Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

JPFO Alert: Anti-gun Group Wants to Ban Rifles "Too Accurate" for Civilians

Today's JPFO Alert remarks on anti-gunners' War on Bystanders.

But even CSGV, with their unceasing call for a "government monopoly on force," cannot match the National Gun Victims Action Council (NGVAC) for overwrought, fear mongering rhetoric. Again, in the same Oregon Herald quoted earlier, NGVAC CEO Elliot Fineman argued that private citizens must be limited by law to firearm technology that makes them miss at least 70% of the time . . .

And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, Claire, and Mama Liberty, you owe it to yourself to fix that.


Anonymous said...

"What gun would be safe from a ban?" None. And, of course, that's the whole point.

Your AR-15 and your handguns are banned because they are not accurate at long range, so they have no "legitimate sporting purpose." Your bolt-action .30-06 is banned because its long range accuracy makes it a potential "sniper rifle." Your Glock can fire too many shots without reloading, your Colt Gold Cup has an accident-prone "hair trigger," and your S&W Centennial does not have "smart gun" technology.

Its another catch-22: every weapon can be declared illegal because it is too accurate, too inaccurate, too big, too small, too light, too heavy, or whatever.

Anonymous said...

The "three out of ten" statistic is based on all police gunfights, most of which involved patrolmen who were armed with handguns, and who had to react quickly to emergencies that erupted suddenly, without warning.

Also, most cops are not "gun freaks," and they only train and qualify when they are required to do so. In some police departments, that might only be once or twice a year. And, of course, shooting at stationary paper targets is not nearly as stressful as shooting at a moving target that shoots back. So a lot of cops can shoot the required 70% score (or whatever) on the target range, but only 30-40% in actual combat. Fortunately, 85% of cops never fire their weapons except in training and qualification on the range.

Those cops who really are expert shots usually end up in special units (e.g., S.W.A.T. teams), or as instructors at police academies.

The thought of honest, peaceable citizens owning guns and being able to hit their targets over 90% of the time doesn't bother me. Accurate shooting decreases the risk of stray bullets accidentally hitting innocent bystanders.

As for the cops, if they miss their targets 70% of the time in combat, that is not an argument for banning civilian possession of accurate weapons. It's an argument for better marksmanship training for the police.