Skip to main content

View Diary: AWB and honesty (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I know this isn't your intent, so apologies (8+ / 0-)

    in advance:  Since a 7.62 is generally a more destructive round, it would arguably make a better hunting round.  That would make an AK-47 a better hunting rifle.  Which would mean that the AK would be exempted from any SLGB* based on its valid use as a hunting gun.

    * SLGB = Scary Looking Gun Ban (Sorry, the whole acronym thing got to me)

    •  At what distance would the AK be the better round? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk

      To figure out the destructiveness we need to combine muzzle velovity and caliber to determine the impact velocity at different distance. Further, the energy removed from the firing chamber to load the next bullet reduces the energy of the bullet.

      So, a bit over simplistically, a 7.62 shot from a bolt action would be far more deadly at greater distances than a 7.62 shot from an AK.  Thus, again, the bolt action of the same size would be a far better hunting weapon.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:06:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know this is an unpopular concept here, but (14+ / 0-)

        since I don't own any firearms and never have, I can say it.

        Why does owning a firearm have to have a reason?

        As you've repeated, "for hunting", there are other reasons isn't there?

        Or they not allowed now?

        Why do you have the right to free speech, free press, free religion?

        Do you need a reason?  I didn't know our rights had to be justified, really.

        And justified in such a narrow scope, as you've done here.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:28:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It affects cost-benefit analysis (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, theatre goon, Quicklund

          I have a right to buy fancy socks without having any need and without justifying them to anyone.

          However, since I don't have a need, the social cost of making them harder for me to own would be low.

          If there were a big social benefit to banning fancy socks, then there'd be a utilitarian argument for doing so.

          If I needed fancy socks to put food on the table or protect my livestock, the calculation would be different.

          •  Understood, but must this issue be "utilitarian"? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk, Robobagpiper, theatre goon

            Isn't that where we get into trouble and such heated debates?

            If we accept the fact that the RKBA's is an unalienable individual right, then the reason is immaterial.

            Unless the focus moves to LEO and military and even then the limits have to be the same, equally applied.

            The fact that there are White Papers revealing the arguments that drones can be used against US citizens on US soil makes me jealous.  If they can have all the high tech toys, why can't we?

            I've always believed we should have as many guns and bullets, plus one than our government has.  Keeps the power structure where it should be, with the people.

            But I'm stubborn like that.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:20:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Rights have to be justified where there is (5+ / 0-)

          pressure to curtail them without actually doing the hard work of amending the constitution. Such justifications seem to me intended to try to keep the centrists/wishy-washyists/undecideds at least a bit favorably inclined toward gun ownership.

          I think most "activist/paying attention" gun owners are not so much justifying ownership of firearms per se, but ownership of specific categories of firearm, e.g., semi-automatics. I've ready plenty of comments from RKBA opponents inviting us to go back to muzzleloaders, since that is what the founding fathers had in mind (the commenters conveniently ignoring the founders were also completely down with slavery, suffrage only for white males, certainly no right to contraception, etc.)

          YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

          by raincrow on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:20:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Free speech isn't regulated? Free Press? (0+ / 0-)

          We accept regulations on our other rights day in and day out … Why is the Second Amendment so sacrosanct?

          Baby, where I come from...

          by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:46:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "We" don't anything...we have no choice (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, oldpunk, fuzzyguy

            in the matter.  

            I didn't talk about "regulations" but reasons why one exercises said rights.

            There is no reason stated to justify my exercising my faith, my right to protest or my free press.

            The framing of the 2nd A as exclusively for "hunting", was the issue I saw AND commented on, okay?

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:03:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Most RKBA adherents cite "self defense" as (0+ / 0-)

              the primary "reason" that their "RKBA" should not be regulated... not hunting... not target shooting...

              "Regulation" is the primary, recurring theme in this conversation, is the issue I usually see and I commented, okay?

              Baby, where I come from...

              by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:30:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  100-150 yards, maybe a bit more. (6+ / 0-)

        There isn't a big difference ballistically between a 7.62x39 shot from a bolt action rifle (yes, they exist... CZ makes one) and an AK. The bolt action will be a smidge faster, because it's not bleeding gas to work the action, but not enough to matter.

        Accuracy differences would account for more, most AKs are not extremely accurate guns, but with good iron sights or a low-power scope, they do well enough out to the range limits of the cartridge. 2-3 inches at 100 yards will git 'er done in the field... again, comparisons to the .30-30 are useful.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:44:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site