General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: While there is a push to ban assault rifles, why not ban sniper rifles? [View all]Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)In the CNBC report, this failure happens so often, that it is called a Remington Moment by Police Snipers. One happened with live ammunition while the sniper was aiming at a house. It was a miracle that he managed not to kill someone because of that "accident". We ban other devices and items that are inherently flawed and dangerous. Lawn Darts for example, are banned because they are dangerous. But this rifle, and the money from the company and a strenuous effort to keep bad press subverted, is still legal.
That was my point although in-artfully articulated. We are going up against a culture that is so well monied, and protected, that they can for more than sixty years, make a known defective item, and not face any consequences, civil or criminal. If you sold cookies at a bake sale, and did not advise people that it contained peanuts, you could be charged with a crime, and would be sued. Remington can and has sold rifles that are defective, and fire with nobody touching the trigger, and not only is the item still manufactured, but it is still extremely popular because Remington has suppressed the information.
I think an outright ban is unlikely. We don't have the momentum, and we aren't likely to get it anytime soon, to get one through Washington. I think either insurance, or taxes are the best we can hope for. But that is still unlikely.
As for what I think should be banned? I think all slingshots should be banned, and anything more dangerous should be banned. I think police should be limited to .38 specials like they were long ago. I think assault rifles should be taken from everyone, civilian and police. I don't think the rifle is any safer in the hands of a man or woman with a badge than it is in the hands of Joe Sixpack. But on those counts, I am all alone in the outfield, and I know it.