Why aren't anti-2As more afraid of long-range "precision" rifles??

[Zoogster]

Zoogster: There appears to be pending legislation in Canada which will liberalize ownership, or at least standardize some part of it, and eliminate some civil/criminal penalties up there.

That is why I didn't mention Canada. While they went somewhat restrictive Canada has the wilderness on its side.
Being a nation of low population density, large expanses of land, and a ton of predator filled pristine wilderness with large numbers of grizzly bears and wolves, it has a lot of variables to resist restrictive gun control.

Its legislative capitol of Ontario with high population density in close proximity to that region of the US has hurt it.
Half of the country has landscape similar to Alaska, and its not people there that don't appreciate firearms.


If Canada had good gun laws and allowed US travel with guns I might consider spending a lot of time in that wilderness hiking, exploring. Fishing, and possibly some hunting, though I would hate to see its wilderness get as spoiled as most in the US from abuse.


Australia has similarly low overall population, but not enough things on land to eat people and remind them why guns are necessary. Saltwater crocodiles are too easily avoided and not widespread enough.

On that thought, I am hoping for a grizzly bear and wolf reintroduction to California to help Californians wise up.
After all the Grizzly bear is on the state flag, the state had some of the densest wild grizzly populations on the continent, and its about time we get a captive breeding program and start reintroducing them to the wild.

The most likely need for defense is against predatory humans, but predatory animals do a lot more psychological convincing in support of gun ownership. Even if they are in reality easier to work with than human predators, and are easier to avoid any need for shooting most of the time if you take a little time to understand how to act with them.

 

[The_Next_Generation]

Could it be because they don't have "the shoulder thing that goes up?"

Would that be a barrel shroud?

Nevermind, must be a banana assault clip

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The antis suffer from a Goldilocks Complex.
These bullets are too soft (dumdums); those bullets are too hard (copkiller).
That gun is too small; this one is too large.
Those guns are too inaccurate; these guns are too accurate.
But none will ever be "just right".

 

[Bubbles]

Oh, this question is easy! Their fear is based on ignorance, and long range shooters are a little more rare, especially on television where their fears are usually carrying AK's or "some other machinegun". In a way, most criminals can't shoot, so their fears may be correctly placed --the only real long range murderer I can recall was that moron in DC. They are indeed rare.

And usually, since they get their education from Hollywood directors about functions of society, the long range shooter is portrayed as the HERO, not the villain.

Good point - get a few movies where the villains kill the good guys at 1500 yards (or more) with a custom .338LM rifle and the anti's just might start going .

 

[TEX]

They do care about them and would like to see them destroyed as they would like to see all firearms destroyed. They just are not at the top of the list, but you can bet that if they get the top priority items banned ,then they will work their way down to scoped bolt guns. I seem to remember reading something a long time ago that back in the 30s or 40s there was a push to make optics illegal for civilians, so the fear of them is out there.