Factually Wrong: Alternative Uses for Semi-automatic Rifles

People who live near dangerous animals, for example, need to be able to shoot to defend themselves. When you are terrified (for example because that Grizzly is running towards you), you lose fine motor skills. You may not be able to hit with the first shot, which is all you get with a single-shot hunting rifle.

Of course, if you live in a safe urban/suburban environment where you can rely on animal control to take care of dangerous animals and the police to take care of dangerous criminals, you don’t need such a rifle. But not everybody has “safe environment with professionals working hard to keep it that way” privileges.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Factually Wrong: Alternative Uses for Semi-automatic Rifles

  1. Actually in some of the urban/suburban areas, a semi-automatic rifle is just as necessary. Dog packs are not uncommon and have been known to attack people. Being able to engage multiple targets in rapid succession is a hallmark of the semi-automatic action.

    the police to take care of dangerous criminals, you don’t need such a rifle.

    Average police response time nation-wide for a high priority emergency call is still 6 minutes. Want to take your chances unarmed for 360 seconds (try counting out that — amazing how long it is ), go right ahead. i would prefer not to.

    nor does it address the recreational uses for semi-automatic rifles. There are several shooting sports that involve semi-automatic rifles. Recreational shooting is another, apart from the sporting aspect. I have two sons, one a former Marine, one currently on active duty; I enjoy being able to spend time shooting a rifle we all have experience with. I learned to use one in the 80s when I was in the Air Force.

    Bob S.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I was trying to appropriate the “check your privilege” concept. Very often, the people pushing for gun control live in environments where the police show up in less than six minutes, and dog packs are culled by the authorities. If you live in an upper-middle class suburb, you might not need a rifle. But to say that therefore nobody does is stupid.

      Good point about recreational shooting as an alternative use. I didn’t think of that.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Tell me: What do you suppose your chances are of being attacked by a pissed-off grizzly bear or a pack of rabid dogs? And tell me: How does your enjoyment of shooting targets with your semi-automatic outweigh others’ rights to not be shot by them?

    Like

    • My odds are very small. I live in a nice suburb with a strong police force and animal control. I don’t have a CHL either. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that other people might not be so lucky.

      Your argument about people’s rights not to be shot assumes that criminals will either obey gun control laws (unlikely) or be unable to get guns from illicit sources. Considering that in WWII guns could be constructed in a bicycle shop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten#Danish_Sten), and since then metalworking equipment has only gotten cheaper.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s