mhdishere
Member
This came to mind while I was reading the post about surplus police weapons being sold, particularly the part about bolt-action sniper rifles.
It seems that people are confusing the use to which a particular weapon is put in a particular instance with its category. If someone gets on top of a building and shoots someone 200 yards away with a 30-30 lever action rifle with iron sights, that rifle is a sniper's (note the possessive!) rifle, it's a rifle being used BY a sniper. The week before it may have been a deer-hunter's rifle. If it's used by a home-owner to repell home invaders it's a home-defender's rifle.
I've known people who could reliably hit a 6 inch gong, off hand, and 200 yards with a .22. I wouldn't want them shooting at me with a 22 because I'd end up dead. On the other hand (where I have five fingers) I've known people who (to clean up my father's phrase) couldn't hit a bull in the posterior with a load of buckshot if he was tied to the stall. As we've said before, it's the person doing the shooting, not the weapon, that makes it dangerous.
I also think we're in-part to blame. All this "tactical" stuff in the ads, the "sniper rifles", the "assault rifles". Call it what it is, it's a bolt-action .308 rifle with a 10x scope, black synthetic stock, bull barrel, and integral bipod. You can use it to punch holes in paper, to get your deer, to justifiably shoot someone, or to commit murder. And if you use it for the last purpose we're gonna be all over you like white on rice.
OK, rant over.
It seems that people are confusing the use to which a particular weapon is put in a particular instance with its category. If someone gets on top of a building and shoots someone 200 yards away with a 30-30 lever action rifle with iron sights, that rifle is a sniper's (note the possessive!) rifle, it's a rifle being used BY a sniper. The week before it may have been a deer-hunter's rifle. If it's used by a home-owner to repell home invaders it's a home-defender's rifle.
I've known people who could reliably hit a 6 inch gong, off hand, and 200 yards with a .22. I wouldn't want them shooting at me with a 22 because I'd end up dead. On the other hand (where I have five fingers) I've known people who (to clean up my father's phrase) couldn't hit a bull in the posterior with a load of buckshot if he was tied to the stall. As we've said before, it's the person doing the shooting, not the weapon, that makes it dangerous.
I also think we're in-part to blame. All this "tactical" stuff in the ads, the "sniper rifles", the "assault rifles". Call it what it is, it's a bolt-action .308 rifle with a 10x scope, black synthetic stock, bull barrel, and integral bipod. You can use it to punch holes in paper, to get your deer, to justifiably shoot someone, or to commit murder. And if you use it for the last purpose we're gonna be all over you like white on rice.
OK, rant over.