Comments on: A gun enthusiast explains his hobby
Add a Comment
- CBS has an article about gun laws in Israel. Their licensing rules seem quite reasonable. I also agree with the earlier post by "Venus..." that explains the relationship between hunting, sportsmanship, and target practice. I also agree that someone in a drug trafficing border state might have a valid reason for a gun with clips, but I really haven't heard any news stories that have backed up this thought.
I know the people that are worried about the government more than their neighbors with guns won't agree. Some unstable person in my neighborhood is a more real threat. We need to change instead of being on this slippery slope that is headed toward the WILD, WILD west. - Reply to this comment
- Here's my 2nd Amendment right: I want a small drone hacked out with Microsoft Windows Phone 8, xbox Kinect, an infrared camera, a hybrid HD camera, and a gun.
- Reply to this comment
- @ Jack818. The "Brady Act" did not ban any guns. The Brady Act, passed in 1993 as an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, imposes a waiting period of up to five days for the purchase of a handgun, and subjects purchasers to a background check during that period. See 18 U.S.C. section 922(s)(1). The waiting period and background check prescribed by the Act are not required in States that have permit systems meeting standards prescribed by the Act. 18 U.S.C. section 922(s)(1)(C), (D). Your entire post is inacurate and typical of those who just parrot some emotional tripe that they read on some anti-gun website instead of actually doing some research.
- Reply to this comment
- "If you ask a golfer why he needs 15 clubs instead of 7 he'll tell you, well, with certain shots, I like to use that other putter," Hoffman said.
Oh that makes perfect sense. A golf club is just like a shotgun. How couldn't I have seen this before?
Thank goodness I don't live close to that guy. - Reply to this comment
- So much of this discussion is marred by the kind of anger one associates with primitive religious disagreement (I am not necessarily including disputes between theologians--rather their vulgar followers). On the one side we have those who fear the mass killing of citizens by deranged individuals armed with semi-assault weapons--on the other side we have those who are terrified of the U.S. government and seek the ability to kill fellow citizens and political officers in the event of some "tyranny" they cannot define other than restricting their "right" to have such weapons. Until the gun-rights folks can clearly identify the "tyranny" they seek to avoid and and explain clearly to the rest of us why such a "tyranny" cannot be avoided short of "armed insurrection" only one side of this debate appears grounded in reality
- Reply to this comment
- A happy gray haired married Hoffman is far from the planet of the evil animal that used that weapon as others have in recent months to conduct evil .
Hoffman is stable , and he has decades of years to back that record up , which is far from the fact of the animal in CT .
A World of difference Folks , two different planets , so MR Hoffman do you think the jump in sales of these type weapons in last week is going to gray hair or youth ? - Reply to this comment
- Well, with all due respect to Mr. Hoffman and others that enjoy shooting these types of firearms, they are a tough sell to old-school sportsmen.
There are many of us that were raised with hunting and target shooting. That means a single shot or a bolt action rifle to most people; the most accurate of their kind and that you can afford. True, if you compete in the National Matches then you need a semi-auto prior service arm to enter, but that is a fairly rare group using larger centerfire rifles such as the Garand, etc. Even so, target shooting is ruled by the single shot/bolt action. Period.
It also means you are supposed to develop your skills and practice your @ss off to become the best shot you can be. All that is because when you eventually do go hunting and finally work yourself into a position to take a shot, you are not supposed to take the shot unless you can put the animal down quickly and efficiently. One shot is best with a follow up shot if needed, but that's the goal. What that means is that true sportsmen should be spending all their time at the range practicing to become as good as they can be and probably reloading to fine tune their hand loads. That's what a sportsman would do.
That also means using the right sized cartridge for the animal you are hunting. Deer or anything larger is too big for the .223 to take cleanly with confidence with one shot. It's useless on anything but varmints.
An assault rifle in .223 is not only insufficient to take anything but the smallest animals, it's large magazine cry's to the user to just keep pulling the trigger to compensate for poor aim. Rather than to take the time to be able to place one shot where it needs to be.
We already have low powered, short range target and plinking covered via the old .22 rimfire. If a family wants to go out and have fun shooting up cans and things then that is what those are for.
Using the much more powerful, centerfire .223 for plinking on that scale is a waste of money and it's still not a hunting rifle. You aren't going to use it for tree squirrels because of it's range. If you miss, you run the risk of injuring people when the round falls from the sky. If you are using it for varmint hunting, they make excellent long range varmint bolt actions for that too. An assault rifle is not needed for varmint hunting.
Semi-autos are really for wing-shooting shotguns or slug guns where rifles are illegal because the area is too densely populated by people to use anything with greater range.
Frankly I'm surprised assault rifles have become so popular and can't see the reason why. At first I thought it was a younger generation who didn't know better but I guess I'm wrong about that. Is it home defense? I would rather have a shotgun for that, better knockdown for the range.
No, I think it's just the movies. More and more people want to be able to pretend they are Rambo and are prepared and waiting for the Zombie Apocalypse or Anarchy to start than I thought. Call them assault rifles because that's what they are. They are not designed for hunting and they shouldn't hide behind that usage. They are designed to kill people.
The problem with an event like Newtown is that if the assault rifles had been banned, that still would not have stopped him from having semi-auto pistols and doing what was done. Banning a weapon class would just cause someone who is motivated enough to use a different weapon type, if they are serious enough to do it. Unfortunately I don't see how banning them would have changed things. I think the failure here lies with the mother's poor judgement in having those types of weapons in a house with an unstable individual that she clearly underestimated. - Reply to this comment
- Consider that jihadist terrorists have only been able to kill 17 Americans in the United States since 9/11. Meanwhile, some 88,000 Americans died in gun violence from 2003 and 2010, according to the U.N. study.
That means that in the past decade, an American residing in the United States was around 5,000 times more likely to be killed by a fellow citizen armed with a gun than by a terrorist inspired by Osama bin Laden. - Reply to this comment
- California already has the answer - make buying ammunition harder. Without ammunition an AR-15 is a big paperweight.
- Reply to this comment
- If Mr. Hoffman see this deadly situation as mostly a mental health issue, a very human disorder, then who is to say he himself someday will not fall victim to this dreaded disease? Strange how this man and so many other ducks of the same feather are so narrowly focused when it comes to these matters of gun control. I feel they fear a likelihood of utter chaos to eventually sweep the nation and if such an event were ever to occur they would have no respect for their police force, national guard or armed forces in providing proper and adequate protection. If my scenario were to prove right, it would be Mr. Hoffman and his colleagues who the protection authorities would hunt because Mr. Hoffman and his kind would then have the dubious distinction of: "known as being, highly armed."
- Reply to this comment
