Gun control. She opposes it. Gibson observed that a majority of Americans support a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. She praised the tradition of gun ownership in Alaska, mentioning protection, hunting, and sport. With machine guns?Good grief, Roger Ebert. If you're truly that ignorant, you have no business giving anybody else a test.
You know what you can do with those two thumbs up, don't you?
14 comments:
Gibson was talking down to Palin. He looked like that grumpy old law professor on "The Paper Chase" grilling a freshman.
Attack journalism. And now, attack opinion columns.
If you're in a survival situation, what you have is what you hunt with, regardless of what the game and fisheries honchos say is the law.
For spreading the OUTRIGHT LIE that our semi-autos are machine guns, thumbs down. And could there be a lower-brow way to critique a movie than that? Get a new gimmick. And get out of Manhattan once in a while. The real world lies elsewhere.
Why not hunt deer with a machine gun if that is what you want to do? It only takes one bullet to bring down a deer. The rest are wasted, but if you bought the bullets, why is it anyone's business how many bullets you waste?
I've found deer more elusive than men, when hunting. But having extensively fired machineguns, it is my unqualified opinion that machine guns used on deer will result in unintended deaths and property damage. "Wasted" cartridges will strike people, autos, buildings. Suffice it to say, one or even ten rounds will bring down a deer. On semi-auto. Machine guns are a great way to have some fun at an appropriately prepared range, or even open uninhabited areas. And they can do service in the un-organized militia, being a weapon of military utility. Private ownership of them is a Right. There are circumstances where an MG could be used to hunt.But most of the time, they would be too much gun. Kind of like I wouldn't use a cement truck to go to the grocery store, but I could. It takes a little bit more training to handle an MG safely, especially .30cal and up. I wouldn't care about wasted bullets, but I do care a great deal about unintended stray shots. I hunt with black powder rifles, and I'm never 100% certain the gun will fire(flintlock) and I like it as more sporting that way. I'm not sure I would even go out if I knew there were machine-gunners in the same area. Seen too many drunk hunters.
The Sun-Times is really taking the lead over it's rival, the Chi Trib in it's attacks on Palin. It has been very noticeable since the end of the RNC. It will be complete when the weather section has an anti-Palin rant.
sean: where the heck do you hunt that you state "it is my unqualified opinion that machine guns used on deer will result in unintended deaths and property damage. "Wasted" cartridges will strike people, autos, buildings."?
Where I have hunted it is not possible to hit those (ie. not anywhere near or in the bullet's path or beyond the target) and I am not hunting on hundreds of acres.
If you are hunting with any of those items even beyond the target it does not matter whether you are using a single shot, bolt action, semi-auto or full auto you run the risk of hitting them (even with your muzzleloader) and are an irresponsible hunter/gun owner who deserves any punishment that is meted out.
The question then becomes does that make you dumber than Ebert because you should know better, where as Ebert evidently does not know that an "assault weapon" is not a machine gun.
When I said the rest of the bullets would be wasted, I didn't necessarily mean they would miss the target, just that they were not required to make the kill. You need to know what is beyond your target before you aim the gun.
Ok, mecurysys, what is the maximum effective range of a .50cal MG? .30cal MG? If you used them, you would know. Can you truthfully tell me that you know there are no other hunters 8,000 yards from you? How about 4,000 yds? Concerning guns, I know more than Ebert does, and I know that an assault weapon is full-auto, not semi-auto. I also am familiar with the rule of knowing your target and what is behind and beyond it. The lay of the land can play havoc with that one as well. I have hunted small and very large areas, and the same safety rules apply to both, but unless you have overhead support by real time camera, you can't really know what the situation is as far as people,buildings and other things is OUT OF RANGE OF YOUR SIGHT. You may be aware from experience, map study, and other things, but you still use caution when firing. I don't suppose you have ever been lost, or "misoriented". If an MG fires 600rpm, how many does it fire in 3secs? 30rds. Care to watch those rounds when they land, or would you rather say Oh shit, and get back in the truck and go home and hope for the best? As far as being deserving of any punishment that is meted out, ok, but I haven't done that, so, hold onto that rope, it'll come in handy sooner or later. I have hunted in a place called Little Lost Creek, in Mo. and it's only about 3mi. across. Even if you stood in the middle of it, your 30.06 could reach out of bounds, if you're not careful. Evidently.
Only about 3 miles across? Wow, how did you handle it in such a cramped space? I wish I had hunted on that kinda land. I was lucky to have 1 mile across at the places I have hunted. Also, the only way that you could do that is if you shot into the air (irresponsible shooting). The path of a normal shot would not go 1.5 miles for a 30-.06, gravity works.
You don't need real-time overhead cameras, because buildings don't move & neither do roads.
