A recent article at New Republic shows us that not only are anti-gun arguments rarely fact-based, but that it’s hard to hide the truth: that they want to ban all guns.
The article starts out shoehorning a typical anti-gun post-shooting argument into a new situation. Instead of trying to talk about innocent children, shoppers and such, now it’s former president and present presidential candidate Donald Trump. But, it doesn’t take long for us to figure out that the application to this novel situation is fairly unhinged.
To start, the author gets into the supposed inaccuracy of the AR-15, despite the fact that the shot was taken from around 125 yards. As anyone who knows crap from apple butter would tell you, even a bargain basement AR-15 would readily be able to make that kind of a shot at that limited of a range. We’re not talking about anything that could be considered “sniper” work, nor are we even talking about expert marksmanship. Being well within point-blank range for that round and that target size, all that’s needed is some knowledge of shooting fundamentals, with no knowledge of ballistics needed.
Despite the fact that a “sniper rifle” wasn’t used in the shooting, the author then goes on to say: “Because we live in an insane country, military sniper rifles are marketed to civilians who lack any good reason to own one. Had Crooks been a sophisticated enough killer to get such a weapon, Trump would probably be dead now. Thankfully, Crooks was not, and Trump received only a minor wound to his outer ear.”
At this point, we’ve gone from an argument against a weapon used in the shooting to a weapon not used, which is silly, but more importantly the writer has now tipped his hand while fumbling his arguments. Many in his tribe want us to think that they only want a “reasonable” ban for semi-automatic rifles, but that would still leave us in an “insane country” that still allows people to own bolt-action hunting rifles.
He doesn’t stop there. Pistols (something else they claim to only want to regulate but not ban) are supposedly used in more mass shootings than rifles. This may actually be true, depending on the definition of a mass shooting. But, to get there, it requires including gang violence in mass shootings, which is intellectually dishonest. While not as explicit as the argument against bolt rifles, we’re again seeing that they’d just switch to trying to ban pistols if they got what they wanted with rifles.
The overall point was that, despite this not being a mass shooting in the common sense, the author thinks ARs are more dangerous than the other types of weapons he’s afraid of. The weapon was a poor choice for this shooting, he says, but it’s proven to make for some very deadly shootings. But, the argument trips and stumbles over other types of weapons because the writer would just as soon get rid of them all and does a poor job of trying to hide it.
How would he aim to do this? He thinks Trump should lead the way. If Trump were to turn against guns and demand loyalty from Republicans, he thinks Republicans would blindly follow him so that Biden can pass a ban. Then, he’d like to see Trump lose the election anyway, despite doing what the author wants in this fantastic anti-gun scenario. Again, he wants it all ways all the time.
At the end of the day, articles like this make it clear that the anti-gun crowd isn’t for compromise. The best gun owners can get from them is a promise to be eaten last.
Even looking only at true mass shootings, handguns are by far the weapons of choice (NOT MSRs as the gun-control media keeps claiming).
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/
Gang related violence doesn’t count.
SAFE,
It sure as hell does if you’re one of the gangbangers, or if their shootouts occur in your neighborhood. AFAIAC, ANY shooting in which four or more people get killed? That’s a “mass shooting”.
Local problems between people who know each other nothing to get too worked up over let alone report for any crime statistics record keeping.
In case it isn’t obvious sarcasm is involved while joking about the reality of lefty dominant violence.
Yeah, curious how the vast majority of the cities NOT providing the FBI with data are . . . exactly the ones that (historically) have the bulk of the crime (and SOMEHOW, they are all Dimocrat-run).
But the stats look better now see democrats keep crime down with successful policies. There are days I almost want to daydrink at work. But then I see how social media has allowed private citizens to keep better records of crime in our cities than the FBI and I just make sure the links work and the numbers/incidents match up. Oh and Albany NY YTD stabbings 34, shootings 51, homicides 12. For a city with a population of under 100k it isn’t horrific but is 4 times higher than a decade ago (more with the stabbings but es su cultura)
Here’s what a real ‘sniper and his rifle’ is capable of. Craig Martin of Gulfport MS won the .50 cal 2gun ELR competition for the 2nd year in a row. His longest shot was 3400 yds.
https://www.wlox.com/2023/07/22/gulfports-craig-martin-earns-top-gun-title-50-caliber-rifle-world-championships/
At such distances, a sniper is less a marksman and more a light artilleryman.
