of poor choice of a single sentence.
Wow, what a BS article with so many flawed logic, I don't even know where to begin.. So, the author says gun ban in Australia and Britain show no clear effect on mass shootings and murders, because they were not as widespread as in USA in first place. When was the last time you heard about mass shooting in Australia or Britain? Later she tries to prove that silencer doesn't "work", because AR15 with silencer is still loud. No shit Sherlock. But have you ever heard .22LR pistol (favorite assassin's gun) shot with a silencer on? Check it, and you'll find your "soft puick puick" just as in movies. Personally I don't care about gun laws in USA as I don't live there, but this kind of fact wrapping and flawed logic gets on my nerves.
Where I live - yes. I was told so by a police detective, who ran a gun safety course. It's very silent, easily available, but still has enough power to make a mess inside a skull if shot from the back or side of the head. Sure, in USA where combat rifles are readily available, situation might be different.
To put this article out when the head of the NRA is releasing Doomsday videos about vague nonsense societal threats to "conservatives" is just irresponsible.
This is just preposterous. Is he really trying to suggest that the UK is carrying bravely on with its own regular - one happens every 20 years! - mass shootings...? Nobody, statistically speaking, has guns - end of story!
I feel like people that argument gun control laws are dumming it down to "if it doesn't work instantly then it's not worth it". If they start thinking about gun control as an investment in the long term in reduction of gun violence/mass shootings/suicides, there is no reason argue against it.
The problem with the laws proposed is that they do nothing about the 300 million firearms that are already out there. We're simply supposed to trust the of all of those firearms as though new purchasers are the main threat.
How is it moral to deny a person access to firearms while they have to live among others who are heavily armed? You'd be creating a privileged class of firearms owners and hereditary firearms dynasties.
Personally, I cannot support any gun control law that does not include outlawing and confiscating existing firearms.
This is a write up I did on a private mailing list I started. It's
what I'd do for gun control. Be interested in seeing if anyone likes
it (or if anyone can see how to make it more viable).
To me, someone who used to be a gun hating liberal but now owns quite
a few guns (.22s, 30-30s, 12 gauge, 20 gauge, .38 revolver) guns are
a tool. Sort of like a chainsaw is a tool. I moved to the country,
predators ate my chickens (and now my dog), guns became a necessary tool.
And at this point they are fun too, I've shot some clays and enjoyed it,
still do from time to time.
Certain guns, in the hands of crazies, can do a lot of damage quickly.
So I'd like to restrict access to those. I'm fine with the idea that
you can own anything you want, 50mm machine gun, whatever, so long as
it is stored at a range and you have to go play with it there.
If some idiot made me king and I could make laws I would restrict home
owner guns to:
- revolvers (but speed loaders are range only)
- maximum of 6 rounds in a rifle
- maximum of 4 shells in a shotgun
I'd actually relax some of the rules in California, I'd allow AR-15's
and whatever other toys people want (no nukes, sorry :) if they are
range only. Range only sort of sucks, you don't get to strip your
weapon and oil it for hours at home, but if range only gets people
AR-15's in California I can see that as a step forwards in the mind
of some of the gun people. It's messy, transport between ranges
would have to be worked out, as would initial transport to the range,
but who am I kidding? I'm not king, this isn't gonna happen.
My reasoning on all of this was to allow for tool usage of guns, there are
lots and lots of places in this country where not having a revolver is
just stupid (I go on guided fly fishing trips, they all carry revolvers
in bear country; never seen a semi auto, their comment is revolvers
just work). But restrict access to the guns that are clearly designed
for, or allow for, killing of lots of people quickly. We make it way
to easy for those to fall into the hands of mentally unstable people.
What you'd get in return for these rules is my commitment (and I suspect
a huge number of people would feel the same) if I'm ever in a situation
where there is someone shooting people up, I'm going to tackle them
when they go to reload. That was the divider for me, if some guy has a
glock and a belt full of clips, it's just too fast to drop a clip and
shove in another one, the window to tackle him is so small that you're
probably gonna die. But a guy with a revolver? Yeah, he's going down.
Same thing for a rifle or a shotgun.
Is this a perfect answer? Hell no. Some people won't be happy until
all guns are illegal just as some people won't be happy until they
can have nukes. This was just the best compromise I could imagine.
I posted these thoughts to a gun forum years ago, back when I was first
researching guns. Holy moly, the crap that rained down on my head!
Unamerica was by far the most polite thing, I got death threats, literal
death threats. So clearly it's unlikely that everyone agrees with me
on this topic, not expecting that, just saying this is how I'd try and
balance all the issues. If someone can show me how to change it so that
the gun rights people are happier and the "I just want to stay alive"
people are happier, bring it on!
Sweeping bans on the guns themselves sends a message that individual interventions don't. The message is "We as a society don't approve of civilians having easy access to death machines." But this message falls on deaf ears when the message of the gun owners is "We want the ability to fight our government." They're in direct conflict.
Gun advocates always say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." To me that means only one thing. We don't need gun control: We need people control. If you own a gun, you should be subject to scrutiny and harsh penalties for not being a responsible gun owner, the same way we impose harsh penalties on the safety and use of automobiles.
