3 ms·

Why wouldn't a pistol-grip impact leverage? It's literally a lever attached to the bottom of the rifle. > does not make it more deadly since you can always fir

Why wouldn't a pistol-grip impact leverage? It's literally a lever attached to the bottom of the rifle. > does not make it more deadly since you can always fire more rounds if you miss More rounds on-target is the definition of more deadly. > Pistol grips are simply easier to manufacture than weird shapes of wood or plastic. I don't follow. A hollow pistol-grip is not only more plastic, it also requires a much more complicated mold. There's a reason every modern, light, self-chambering rifle system uses a pistol grip. If it were simply a matter of ease of manufacture, or of comfort with zero tactical advantage, nobody would care if AR-15s were banned because they'd be perfectly happy with their Mini-14.

Bancakes 6y ago
Look at rifles like the SV98 or AW series. They don't have pistol grips but have the same ergonomic layout as a pistol grip. In fact, you can evade pistol grip laws by making butt stocks with holes that provide the same effective hand positioning. Learning to shoot a classic rifle grip is only a matter of training - after all, everyone from precision sports shooters to special forces utilised them to their full extent. >More rounds on-target You only need one .223 centre mass or in the intestines to require immediate surgery. >hollow pistol-grip Attatch two stamped pieces of metal or molded plastic. >they'd be perfectly happy One major reason not to ban pistol grips is that there is no major reason to ban pistol grips. I haven't been a witness to any statistical analysis regarding its positive effects. If anything, you want to motivate people to like the guns they own, so they shoot more often and are more disciplined. The fact that some commit heinous crimes is mentall illness, not the fault of the gun or even more so the fault of legal gun ownership. Plus, the AR-15 platform has versatile configurations like the short-stroke piston operation of an HK416 or picatinny rails for attachments. After all, mounting a good infrared scope on a hunting rifle helps hunters place humane one-shot-stops rather than blindly causing suffering.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  > Look at rifles like the SV98 or AW series. These are both bolt-action rifles. The purpose of assault-weapons bans are to reduce the likelihood of a single, mentally-unstable person from killing large numbers of people with a semi-automatic rifle. > you can evade pistol grip laws by making butt stocks with holes that provide the same effective hand positioning Not in California. That grip is considered a 'feature' and is not allowed in conjunction with detachable magazines on a semi-automatic rifle. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/california-legal-ar-15/ https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/california-legal-ar-15/ > You only need one .223 centre mass or in the intestines to require immediate surgery. Center-mass is on-target. For an inexperienced person working their way through a school or office-building, they are trying to increase the number of on-target shots, and reduce the number of magazine reloads. > The fact that some commit heinous crimes is mentall illness, not the fault of the gun or even more so the fault of legal gun ownership. We can't ban mental illness, so the purpose of the laws is to reduce the likelihood of certain weapons systems from falling into the hands of people with mental illness, or those with an ideological grudge and the motivation to carry out an attack. This has worked out pretty well in the state of California so-far. > mounting a good infrared scope on a hunting rifle helps hunters place humane one-shot-stops rather than blindly causing suffering. If a hunter needs an infrared scope to place a humane shot, then they