Why NOT to vote Republican

[bae]

The types of firearms used for hunting (as for food) but not those that are used as assault weapons (as the army and militias use). I can't give you a list because I am not an expert on weapons.

I have several "old-fashioned" lever-action rifles from the 1880/90s, of the sort you see in cowboy movies. A very serviceable hunting rifle, and one of the most common/popular choices for deer hunting for ages, and still in production. You can fire aimed shots very quickly - the current record is 10 rounds in < 1.75 seconds, and 187 rounds in 20.5 seconds. I'm not quite that fast, but close. Those are *aimed* shots. You can fire it at that rate until you get carpal tunnel, or run out of ammunition, or the barrel melts.

I have a boring British bolt-action rifle from 1907. Without being an expert, you can fire it *all day long* at the rate of 30 shots per minute of aimed fire. Effective out to 550 yards.

[frugal-one]

What is the point of having that many guns? Seems crazy to me.... truly not impressive. Imagine a mentally incompetent person breaking in and stealing those? Just saw another wacko shot his neighbors while doing target practice... Guns are getting out of hand. We are now living in the wild wild west of days gone by. We need to adopt laws similar to other countries that show what they have done to decrease gun violence.

[bae]

What is the point of having that many guns? Sounds like a gun shop.

Well, among other things, I am a gunsmith, a firearms instructor, and an engineer who appreciates and studies interesting mechanical devices. I have examples on-hand of nearly every significant firearms mechanism that has been invented, and a machine shop that allows me to restore/repair them.

I have been unable to procure a copy, and lack the time to make on my own, the repeating rifle Lewis and Clark took along on their expedition in 1803 - it shot 20/21 rounds before reloading. I have examined the original.

But, "what is the point" is hardly a question a citizen in a free society should be asked to answer about an interest. I probably have 10,000 books in my home too (well, somewhat less, as I donated about 8000 volumes to our local library over the past few years) - what is the point of having that many books? I also have a fair number of vehicles and boats, though there is only one of me, and I can only drive one at a time. (And several are scary "assault" cars that can achieve speeds of ~200mph, and have 400-900 horsepower. And one armored vehicle...)

[frugal-one]

Those books, etc are not killing people but your guns could. Not a good example.

[bae]

Those books, etc are not killing people but your guns could. Not a good example.

I believe people are (well, were) more in danger of being crushed by my stacks of books than of being killed by my guns (without cause). Since the firearms are nicely stowed away in vaults, but the books could fall over any time. Not a single one of my firearms has harmed a single human being over the years during times of peace while in the ownership of my family.

I also suspect a great many more people could be killed with the information in my books than the firearms ever could accomplish. The section on HAZMAT Technician/Specialist training alone would be a field day for any Bad Person.

And we won't talk about the stuff I have in my physics lab...

[littlebittybobby]

Okay---tell you what all this focus and preoccupation with gun control/urban crime/sexual deviancy/abortion is about. They are hot button issues that deliver votes to pols. They divert our attention from the REAL urgent issues, for which there are no glib solutions and easy choices. Yup. Okay--Paul Ehrlich was wrong in his time frame for the Over-Population Bomb. Orwell was off a little, too. Others as well. But--nit-picking and splitting hairs aside, they were right. The threat of Nuclear war is nothing to be complacent about. One state-of-the-art nuclear attack will kill more than all the assault rifles ever did. Think about it. Put things in a realistic perspective. Hope that helps you some.

[Alan]

As stated, I am not an expert on guns...

But you're on record here railing against "assault weapons", it would be nice if you could differentiate between them and other weapons. In the absence of that, we can only assume that you mean all weapons, and if that's the case, you should just say so.

[frugal-one]

But you're on record here railing against "assault weapons", it would be nice if you could differentiate between them and other weapons. In the absence of that, we can only assume that you mean all weapons, and if that's the case, you should just say so.

See 1867

[bae]

See 1867

You've pretty much then eliminated everything invented over the past few hundred years.

[frugal-one]

I believe people are (well, were) more in danger of being crushed by my stacks of books than of being killed by my guns (without cause). Since the firearms are nicely stowed away in vaults, but the books could fall over any time. Not a single one of my firearms has harmed a single human being over the years during times of peace while in the ownership of my family.

I also suspect a great many more people could be killed with the information in my books than the firearms ever could accomplish. The section on HAZMAT Technician/Specialist training alone would be a field day for any Bad Person.

And we won't talk about the stuff I have in my physics lab...

Your firearms are in vaults. How many people do you think actually do that? You are the exception, not the rule, I bet. As for the book comment you are being obtuse. The last thing I will say, as mentioned above….. I wish this country would adopt laws similar to other countries where there is solid evidence that gun violence has decreased because of laws implemented.