Be sure you are signed up for JPFO's periodical Email Alerts.
JOIN JPFO TODAY
Get a very aggressive defense of your rights.
Click on the above.
Help us avoid errors.
Should you prefer a full page of JPFO’s main links, then
Read these classic
rebuttals to "Gun Control"
Austin, TX-based TrackingPoint's "precision guided rifles," using sophisticated optics and electronics to supposedly enable incredibly accurate shooting over very long ranges, even against moving targets, and by shooters of modest skill, have drawn some criticism from "gun control" advocates who believe that private citizens must not be permitted access to firearms that are "too capable."
An Oregon Herald article quotes David Chipman, of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, making the case for the "danger" posed by these rifles:
Well, true, I suppose--my grandfather would have been flabbergasted at the idea of a $25,000 hunting rifle, but is any hunting rifle not "designed to kill with precision"? An ethical hunter, after all, strives for a clean kill, and a clean kill is of necessity a precise one.
Chipman is not finished, though:
A "two bit criminal" with a $25,000 rifle (or an economical $9,500 if he opts for the less accurate, semi-automatic version)? Two bits must buy rather a lot more than I'd thought these days.
Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, describes the technology as proof that the gun industry is sacrificing public safety for profit, as quoted in the same Oregon Herald article:
Since then, TrackingPoint has introduced semi-automatic, AR-15 based "precision guided firearms" (how Horwitz expects this technology--which imposes electronic control even over the firing mechanism, to not allow the gun to fire even when the trigger is pulled, until the computer judges the shot to be perfectly lined up--to translate to fully-automatic firearms, is left unexplained).
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:
Forget for now about wondering about the source of Fineman's "three out of ten" stat (or the fact that if true, that probably includes officers' accuracy in chaotic handgun fights, rather than focusing exclusively on police sharpshooters' rifle marksmanship, which would be a much closer analog to what a private citizen would be trying to do with a TrackingPoint rifle). Concentrate instead on the fact that Fineman contends that public safety requires that private citizens be just as incompetent with firearms as the average police officer. For a private citizen to hit as often as he misses is "scary."
Recently, NGVAC has stepped up its campaign to ban TrackingPoint rifles for private citizens:
In a letter to Lee Williams, "The Gun Writer" for the Sarasota Herald Tribune, Fineman even invented a strange new, secret function of the Second Amendment:
Now, suddenly, the right to infringe on the right that shall not be infringed . . . shall not be infringed--my head hurts.
Remember, again, what the supposed objection to these rifles is--that they are "too accurate." But wait a second--I thought the reason so-called "assault weapons" are inappropriate for any "legitimate" use by private citizens is that they're not accurate enough:
So in other words, evidently, there's only a narrow range of accuracy that is acceptable for private citizens. Anything else is either too inaccurate for safe use by citizens (but police and the military don't need accuracy, apparently), or too accurate for use by we the people.
Of course, anyone with any knowledge of guns is aware that accuracy is far less a function of the gun and accessories than of the training and skill of the shooter. How long will it be, one must wonder, before the legality of our access to training is challenged? Actually, the Violence Policy Center seems already to have done so (bold emphasis added):
If gun bans can be justified based on the fact that some are not accurate enough, and some are "too accurate," what gun is safe from a ban?
A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He also writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Kurt Hofmann Archive.