Why the NRA hates smart guns

Post by Animats » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

fiatmoney wrote: post #34

Animats wrote: post #24

The vertical forward handgrip claim is a bit much. While not too useful for aimed fire, as the author points out, it makes un-aimed "spray and pray" shooting easier. So does a barrel shroud. Neither feature is needed on a hunting rifle.

You don't know what you're talking about and I'm guessing you may have never actually shot a semi automatic rifle before. This is a rifle with no scary barrel shroud, pistol grip, or vertical foregrip. If you google "bump fire" you might notice it is pretty easy to rapid fire just about anything as long as it's semi automatic and you don't much care if you hit anything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hlzuAzvuJQ In…

Post by Dagwoodie » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 7:55 PM UTC

jonstokes wrote: post #19

fiatmoney wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's absolutely false. The NRA's membership drives their policy, not the other way around - manufacturers have historically been perfectly content to give into things like the assault weapons ban or magazine capacity limits (they make roughly the same amount of money if they sell their guns with a scary flash hider or a sanctified muzzle brake). In fact there are numerous groups, like the Gun Owners of America, who…

OP article author here: You are correct and the parent comment is incorrect. The NRA actually used to support background checks, but after decades of "compromises" where they basically gave up ground and got nothing in return, they went hard-line at the membership's insistence. This cartoon does a great job of explaining the average NRA members view of what it means to meet the gun control lobby "halfway" on an issue…

Post by hga » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 8:00 PM UTC

Dagwoodie wrote: post #43

jonstokes wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP article author here: You are correct and the parent comment is incorrect. The NRA actually used to support background checks, but after decades of "compromises" where they basically gave up ground and got nothing in return, they went hard-line at the membership's insistence. This cartoon does a great job of explaining the average NRA members view of what it means to meet the gun control lobby "halfway" on an issue…

The problem is, left leaning politicians constantly threaten their fundamental constitutional rights, either overtly or not. Every time a gun is used in a crime that rises to national prominence politicians sprint to the microphone to decry gun ownership or at very least to make it harder or much harder to acquire a gun. Bigger than that though, the entertainment media is largely left wing and extremely vocal of thei…

Post by Pinckney » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 8:01 PM UTC

xorgar831 wrote: post #39

jboggan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever shot the rifle in the latter video (Kel-Tec Sub 2000)? It's actually very lightweight, ergonomic, and favored in my experience by women and those of smaller stature as opposed to say, a handgun. Everyone I've ever trained to shoot that rifle have had a very easy time hitting what they are aiming at and more importantly not hitting what they are not aiming at. Why do you think it is completely impractica…

Because a rifle isn't practical for close targets. A handgun is much better suited for that.

Post by hga » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 8:05 PM UTC

Pinckney wrote: post #47

xorgar831 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a rifle isn't practical for close targets. A handgun is much better suited for that.

A rifle, particularly a short carbine like a Sub 2000, is eminently practical for close range. They're faster to aim accurately and are more likely to incapacitate a target with the first shot. The only exception is perhaps at ranges of 1m. Consider that soldiers use carbines, or occasionally shotguns, when clearing rooms, not handguns.