I do know that lay of the land can play havoc with determining things but you need to use that to your advantage for safe shots.
I have had other hunters within those ranges (and less) and knew where they were.
I always get to know a piece of land that I hunt prior to doing the season, I also find out where other hunters will be prior to going out and I don't shoot something that I don't know 100% as being the target. I make sure that the path of my bullet will not carry towards roads, buildings and where the other hunters are. I don't shoot up a hill, I make sure there is a hill or woods behind to prevent the bullet from hitting something if I am in an area that does not have the luxury of extended ranges.
BTW, the effective ranges for .50 BMG or .30 cal machinegun is not any further than the effective ranges for the same calibers in normal guns. Being a machine gun does not magically make the bullets fly further than they would from a single shot, bolt action or semi-auto.
I still stand by my question about you and Ebert, because you should know better.
Sean said: "it is my unqualified opinion that machine guns used on deer will result in unintended deaths and property damage. "Wasted" cartridges will strike people, autos, buildings."
If your "downrange" on that shot is a direction where that could happen, DON'T PULL THE DAMN TRIGGER!
That holds just as true for your muzzleloader or a .22 as it does for any machine gun.
Isn't "semi-automatic assault weapon" a huge oxymoron? You bet.
What's more concealable, and Beretta 92 or an Uzi Model B carbine?, both 9mm? The Uzi is scary looking, and must be banned :(
Now we know who really is stupid, because the barrel twists on MGs are different from the rifling on semi-automatics, even though shorter, and they are made to go long distances. So actually, I do know better. Why don't you regale us with your wide MG firing and target acquisition experience? I asked for that before, and got silence. Did you know the military uses different bullets, powder, primers, even casings for full auto belt-fed guns? Yes, buildings and roads don't move. Ever hear of new construction? Do adults, children, women, men, move in and out of areas, without announcing their moves? An M-60 can hit area(5-20meter wide) targets at 1100 meters.Plunging fire from the same gun can hit targets at 2000 meters. Not much magic in that. But,please, do go stand by Ebert. You make a matched set.
Sorry to burst your bubble but any action other than single shot and bolt action is less efficient (ie. reduces ranges). Rifling stablizes the bullets flight and can have a minor affect on distance IF the twist rates are signifantly different (1 in 8 inches versus 1 in 24 inches). A single shot and bolt action will have more range due to all energy generated by the powder will be used to propel the bullet therefore the bullet will travel further. Were as a full auto and semi-auto will expend part of that energy to cycle the action, thus reducing the amount used to propel the bullet and reducing the distance the bullet will travel.
Yes the military uses different components for it rounds, just like all the other manufactures do. I am talking about the guns themselves and not the rounds (ie. you use the same rounds in each of the actions which would essentially void the rounds impact on distance, etc.)
I admit to having no machine gun experience, but then none is needed for using common sense, science and physics. John Browning didn't have any and he designed them so I guess that blows your theory away.
I have yet to find construction that goes up in seconds/minutes/hours that you can not know about prior to your shot (let alone knowing about by visiting the property for scouting your game). As for people moving in and out of the line of fire, during hunting season (which is what we are talking about) people that live in hunting areas know to stay out of the woods during hunting seasons and if they need to go into the woods they wear orange. Again, common sense is that you don't shoot what you don't know to be your target.
So now you spout again with the ranges, I don't care if it will travel around the world and hit you in the ass, if you can not account for where your shot will go you should not shoot(as others have also said). Pure and simple common sense which seems to be hard for you as you keep going back to those magical, mystical ranges; having actually fired them versus knowing physics, science and using common sense.
Ok, have it your way. Go out and hunt deer with a belt-fed machine gun. That's what this whole thing was about. And there's nothing mystical about MGs. Having watched GIs and Marines slaughter their own, unintentionaly,by losing a few shots, unintentionaly, I can't say I enjoyed the show. To me, hunting with a MG is akin to killing ants with a jackhammer. I'm alarmed to find out that JMB knew nothing about common sense, science, or physics. How did he do it? Your science in the first paragraph seems to indicate that MGs fire bullets at shorter ranges. Once more, ever use one? About the only thing magical I know of in this long and dreary conversation, is that the fairy tale of hunting with a MG may indeed turn out to not so happy an ending. Since you don't believe me, I'll quit going on about it. But if you go hunting with a MG, please get back to me and tell me how it went.
As I stated in my last post, I have not used machine guns. Yes, machine guns do not shoot as far. I have a co-worker that is a former Marine that confirmed my statements and agrees with me. As he points out, why do you think that snipers don't use machine guns besides accuracy.
As for "friendly fire", that is more due to not knowing what the target is.
I agree that machine guns for hunting is stupid, but that is a persons choice.
Post a Comment