The OK case

[Dill]

(04-02-2017, 03:43 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I prefer a handgun, myself.

With your question, I don't think that one has any relevance to the other.
I can't really speculate people's intentions, but I'd at least like to think that people are not buying guns, while harbouring murderous intentions.

In your opinion, what would you say is unnecessary or dangerous about someone utilizing a "military-style" weapon ?
I'm going to assume it's not magazine size, being as you served and know how fast people swap out a mag.
(Forgive me, if you are not of the opinion that citizens should not own them. I do not recall your stance.)

Actually, I didn't serve, though I have spent years living in a deployed military environment (I retired in 2012).

Like you I would prefer a handgun. (I have one but it is not much good for home defense since it is a black powder revolver and messy to load.)  In a house, any long-barreled gun might be cumbersome. And someone might grab the barrel at close quarters.

My comment about intent was based on years of living around people buying military-style weapons and talking about what they would or would like to use them for.  I grew up in rural Montana, where everyone hunts. We mostly used a Springfield (1917) 30.06, which was a "military-style" weapon when we first got it. Then my dad cut the stock down and put a scope on it. Much lighter. Most of the people we hunted (including my father) with were WW2-Korea vets. Hunting was a means of getting food and guns were tools for doing that. They were modified to make them more practical tools. Some were highly polished and a little decorated. No one talked about "home defense" or spent time imagining what he would do if he caught someone in the garage at night, etc.

I was in Europe for most of the '80s, and when I returned in '93 things had changed.  I saw more people, mostly younger, getting military-style weapons that looked automatic. I think an M-4 is a good weapon for today's soldiers, who have to get in and out of cramped vehicles all the time and sometimes need to fight house-to-house.  I can understand why a former military person who used one might want one because he is very familiar with it or just out of nostalgia. No problem there. I concede one might be good for home defense--less cumbersome than any of the hunting rifles and shotguns in my parents home. Faster rate of fire than bolt action or pump, too. 

But every year I meet people who bought one or more because they want the "cool" automatic weapon look. And they don't just talk about hunting with them. They imagine what they would do if the government tried to take them away or someone broke into their house. So what concerns me is the way the guns bolster an imagined "tactical" identity, and perhaps help the owners act it out. E.g., I find it uncomfortable sitting at a bar with off-duty police men (in a town of 14,000) who have never been in combat rattling on about the neat new tactical gear they are personally purchasing or watching others at the local target range firing at man-shaped targets.  When I was a teen, no one shot at man-shaped targets in my circle of acquaintances. Only police used them on their range. Why would anyone else want to do that hour after hour?

For me, it is less about that weapon itself than why many people want them.