I remembered seeing this on some science channel a few years ago. So my question, Why aren’t they using this system? If they are, wouldn’t they want to reassure the masses by telling us?
Here’s what I’m talking about:
http://www.llnl.gov/remoteTEST/01new.html
-Waneman
Too broad an area. The system is designed to be used by military personnel in urban warfare situations.
Pretty cool but I think it is more of a point defense than an area defense system. In other words, its great if you know where a potential target is (a podium, barracks, what have you) but is not so great if you have to cover all of DC and Virginia.
Now you realise why the rest of the civilised world has strict gun control laws.
sigh…
the right to bear arms vs the right to buy a sniper rifle
You want to join in one of the hundreds of legitimate gun control debates that have been on this Board, and try to present an argument for your case - or did you really just want to drive-by?
It is possible to buy “sniper rifles” in the UK too. Except in the UK, they’re called hunting rifles. Oh wait, they’re called that everywhere else too… :rolleyes:
Dude-Can you define what exactly is a “sniper rifle”?
Keep in mind that most rifles can be used as such.
I think you show an extreme amount of ignorance in your statements.
The sniper deaths are bad. No doubt about it. But why exactly do these deaths provoke a spasm of fear, preschools locking down, tourism turning off, etc? Seven deaths in a large metropolitian area. How many die in car crashes each week on that fabled beltway alone?
Perspective is twisted by a media intent on marketing fear and panic.
As to gun control issues. One thing that this is not is some punk using a Saturday night special. If the perp has the training to use it as well as (s)he does then (s)he probably would qualify for a permit to own such a specialty rifle with scope. I support tight gun regulations, but you can’t stop some crazy person from misusing something, or identify proactively every person who is going to someday snap.
Empahsis mine.
This has been covered many times in detail in other threads. The nature of the shootings requires no extraordinary skill on the part of the shooter or weapon any more exotic than an ordinary hunting rifle. Of course no one expects the sniper to be someone unfamiliar with firearms. I am also aware of no jurisdiction that requires a permit of any kind for a rifle with scope. I don’t know what you mean by “specialty rifle” but you may be laboring under a contrived definition of “sniper rifle” that doesn’t exist.
I assume you’re comparing us to the UK?
The UK has always had a lower firearm and non-firearm homicide rate, even before the UK enacted any meaningful gun control laws.
Or maybe you would like to consider Brazil which has very tight gun control and a gun homicide rate of 10.58 (per 100,000)versus the US rate of 3.72.
The reason it isn’t being used is probably because it doesn’t work. Why do people persist in believing everything they see in adverts, or things they are told by governments, or quasi-government groups?
Looking at the site, even if it did work, it would only be of use after two or three shots from the same point had established a cross-reference.
Well Padeye, I am admittedly no expert on guns or on gun control debates* so I am willing to be educated. Are you telling me that any putz with a passing familiarity with guns could take any hunting rifle and hit a target hundred of yards away in a single shot with a high degree of reliability? Whoa.
*My involvement has mainly been against the extremist views on either side. Homicide can and should be analyzed as the significant public health issue that it is. In such an analysis wide gun availability, especially of handguns and semiautomatic rifles, is a factor which amplifies the public health risk. A reasoned approach which protects the rights for qualified hobbiests to own and use firearms (hunting, recreation, so on) and which simultaneously significantly lowers the public health hazard is possible. But the sniper incidents provide no support for either side of a gun control debate, IMHO.
Not ‘any putz’, and you couldn’t just pick up a gun and do it. But certainly, anyone who was willing to read a book on shooting, and spend a half-day at a shooting range could manage it.
100 yards isn’t very far. The lot my house is sitting on is 260 ft long, or about 85 yards. A football field is 100 yards. With a scope on a rifle, 100 yards is almost point-blank range.
In fact, if the shooter is shooting from a rest, and his targets have been stationary (they have), then it’s a trivial shot. From that distance, I think I could take anyone and put them behind the rifle and say, “Aim the little crosshairs on the target and pull the trigger softly”. The average person on the street could probably do it without training.
But clearly, this guy has some training, because he’s doing it cconsistently, hasn’t missed once, and is doing it from varying ranges under a great deal of pressure. So he’s had some training, but he doesn’t have to be a professional or ex-military sniper. Any hunter who practices could do it.
Well Sam, then my basic point still stands. My experience has been that advocates of greater gun control are usually not for totally taking guns away (despite the over the top rhetoric to the contrary). They just want to have gun owners regulated to qualified users similar to how we license drivers. Before you own/use this weapon you must certify that you have the training to own/use it responsibly. This guy would be able to pass such a standard. This guy would probably use some other means to kill if he didn’t have a gun. THIS case is not, apparently, one in which the easy access to weaponry is culpable.
-Actually, there’s very strong evidence that firearms ownership reduces the public health risk, as you put it.
Estimates range from roughly a million to two-plus million crimes stopped or prevented due to the presence- ‘presence’, not ‘use of’ or ‘firing of’- every year.
