Currently there is a huge ruckus about "assault" rifles. The gist of the dispute is that many people want to ban them. Gun-owners think that's a ridiculous position. On this one, I'm with the gunnies. Why? Because...
There is no such thing as an "assault" rifle. That is a manifest category error. There are rifles designed and built for military use, and those designed and built for civilian (hunting) use.
All rifles are weapons. All rifles are meant to kill things.**
Whether it be a a gopher or a gazelle, rifles are designed for killing. That is their function. A hunting rifle is designed to kill. Period.
The only difference between a hunting rifle and an "assault" rifle is the situation of use and the consequent demands placed on design. Diversity of environments, harsh environment, necessity of personal transport, and reliability requirements determine the design of any military arm. Any decent hunting rifle can be used as a military gun - as an "assault" rifle. But hunting rifles are not optimal for military use. And there is a crucial reason.
Military rifles are also defensive weapons. Opponents shoot back! Any military rifle must combine offense and defense. This defensive aspect greatly determines the design choices of a military rifle. Critics who use the term "assault" totally misunderstand that it is defense that requires firepower in the form of large magazines and rapid fire.
Attack requires precision. That is why hunting rifles are built for precision. Many military rifles are used as hunting guns, and have been for centuries. But they are not optimal for hunting.
Were hunting rifles to meet the same usage requirements as military rifles, they would look and act the same.
**Remember, please, fencing is an Olympic sport. And a sword is definitely an "assault" weapon. Swords were designed to kill people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment