Then why don’t more people have that style of gun?
I hear this argument all the time about different banned features and attachments. (I own and shoot often btw)
Like for braces. People say it doesn’t make you more able to kill, when it does.
When there was a brief time where braces were legally iffy, I was using a sling instead. Let me tell you something, shooting with a sling is incredibly inaccurate compared to a brace.
Every shot removes the pressure you are putting on the sling, whereas a brace every shot pushes it into your shoulder more.
Shooting with a brace is incredibly similar to shooting with a stock, essentially identical just barely less comfortable.
People are so political when they talk about guns, just be honest with yourself. You can love guns and love regulation at the same time. Maybe we just shouldn’t have crazy people and violent people owning them?
Regulation is good when it makes sense. Calling a gun an “assault weapon” and trying to figure out some ass-backwards and arbitrarily definition afterwards is not good regulation.
That first graphic reminds me of sci fi author David Brin’s concept of a “militia rifle”.
(He published this a long time ago and I’m unclear if he still supports the idea)
Basically he argues:
Mass shootings are a problem
Resisting government tyranny is important
(He claims) historically a group of people with lower capacity rifles can hold their own against people bearing high capacity automatics, because in many-vs-many battles the individual guns’ bullet output matters less (more about which group controls which points on the battlefield permitting covering of other points)
So a mass shooter is a 1-vs-many scenario (shooter vs crowd)
Resisting government tyranny is probably gonna be a many-vs-many scenario (militia vs army)
Therefore it’s legit for people to own firearms that are low capacity, high hassle
Seems to me the California laws approach this design equilibrium.
Resisting government tyranny
this can be anything, because people aren’t going to form up militias to fight the government. literal founding fathers fan fiction material
Where have I seen
that bullshit before?
Then why don’t more people have that style of gun?
I hear this argument all the time about different banned features and attachments. (I own and shoot often btw)
Like for braces. People say it doesn’t make you more able to kill, when it does.
When there was a brief time where braces were legally iffy, I was using a sling instead. Let me tell you something, shooting with a sling is incredibly inaccurate compared to a brace.
Every shot removes the pressure you are putting on the sling, whereas a brace every shot pushes it into your shoulder more.
Shooting with a brace is incredibly similar to shooting with a stock, essentially identical just barely less comfortable.
People are so political when they talk about guns, just be honest with yourself. You can love guns and love regulation at the same time. Maybe we just shouldn’t have crazy people and violent people owning them?
But, why outlaw braces in the first place?
Regulation is good when it makes sense. Calling a gun an “assault weapon” and trying to figure out some ass-backwards and arbitrarily definition afterwards is not good regulation.
IDK why the second pic says “same capacity” when…you can see they don’t have the same capacity.
The top rifle looks like it has one of those 10-bullet mags, so the difference isn’t much.
That first graphic reminds me of sci fi author David Brin’s concept of a “militia rifle”.
(He published this a long time ago and I’m unclear if he still supports the idea)
Basically he argues:
Seems to me the California laws approach this design equilibrium.
Thank you for providing an explanation of this. I don’t know a lot about guns but this is very informative.