need to go to the range and get better before they go outside and shoot an animal. > If anything, you want to motivate people to like the guns they own, so they shoot more often and are more disciplined. I understand this perspective, as I am a shooting enthusiast as well. However, this perspective is simply not in-line with the opinions of most voters, who don't really care how much anyone enjoys these weapons. They simply don't want to have to worry about themselves or their children getting shot by some lunatic with a gun. When they hear 'more disciplined,' they hear 'more skilled at killing my kids.' Since firearms for the vast majority of gun owners are little more than a hobby, it's really hard not to see the logic in their perspective.
  - Bancakes 6y ago
    >bolt-action The fact they're bolt-action is irrelevant to their grip. I'm still not convinced banning semi-automatic rifles will lead to (or has lead to) mentaly unstable people bieng unable to commit crimes. There's still a large selection of pistols (especially rifle-looking pistols) and lever-action rifles. You can still shoot them as quick as you can aim. >inexperienced person It's very inadequate to target a small minority of people with laws that are based on wishful thinking, sacrificing the vast majority. Do you not find it easier to simply take action with mental healthcare for the weeks, months, and years prior to the shooting? >We can't ban mental illness. Of course. Because it's an obviously failed concept. When you ban weapons you can always cherrypick statistics to show loose correlation (not sure by which criteria it's worked out well in California when Chicago's gun laws don't repeat the results). It seems like the banning attitude is the wrong approach, and the issues at hand are far greater than a single handwave of the senate or similar. And let's not forget how easy it is to make DIY pipe bombs, flash bangs, stinger grenades, molotovs, poison gas grenades. I'm certain pipe bombs are more dangerous in close quarters than guns because of their spread. If you've barricaded the classroom door, all you need to do is stay outside the deadly funnel and there is no way the firearm will hurt you. But explosives have no such limitation if you can fit it in. >go to the range and get better This isn't about skill but visibility in low-light conditions, easier target acquisition, and actually having a guarantee of what you're looking at. Any benefit you gain from training will be increased with an infrared scope. >They simply don't want to have to worry about themselves or their children getting shot by some lunatic with a gun. Mental illness is a major cause of worry right now for America's youth. The easy and naive handwave solutions of banning mentall illness and guns are, at best, tangent to the goal of reducing violence, and at worst rob people of the right to defend themselves or use tools they are well trained in. It is the easy short-term way out to use non-combative and 'safe' gun owners as scape goats. It is the easy way out to tell someone what his use case, goal, and constraints are, and back it up with strongarm authority. It is not the easy way out to admit a complete failure of the federal government to implement mental health care. It is not the easy way out to push changes that will span several presidents. It's not the easy way out to cooperate with all sides of the community. It's not easy - that's why we trust politicians with our taxes, so they work it out the best way, the most rational, informed, and difficult way. Isn't that the point of politics - to abstract away the angry mob seeking retribution? By the way, I'm not American. I live in the EU but have had the privilege to spend hundreds of euros on trips to countries to shoot some guns. Thanks to EU gun laws, the best defense against getting robbed or home invaded is to know civilian-safe, ethical tai chi.