Rifleman addresses as “Dear Sir” Cannon cocker as “To whom it may concern” Significant difference.
Yeah, the bullet will peak around 300 ft above the ground.
That’s right I am supposed to provide a ‘”reason” to foot tapping Gun Control useful idiots hauling around an agenda History Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide? Gun Control zealots do not deserve the time of day much less a reason.
Frankly the way deranged Gun Control zealots go marching around and throwing tantrums they want to see citizens more unarmed and defenseless than murderers, rapists, thieves, kidnappers, child molesters, perverts and tyrants want to see citizens unarmed and defenseless.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7A3zBe1zWRg&feature=shared
They corrected the story to say the shot was from 164 yards away. Is this the true distance?
Speaking of being out of touch, they’re also complaining about the NRA in that article. They refuse to tackle the subject of why we have more of these “school shooter” types these days. They’re only interested in blaming the guns and their political opposition.
Dude: “despite the fact that the shot was taken from around 125 yards.”
And I have read elsewhere the distance was 135 yards. Regardless as it has been stated those distances are a mere chip shot. I can’t imagine making a shot from 3400 yards(1.9318 miles) as did Craig Martin, “The longest shot that I hit consecutive impacts on was a little over 3400 yards. You have time to wait for the impact, it takes about nine seconds for the bullet flight for it to actually impact.”
https://www.wlox.com/2023/07/22/gulfports-craig-martin-earns-top-gun-title-50-caliber-rifle-world-championships/
According to the FBI, the percentage of homicides committed with rifles of any type increased slightly to 2.6% in 2019. This is only slightly greater than the percentage of homicides that are committed with Senile Sock Puppet President Biden approved shotguns. This is the last year for which FBI data on firearms types used in homicides is available. Most jurisdictions no longer bother to submit data to the FBI.
Obviously; the lack of crime data with which to refute the Bovine Scatology of the gun control lobby is intentional..
Instead of banning rifles, Ban Rifling. Require firearm bore to be 1mm larger than bullet diameter.
Firearms would then be too inaccurate to hit any targets, killers would stop using them and find other means to create mayhem.
Eff off.
They’d just get up close to you and stick it in your ribs, moron.
Ever seen what expanding muzzle gasses do to an abdominal cavity?
The bullet is usually the lesser player in the trauma that occurs…
LOUIS – sometimes the sarcasm tag is a necessity.
By the Grace of God…TRUMP/VANCE 2024.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UvQAg7BPm8k&feature=shared
There are two basic ways that adult human brains work.
Type 1 Brains:
These people want facts and information. They try to understand in basic terms how things work. Then they formulate what they think is the best conclusion based on the facts and how things work–and push toward what is actually achievable.
Type 2 Brains:
These people are almost exclusively interested in feelings and perceptions. They obsess and fantasize on how they wish things would work. Then they arrive at their conclusion based on emotion and how they wish things would work–and push toward what is often impossible.
People with “Type 2” emotional brains do not care if their thoughts are self-consistent or comport with facts and the real world. Their ramblings simply reflect their emotions and fantasies. Such people will go wherever their whimsical brains take them. Thus their speech is often incoherent word salad. In other words they are toddlers in adult bodies. Plan accordingly.
Agree, though I’d add that everyone is capable of both type I and type II processing. It’s in part a matter of ratio, and sometimes a matter of content-selective application. Mentioning it because it’s always good to watch out for type II processing both in others and in ourselves.
“His longest shot was 3400 yds.”
So! – how to temporarily secure a 3400 yd. or even 1700 yd perimeter? Obviously, there is no way. That said, a leader or candidate can be protected from attempts at such ranges by a barrier mounted above and in front of the speaker, leaving the audience in line of sight from the speaker, but shielding the speaker’s vitals from rapidly dropping long range projectiles.
This would effectively reduce the size of the secured perimeter to something doable…. although 135 yds will still be way too small.
Bullet resistant glass would suffice for most firearms.
“Had Crooks been a sophisticated enough killer to get such a weapon, Trump would probably be dead now. Thankfully, Crooks was not, and Trump received only a minor wound to his outer ear.” As opposed to a minor wound to the inner ear? Literally, millimeters make a difference here. Inner ear =‘s a kill shot. The author of the New Republic article is not only ignorant but a buffoon to boot.