For example, “hot” burglaries (break-ins where the crook knows the owners are home) are currently far more prevalent in England now than in the US. In the UK, the crook knows that, not only does the owner almost certainly NOT have a gun, but worse, the owner is essentially not allowed to defend himself in any manner, with any weapon.
In the US, most crooks realize there’s a damned good chance the owner has a gun, and breaking in is a good way to get shot. So over here, burglaries tend to lean towards those times the crook knows the owners are gone.
So believe it or not, someone else owning a gun does tend to make your life a little safer.
Believe it NOT. A quick lit search shows ample documentation that your claim is untrue.
This is actually just the first three. I have pages more that came up. All with similar conclusions…
And on and on. The American Academy of Pediatrics, The AMA, and on … all have concurred. Someone else owning a gun does not make me safer. Still, I think that someone else should be able to own a gun. I just want him or her certified that they know how to lock it up and keep it and use it safely. I am not against gun ownership. I am against reckless gun ownership.
Wow. People still quote Kellerman even after his studies have been soundly trashed. Rebuttal from Kellerman’s first study
From Here
Probably less than 5% of US homicides are committed in the victim’s home by killers using guns kept in that home.[15] Further, the slight risk of such an event occurring is almost completely confined to unusually high-risk subsets of the population, since contrary to widespread belief, gun violence is largely confined to persons with a prior history of criminal behavior.[5]
Even within these high-risk groups, it is not known whether the net causal effect of gun ownership is to increase the risks of homicide victimization, given that the gun-homicide association found in the previous research on high-risk populations was at least partly spurious. High-risk groups have a higher-than-average probability of both violence-increasing offensive uses of guns and of violence-reducing defensive uses, but it cannot yet be firmly stated whether the net effect is to increase homicides.
Defensive uses of guns are both effective in preventing injury and more common than aggressive uses, in the home or outside it. The average American household is unlikely to experience a serious gun victimization or to use a gun defensively, but the latter is far more likely than the former. In light of the flaws and weak associations of case-control research, currently available data do not provide a sound empirical basis for recommending to the average American that he or she not keep a gun in the home.
If what you say is true, why are gun homicides falling while more states pass concealed carry laws?
Lott Study Whether or not one believes a portion of the drop in violent crime is due to “shall-issue” legislation, Lott’s study provides strong evidence that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not increase gun crime or fatal gun accident rates.
Or, how often guns are used in self-defense
When you say you are against reckless gun ownership. Are you speaking of reducing accidents? Criminal use? What?
DSeid actually sounded reasonable and intelligent there for a bit.
And then (s)he went and quoted Kellerman.
:rolleyes:
Wow!
The OP got two whole legit responses before the Great Gun Debate emerged!
I’m impressed…
Kellermann’s study is inconclusive, yes. But Lott is a whore posing as a statistician. He works backward from his conclusions, cherry picking data that supports them. The main technique is to take noise and amplify it until he can find a segment of it that supports his conclusions.
Remember, Lott is the same yahoo that claims Black Republican’s votes were 20 times more likely than black democrat’s votes in Florida 2000 :rolleyes:. Amplifying noise can produce all sorts of conunterintuitive results.
“Soundly trashed”? Hardly. Sorry. One person’s opinion that the study did not adequately control for confounding factors is hardly a sound trashing. I will nevertheless concede that it is hard to control for all variables … a sword that cuts in more than one direction. Control for socio-economics, for changing demographics, drug dealing … leave it at that the statement that “So believe it or not, someone else owning a gun does tend to make your life a little safer” has no evidence to back it up, and that most peer reviewed published studies (limited by the nature of study design as they may be) support the opposite contention.
Remember boys and girls, I came into this discussion partly to diss the drive-by comment on how the sniper is a good argument for pro gun control. It tisn’t.
John, By “reckless” I mean people who keep a loaded weapon under the seat of the car and then claim it aint their responsibility when some creep steals it and uses it to commit a crime. I mean people who leave loaded weapons unlocked where kids can get to. I mean the kinds of habits that have resulted in 28,000 American deaths a year from small arms (greatest rate in the developed world) and has resulted in gunshot homicide as the leading cause of death 15 -24 yo Americans.
It just seems reasonable that we treat gun use as a serious responsibility.* You need to prove that you have adequate training in proper use and storage before you are allowed to use it or to own one. Secure the dang thing. At least make it difficult for some punk to steal it. Make it very difficult for your kids to get to it, let alone to use it. Handguns and semiautomatic weapon ownership mandates even extra responsibility. If you don’t know to do these things, if you can’t show that you take it seriously, then you shouldn’t be able to own a gun.
Homicides will occur. I do not believe that any gun reg would stop a nutcase like whoever this sniper is. And (s)he is really not a significant risk to the public at large. But homicide is and the US leads the developed world. Extremist rhetoric from both sides helps to keep us there.
*BTW IANAL (Thanks Gott!) and I will defer from any Constitutional discussion. I am just a kids doc who thinks more about responsibilities than rights.