Bancakes 6y ago

Look at rifles like the SV98 or AW series. They don't have pistol grips but have the same ergonomic layout as a pistol grip. In fact, you can evade pistol grip laws by making butt stocks with holes that provide the same effective hand positioning. Learning to shoot a classic rifle grip is only a matter of training - after all, everyone from precision sports shooters to special forces utilised them to their full extent. >More rounds on-target You only need one .223 centre mass or in the intestines to require immediate surgery. >hollow pistol-grip Attatch two stamped pieces of metal or molded plastic. >they'd be perfectly happy One major reason not to ban pistol grips is that there is no major reason to ban pistol grips. I haven't been a witness to any statistical analysis regarding its positive effects. If anything, you want to motivate people to like the guns they own, so they shoot more often and are more disciplined. The fact that some commit heinous crimes is mentall illness, not the fault of the gun or even more so the fault of legal gun ownership. Plus, the AR-15 platform has versatile configurations like the short-stroke piston operation of an HK416 or picatinny rails for attachments. After all, mounting a good infrared scope on a hunting rifle helps hunters place humane one-shot-stops rather than blindly causing suffering.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
> Look at rifles like the SV98 or AW series. These are both bolt-action rifles. The purpose of assault-weapons bans are to reduce the likelihood of a single, mentally-unstable person from killing large numbers of people with a semi-automatic rifle. > you can evade pistol grip laws by making butt stocks with holes that provide the same effective hand positioning Not in California. That grip is considered a 'feature' and is not allowed in conjunction with detachable magazines on a semi-automatic rifle. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/california-legal-ar-15/ https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/california-legal-ar-15/ > You only need one .223 centre mass or in the intestines to require immediate surgery. Center-mass is on-target. For an inexperienced person working their way through a school or office-building, they are trying to increase the number of on-target shots, and reduce the number of magazine reloads. > The fact that some commit heinous crimes is mentall illness, not the fault of the gun or even more so the fault of legal gun ownership. We can't ban mental illness, so the purpose of the laws is to reduce the likelihood of certain weapons systems from falling into the hands of people with mental illness, or those with an ideological grudge and the motivation to carry out an attack. This has worked out pretty well in the state of California so-far. > mounting a good infrared scope on a hunting rifle helps hunters place humane one-shot-stops rather than blindly causing suffering. If a hunter needs an infrared scope to place a humane shot, then they need to go to the range and get better before they go outside and shoot an animal. > If anything, you want to motivate people to like the guns they own, so they shoot more often and are more disciplined. I understand this perspective, as I am a shooting enthusiast as well. However, this perspective is simply not in-line with the opinions of most voters, who don't really care how much anyone enjoys these weapons. They simply don't want to have to worry about themselves or their children getting shot by some lunatic with a gun. When they hear 'more disciplined,' they hear 'more skilled at killing my kids.' Since firearms for the vast majority of gun owners are little more than a hobby, it's really hard not to see the logic in their perspective.
- Bancakes 6y ago
  >bolt-action The fact they're bolt-action is irrelevant to their grip. I'm still not convinced banning semi-automatic rifles will lead to (or has lead to) mentaly unstable people bieng unable to commit crimes. There's still a large selection of pistols (especially rifle-looking pistols) and lever-action rifles. You can still shoot them as quick as you can aim. >inexperienced person It's very inadequate to target a small minority of people with laws that are based on wishful thinking, sacrificing the vast majority. Do you not find it easier to simply take action with mental healthcare for the weeks, months, and years prior to the shooting? >We can't ban mental illness. Of course. Because it's an obviously failed concept. When you ban weapons you can always cherrypick statistics to show loose correlation (not sure by which criteria it's worked out well in California when Chicago's gun laws don't repeat the results). It seems like the banning attitude is the wrong approach, and the issues at hand are far greater than a single handwave of the senate or similar. And let's not forget how easy it is to make DIY pipe bombs, flash bangs, stinger grenades, molotovs, poison gas grenades. I'm certain pipe bombs are more dangerous in close quarters than guns because of their spread. If you've barricaded the classroom door, all you need to do is stay outside the deadly funnel and there is no way the firearm will hurt you. But explosives have no such limitation if you can fit it in. >go to the range and get better This isn't about skill but visibility in low-light conditions, easier target acquisition, and actually having a guarantee of what you're looking at. Any benefit you gain from training will be increased with an infrared scope. >They simply don't want to have to worry about themselves or their children getting shot by some lunatic with a gun. Mental illness is a major cause of worry right now for America's youth. The easy and naive handwave solutions of banning mentall illness and guns are, at best, tangent to the goal of reducing violence, and at worst rob people of the right to defend themselves or use tools they are well trained in. It is the easy short-term way out to use non-combative and 'safe' gun owners as scape goats. It is the easy way out to tell someone what his use case, goal, and constraints are, and back it up with strongarm authority. It is not the easy way out to admit a complete failure of the federal government to implement mental health care. It is not the easy way out to push changes that will span several presidents. It's not the easy way out to cooperate with all sides of the community. It's not easy - that's why we trust politicians with our taxes, so they work it out the best way, the most rational, informed, and difficult way. Isn't that the point of politics - to abstract away the angry mob seeking retribution? By the way, I'm not American. I live in the EU but have had the privilege to spend hundreds of euros on trips to countries to shoot some guns. Thanks to EU gun laws, the best defense against getting robbed or home invaded is to know civilian-safe, ethical tai chi.