“Sniper rifles” is just a modern anti-gun media buzz word phrase like “assault rifle” coined in the late 1980’s or “Saturday night special” coined in the late 1960’s. Any rifle used by a sniper would be a “sniper rifle”. Most US Military sniper rifles used since Vietnam are just minor variations of successful commercial hunting rifles. The Marines in Vietnam used the Winchester model 70 (which was used by Carlos Hathcock). Later the Remington model 700 was adopted by the Marines and Army as the m40 and m24 respectively. The anti gunners want to ban all semi auto rifles cause they shoot lots of bullets real fast, sniper rifles cause they can kill at a super long distance, and handguns because they are easy to hide and conceal. Next will be the shotguns…bird hunters, you are next.
And, then bows and arrows, THEN BB guns, THEN slingshots. It will never end in their minds.
Then knives, then sharp sticks, then fingernails…
NJ requires a Firearm ID to purchase a BB gun same as if it was a real firearm.
For real? Now, that’s just dumb but, that’s NJ for ya, I guess.
Unless there was a material defect in the weapon it was absolutely capable of doing what the crazy guy thought he needed to do; He 100% fell short in doing it. I’m grateful as well, such political violence would have lead us down a deep rabbit hole that I wouldn’t want to be witness (or a forced participant) to. It’s the kind of stuff that tears apart nations and even in the odd circumstance continents or the world.
“Instead of trying to talk about innocent children, shoppers and such, now it’s former president and present presidential candidate Donald Trump.”
“At the end of the day, articles like this make it clear that the anti-gun crowd isn’t for compromise. The best gun owners can get from them is a promise to be eaten last.”
But you don’t want Trump re-elected, Ms. Sensiba. You are a fellow traveler to the editors and columnists, the epitome of the anti-gun crowd, at The New Republic. You would vote for your environmental ideology and identity group loyalty over the obvious motives of your fellow travelers in banning guns.
You can’t play both sides of the tracks, Ms. Sensiba, and you are a fraud or mentally ill for thinking so. Personally, I think it’s the latter.
AR15s are actually capable of very good accuracy, more than most semiauto rifles. I’ve used one to compete (Service Class) out to 800 yards.
Missing at 160 yards wasn’t the fault of the rifle.
It could be the variance of the rifle, or the ammo.
“Service grade” accuracy is generally ~ 2 MOA, or that any particular bullet fired will hit within a 2″ circle at 100 yards.
Ammo can also degrade accuracy, or increase it.
A friend has an AR platform rifle that will hold 10 shots in .75 inch at 100 yards with Bkack Hills 77 grain Match ammo, but shoots 3.5 inch groups with PMC 55 grain.
And with any weapon, training and practice are key.
Using a common DPMS AR-15 16″ made in 2013, with 55gr FMJ ammo (Wal-Mart or wherever Crooks bought it from) will, at 150 yards, give a group about 3-4 inches. That is about 2 MOA at best. That is NOT ‘sniper grade’. Now if he had used a serious match/sniper AR, say a Colt Comp. National Match Target HBAR or builds using Criterion barrels, and using heavy match ammo (68gr or heavier) you can get .5 to 1 MOA (that is about 1/2 inch to 1 inch groups at 100 yards.) Real good tack drivers!
Crooks didn’t use such stuff… he was no ‘sniper’ nor used sniper grade stuff. At 130 yards a common Marlin 336 lever action 30/30 with cheep scope could have made the shot. If he had bought a pawnshop Remington 700 in .308 (bolt action) he would have a better sniper rifle than the DPMS he used! THANK GOD HE DIDN’T!!!
Crooks reminds me of Lee Havey Oswald using a 6.5mm Carcano ex-Italian military rifle, old military ammo, and cheep scope. Was Oswald and Crooks a patsy? Who knows! But the Secret Service head just testified she did not keep any of the SS agents auto recordings from that day Trump was shot…
A promise from a liar….
D Smith, you don’t really expect the SS to keep records which could reveal their intentions or be used against them, do you?
Same reason the FBI refuses to allow video or tape recorded interviews.
That would get in the way of their testilying.
Comments are closed.