If you keep your gun unlocked and not in a safe, there should be a penalty. If a child can get to your gun, there should be quite an intense penalty. If you have or develop a history of mental illness, or commit a felony, you should not be allowed to have any guns. And carrying said weapons, unlocked, and armed, "for defense", when that defense is not "defense from a repressive and illegal government incursion", should be outlawed.
Yes, only the outlaws will have guns. Just like only the outlaws commit murder, and do a whole lot of shit they shouldn't do. This does not mean outlaws will run rampant shooting people, because most people already do not carry guns, and most people who carry guns are not constantly defending themselves from assailants. It's a stupid argument to say that because an outlaw has one, a civilian needs one. SWAT teams need them, but not your uncle who wears fatigues to a barbeque.
17 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 50.1 ms ] threadA lot of rifles from WW2 era had special attachments for firing granades - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M7_grenade_launcher
More recent examples are the M203, which is still in US service - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M203_grenade_launcher
But if you're buds with Kim Jong-Un you might have the opportunity to purchase some cool Soviet-style military surplus - http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-reportedly-smuggl...
The author (or more likely their copyeditor) possibly succumbed to buzzword bingo, when simply saying "an under barrel mount" would have been sufficed.
But the message of the article I feel has its merits, and hopefully that isn't lost because of poor choice of a single sentence.
Except that evidence based reasoning vs motivated reasoning suggests we do just that.
How is it moral to deny a person access to firearms while they have to live among others who are heavily armed? You'd be creating a privileged class of firearms owners and hereditary firearms dynasties.
Personally, I cannot support any gun control law that does not include outlawing and confiscating existing firearms.
To me, someone who used to be a gun hating liberal but now owns quite a few guns (.22s, 30-30s, 12 gauge, 20 gauge, .38 revolver) guns are a tool. Sort of like a chainsaw is a tool. I moved to the country, predators ate my chickens (and now my dog), guns became a necessary tool.
And at this point they are fun too, I've shot some clays and enjoyed it, still do from time to time.
Certain guns, in the hands of crazies, can do a lot of damage quickly. So I'd like to restrict access to those. I'm fine with the idea that you can own anything you want, 50mm machine gun, whatever, so long as it is stored at a range and you have to go play with it there.
If some idiot made me king and I could make laws I would restrict home owner guns to:
- revolvers (but speed loaders are range only) - maximum of 6 rounds in a rifle - maximum of 4 shells in a shotgun
I'd actually relax some of the rules in California, I'd allow AR-15's and whatever other toys people want (no nukes, sorry :) if they are range only. Range only sort of sucks, you don't get to strip your weapon and oil it for hours at home, but if range only gets people AR-15's in California I can see that as a step forwards in the mind of some of the gun people. It's messy, transport between ranges would have to be worked out, as would initial transport to the range, but who am I kidding? I'm not king, this isn't gonna happen.
My reasoning on all of this was to allow for tool usage of guns, there are lots and lots of places in this country where not having a revolver is just stupid (I go on guided fly fishing trips, they all carry revolvers in bear country; never seen a semi auto, their comment is revolvers just work). But restrict access to the guns that are clearly designed for, or allow for, killing of lots of people quickly. We make it way to easy for those to fall into the hands of mentally unstable people.
What you'd get in return for these rules is my commitment (and I suspect a huge number of people would feel the same) if I'm ever in a situation where there is someone shooting people up, I'm going to tackle them when they go to reload. That was the divider for me, if some guy has a glock and a belt full of clips, it's just too fast to drop a clip and shove in another one, the window to tackle him is so small that you're probably gonna die. But a guy with a revolver? Yeah, he's going down. Same thing for a rifle or a shotgun.
Is this a perfect answer? Hell no. Some people won't be happy until all guns are illegal just as some people won't be happy until they can have nukes. This was just the best compromise I could imagine.
I posted these thoughts to a gun forum years ago, back when I was first researching guns. Holy moly, the crap that rained down on my head! Unamerica was by far the most polite thing, I got death threats, literal death threats. So clearly it's unlikely that everyone agrees with me on this topic, not expecting that, just saying this is how I'd try and balance all the issues. If someone can show me how to change it so that the gun rights people are happier and the "I just want to stay alive" people are happier, bring it on!
--lm
This is not a death threat.
Gun advocates always say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." To me that means only one thing. We don't need gun control: We need people control. If you own a gun, you should be subject to scrutiny and harsh penalties for not being a responsible gun owner, the same way we impose harsh penalties on the safety and use of automobiles.
If you keep your gun unlocked and not in a safe, there should be a penalty. If a child can get to your gun, there should be quite an intense penalty. If you have or develop a history of mental illness, or commit a felony, you should not be allowed to have any guns. And carrying said weapons, unlocked, and armed, "for defense", when that defense is not "defense from a repressive and illegal government incursion", should be outlawed.
Yes, only the outlaws will have guns. Just like only the outlaws commit murder, and do a whole lot of shit they shouldn't do. This does not mean outlaws will run rampant shooting people, because most people already do not carry guns, and most people who carry guns are not constantly defending themselves from assailants. It's a stupid argument to say that because an outlaw has one, a civilian needs one. SWAT teams need them, but not your uncle who wears fatigues to a barbeque.