Skip to comments.Why does Slate want to ban advanced technology rifles?
Posted on 06/06/2013 9:26:30 AM PDT by marktwain
For the last five years, the number of homicides from sniper attacks in the United States has averaged a bit less than three. In 2010, the last year I have data for, there were three. To put this in context, the number of children killed by their babysitters in that year were 36.
In a nation of over 300 million, your chance of being killed at a distance by a rifle shooter are less than one in 100 million. Rifles are ubiquitous in the United States, with about 100 million in the hands of citizens.
So, why does Justin Peters of Slate even bother to write about the latest high technology, extremely pricey rifle and scope combination in a blog about crime? He never really says. Here is the closest he comes:
"While the TrackingPoint technology has definite military applications, I cant think of any real civilian use for it. In a sense, the TrackingPoint is just a really advanced scope. But even the best scope doesnt fire the gun for you. Any self-respecting hunter ought to be disgusted by something that promises to turn every hunt into a canned hunt. Despite the manufacturers claims, TrackingPoint really isnt suited for target shootingwheres the fun in shooting at a target that you know youre going to hit? Its overkill for self-defense; the only way you would feel like you were in imminent danger from someone standing 500 yards away is if that person also had a TrackingPoint. Who would actually use this weapons system?"
It appears that Justin Peters has a problem with civilians having access to military technology. I suspect he never got the memo from those who want to gut the Second Amendment (now obsolete because... well, they really wanted to ban effective military weaponry all along) that the Second Amendment only protected weapons that were useful to a militia. To emphasise his point, he puts it succinctly in the concluding paragraph:
"But a half-good automated long-range rifle is still more of a long-range rifle than any civilian needs. This thing is legal now, but lets hope it isnt for long."It seems that Justin simply dislikes the idea of civilians having any arms that might be militarily effective, and wants to translate that dislike into law, in spite of the fact that there is virtually no criminal problem with snipers. It is similar to the push to ban .50 caliber rifles, that have never been used in crime.
It is worth noting that the anti-freedom types now feel sufficiently emboldened to explicitly say that they want to prevent civilians from having equipment that is militarily effective, even though the use of the items in crime is minuscule or non-existent.
The most clearly stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the citizen militias have access to militarily effective weaponry.
Justin Peters seems to be remarkably unimaginative about the potential uses of long range rifles. I suspect he would be unimpressed with considerations of varmint control, playing with technological limits, use of technology to overcome the disabilities associated with age and injury, and similar arguments. He seems to simply distrust those who are not in the government, yet he grants unlimited trust to those who are in charge of the power of the government.
Those who fashioned our constitutional republic did not share his trust of the powers that be. After all, those in power are only human, fallible humans who have the added disadvantage of enormous power and the temptation to use it for corrupt purposes. While government is necessary, it is also fallible and capable of far greater evil than any individual citizen.
©2013 by Dean Weingarten Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch Article
Ask any sniper. Foreign....or domestic.
I think this thing will have certain parties running scared. Not saying it will happen but the genie is out of the bottle. It could happen.
In the 1860s and 1880s drovers in a trail drive possessed more firepower than a cavalry platoon. I suppose the author of this piece would have banned the Winchester.
Biden, get rid of your shotgun. This thing is way more cool.
There were people back then who wanted to ban Bowie knives; and quite a number of post-bellum southern states had banned concealed carry in order to keep freed slaves disarmed, including Texas.
I doubt that there is a backlog of killings waiting to be done as soon as the bad guys can find a more accurate rifle than a scoped, 30-06.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
I have long since given up on the anti-constitutionalists AKA “progressives” using logic and reason, at least openly.
Still, it is good to make the arguments in order to educate those that have been fooled over the years.
Dedicated “Progressives” are only a small, but powerful, minority.
Its hardly the case. In fact, its sort of ridiculous, seeing as the shooter needs to pre-stage a hit before the system takes over. This is akin to aiming twice but shooting once, which as a rule isn't bad marksmanship discipline, but hardly anything that can't be accomplished by the traditional methods going back to 1867.
I'm reminded of when some years back red diode LED lasers became inexpensive and sufficiently small enough to mount on handguns and the anti-gun media went into hysterics about how bullets don't even need to be aimed anymore thanks to these lasers -- writing imagery of laser beams sweeping the streets like in a futuristic 'Terminator' movie. Lasers on defensive sidearms can certainly assist, but their real-world practicality didn't match the gun controllers' hyperbole. Their reporting sure sold a lot of weapon-mounted lasers that retailed for 100 times their actual production value, though.
When someone using this scope bests the Camp Perry high power rifle national match trophy scores, let me know. Until then, the military probably isn't very interested either. I'm sure this scope doesn't turn the average hunting rifle into a heat-seeking Javelin anti-tank missile. It might be impressive in a canned demonstration, but I think I'll wait until a reputable gun writer tries it out for a month.
Moreover, notice the backup iron sights atop this scope. Oh, the irony. Pun intended.
I think the Bowie control legislation was mostly about the first half of the 1800s when guns were still primitive and single shot, and the Bowie knife was an extremely important and effective weapon in a basic fight or bar fight.
Nice post. I would like to see some actual results, as well. Still, all this technology has to start somewhere.
slate are communists and banning things are their thing.
The funny thing is, most anti-hunters go off on how many animals are wounded and crippled by "hunters" who can't shoot. It seems to me that this is nothing more than an improvement to make hunting even more humane.
It's just an extension of of the improvement from iron sights to scopes, and then from scopes to this.
This could also be used by elderly hunters, who would have had to give up the sport they love due to failing eyesight. So in a way, this moron is both anti-disabled and anti-elderly!
Why shouldn’t advanced technology rifles be in civilian shooter’s hands? Do you Lefty tyrants fear you might be on the receiving end? Heck, you don’t need an ATR now to get the job done. I think I smell paranoia here.
Just stupid. Long range shooting gets very technical, involves much more than just good aim. Wind, mirage, and most importantly perfect matched ammo. The 1000 yard competitive shooters all precisely hand load to the exact grain and bullet weight to achieve incredibly consistent muzzle velocity. That’s the only way to judge the drop of the bullet over the time of flight. They literally lob the bullets down range. Half way to the target they might be 50’ above the line of sight. Store bought ammo might have a 10’ dispersal at 1000 yards. No magic scope can help this...
Wow, some pretty good arguments, very solid.
Check it out:
***It appears that Justin Peters has a problem with civilians having access to military technology.****
Up until the 1950s the military wanted Civilian technology about firearms as the civilians were always better armed with the most up to date rifles.
When Nelson Story took his cattle herd to Montana, at Fort Phil Kearney the Army tried to stop him because of Indian raids.
The Army was still using muzzle loading rifles, and Story had armed his cowboys with the most up to date REMINGTON ROLLING BLOCK breach loaders.
In an Indian fight Story’s men wiped the field with the attacking Indians.
Later, Red Cloud laid siege to the fort, about the time of the Fetterman massacre. The Army then received a shipment of Springfield .50 cal rifles and whipped the Indians at the Wagon Box fight.
In other combat areas, the Army received the Springfield rifles, and promptly gave them to Civilian wagon trains heading west as they figured the Civilians needed the rifles. The Army kept their muzzleloaders for a few more years.
Uh... because they’re a bunch of chickensh*t Liberal assh*les.
Next silly question.