I heard a teaser on KNBC-4LA news today that the state of California may “ban sniper rifles”. Unfortunately, I didn’t hear the story, as I became otherwise occupied. Did anyone here hear the story? If so, did they say what a “sniper rifle” is?
I beilieve a sniper rifle is any accurate gun that is capable of hitting a human sized target from a distance when it is aimed at it. Of course, this shouldn’t be allowed because that means that it can be used for “EEEEEVILLL”. What manufacturers will be required to do is make rifles so that they will not hit where they are aimed. Instead, the bullet will simply fly off in a random direction. That means that it will be useless as a “sniper rifle” although people, animals, and objects nearby may be hit when the bullet flies off randomly.
This is the stupidest thing I have heard this hour. Don’t they know that a sniper rifle is any rifle used to snipe. A really effective sniper rifle might be one like those used in say hunting. What they are saying, if true, is that they want to ban all accurate rifles. :rolleyes:
I think that the law should read: "The state of California declares it a felony to possess a high-powered, high-velocity “sniper rifle”. This extends the ban already applied to “assualt rifles” and “Saturday Night Specials”. Good luck judges.
Might you have heard something like this:
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,554466,00.html
Sounds like something a local station would warm over in light of recent events.
I agree. But do you know specifically what California lawmakers have in mind? I.e., how they plan to define them?
chriszarate: All I heard was something like “California may ban sniper rifles.”
Sounds very much like a knee jerk reaction to me.
Most rifles used for hunting (other than shotguns) can be used as a sniper rifle. To snipe all you need is skill and an accurate rifle.
To hunt (snipe) human or deer the same requirements an accurate rifle and a bit of skill. Regretfully, if the DC sniper has continued success I fear we shall be hearing more about such laws being introduced.
If and when Copycats decide to snipe their neighbours The cry for stricter laws will become louder.
Since these shooting I have begun to wonder how our elected lawmakers are going to react and how things could potentially change.
Anyway I am not sure what they are considering a sniper rifle
but, anything labled as a “sniper” rifle wil have a legitimate use as a tool for hunting.
I suspect many a Great debate could be spun off on the different issues that will come up now.
doh 4 posts since mine went thru… .50 to be banned? .50 cal have less potential for hunting, yet a .50 cal is not a good caliber to go sniping with in a domestic setting. .50 cals tend to be heavy much longer and “overkill” in what is needed.
Most rifles firing the 5.56 rounds such as what is being used in DC is much better… more common, easier to conceal and accurate within the reasonable ranges that it will be used.
I will let others with more knowledge about these things elaborate.
FTR, Johnny, “sniper rifle bans” and their legislation have often turned out to be false, or deliberate mis-statements of possible legislation by media outlets. Several pro-gun people in the past have looked like fools contacting their representatives in outrage, only to find out no such bill existed. In fact, I may know one who did that… :o
So…make sure it’s really going to happen, before you start The Process up.
Of course, in this case I would not be surprised. The .50 calibre rifles have been a frequent target of protest by the anti-gun groups and their supporters. The last time this was debated on the SDMB, not a single person, when I challenged them, could show a case where a murder was committed by a legal one in civilian hands, and yet, somehow, they still must be banned, as “what good are they”?
check me on this, but i thought it was already illegal to hide and shoot at people with ANY type of rifle. at least in my lovely community - montgomery county md
just waiting for KKT to use this as a political tool for the election next month
She already is, or at least the media is doing it for her. Townshend is being asked by the media to defend his stance on guns vis-a-vis current events.
Anyway, people that think sniper rifles should be banned are missing the point. ALL guns should be banned! 
don’t hit me anthracite…
I meant Ehrlich, of course.
- caliber rifles? Heck, All of those I’ve seen ar so big you’d be nuts to try and haul it around. They’re made for anti-vehicle use, right? And more to the point (similarly how its not technically illegal for anyone to own an aircraft carrier) where cn you get one? The military is the only consume, and they’re not likely to surplus these engines of destruction, right?
Smiling bandit, .50caliber rifles are the largest rifles treated as ‘firearms’; 10 and 12 gauge shotguns are larger but are specically excepted, and black powder guns (which are typically .45 to .76 caliber or so) don’t get treated like firearms. Anything larger than .50 caliber is a “destructive device” and under federal law is treated mostly like machine guns or sawed off rifles/shotguns, though DDs tend to be less restricted under state laws. The ones I’ve seen run $2k and up, but they are available through gun stores (though you’d probably have to special-order one) and are subject to the same restrictions as other rifles - well, outside of LA at least, since LA recently enacted a ban on them for ordinary citizens.
Still, since a typical sniper rifle is indistinguishable from a typical hunting rifle (scoped, bolt-action rifle firing a relatively heavy bullet) we can all take comfort in the promies of the gun control crowd that they don’t want to ban hunting rifles, right?
We want to, we just know we have no chance.
-Point in fact, murder itself is already illegal. A subtle distinction that rules-makers conveniently overlook.
Much like the fact that the Columbine murderers had already broken a minimum of a dozen laws before they’d fired a single shot: what do lawmakers do? Pass more laws! Obviously, if the previous laws didn’t work, we just didn’t have the right laws in place to stop those criminals!*
(*Criminal: by definition a lawbreaker, one who does not obey the law.)
Ah, the Brady Coalition To Ban All Guns Except Sarahs… Sept. 11 events, no guns used? Call for stricter gun control! The terrorists might buy some! Shooter in Maryland using a .223? Call for bans on .50cals!
Sorry, wandering into GD territory…
I’ve seen .50 cal. rifles used for long range target shooting. They would be great sniper rifles, except for a couple of things. They are enormous, heave things that can cost more than $10,000.
The people that own these aren’t a threat to anything but a target.
I still don’t understand how liberals fear gun ownership more than criminal motivation and intent.
Please don’t generalise that all “liberals” believe one particular thing.
That bugs me too.
I’ve seen .50 caliber rifles for sale at gun shows and so forth, and ammunition for them costs between $1 and $3 a round! I certainly hope they’re not banned before I can afford one; I’d sincerely like to do some target shooting with one of those monstrosities.
My apologies. I shouldn’t fall into this trap, especially with all the generalization about conservatives done on these boards.
Please replace “liberal” with “gun control fanatic” in my post.
In Mr. Moto’s defense, I would point out that there may be significant differences between the characteristics of liberals in general in the U.S. versus those in the U.K.
In this country, certain issues are considered “watershed” issues, in that they serve to sharply divide, and therefore define, liberals and conservatives. Gun control is most definitely one of those “watershed” issues, in that you’ll find an overwhelming majority of liberals on one side (banning guns) and a similar proportion of conservatives on the opposite side (leave the guns alone, ban criminals instead). While it would be incorrect to state that ALL liberals favor gun control, it is quite correct to state that liberals in general do. This approach to a particular issue serves to illustrate an overall liberal philosophy, specifically that there are no truly “bad” people, only “bad” circumstances or “bad” things that lead otherwise “good” people to evil.
'Scuse me, I think I hear them calling me over in GD…