HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » While there is a push to ...

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:02 AM

 

While there is a push to ban assault rifles, why not ban sniper rifles?

Here, for example, is a Remington 700:



Some civilians own this type of rifle.

278 replies, 107787 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 278 replies Author Time Post
Reply While there is a push to ban assault rifles, why not ban sniper rifles? (Original post)
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 OP
graham4anything Apr 2013 #1
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #7
EOTE Apr 2013 #19
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #23
EOTE Apr 2013 #26
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #40
EOTE Apr 2013 #44
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #49
EOTE Apr 2013 #50
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #55
EOTE Apr 2013 #57
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #60
EOTE Apr 2013 #65
backwoodsbob Apr 2013 #63
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #68
CokeMachine Apr 2013 #85
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #99
CokeMachine Apr 2013 #110
Threedifferentones Apr 2013 #212
galileoreloaded Apr 2013 #31
darkangel218 Apr 2013 #128
JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2013 #247
onenote Apr 2013 #39
onenote Apr 2013 #41
darkangel218 Apr 2013 #127
Captain Stern Apr 2013 #174
OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #176
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #180
OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #209
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #218
OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #219
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #223
OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #231
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #235
OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #240
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #242
OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #250
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #254
OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #262
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #263
OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #267
supernaut Apr 2013 #201
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #204
rl6214 Apr 2013 #226
Recursion Apr 2013 #2
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #9
Recursion Apr 2013 #11
kudzu22 Apr 2013 #3
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #15
premium Apr 2013 #34
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #4
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #10
Bake Apr 2013 #52
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #56
Bake Apr 2013 #58
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #59
Bake Apr 2013 #90
OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #211
Electric Monk Apr 2013 #92
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #17
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #18
sylvi Apr 2013 #243
FarCenter Apr 2013 #5
Aristus Apr 2013 #6
spin Apr 2013 #29
DeadEyeDyck Apr 2013 #105
Aristus Apr 2013 #108
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #133
rl6214 Apr 2013 #227
yurbud Apr 2013 #238
Robb Apr 2013 #8
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #12
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #54
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #72
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #134
Name removed May 2013 #277
newmember Apr 2013 #13
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #16
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #135
premium Apr 2013 #51
oneshooter Apr 2013 #78
newmember Apr 2013 #107
ksoze Apr 2013 #14
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #20
Progressive dog Apr 2013 #126
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #230
Progressive dog Apr 2013 #232
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #233
Name removed May 2013 #278
newmember Apr 2013 #21
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #24
newmember Apr 2013 #27
Nolimit Apr 2013 #36
sir pball Apr 2013 #64
justanidea Apr 2013 #30
newmember Apr 2013 #32
justanidea Apr 2013 #35
NutmegYankee Apr 2013 #66
newmember Apr 2013 #77
NutmegYankee Apr 2013 #80
newmember Apr 2013 #83
NutmegYankee Apr 2013 #84
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #140
newmember Apr 2013 #151
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #162
krispos42 Apr 2013 #171
newmember Apr 2013 #172
krispos42 Apr 2013 #173
rl6214 Apr 2013 #228
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #190
krispos42 Apr 2013 #199
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #202
krispos42 Apr 2013 #210
sir pball Apr 2013 #116
newmember Apr 2013 #152
sir pball Apr 2013 #153
newmember Apr 2013 #157
sir pball Apr 2013 #160
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #139
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #147
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #163
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #138
bamacrat Apr 2013 #22
deaniac21 Apr 2013 #25
Travis_0004 Apr 2013 #106
ManiacJoe Apr 2013 #124
wercal Apr 2013 #130
DonP Apr 2013 #155
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #158
DonP Apr 2013 #159
TimberValley Apr 2013 #28
backwoodsbob Apr 2013 #33
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #37
backwoodsbob Apr 2013 #38
backwoodsbob Apr 2013 #43
sir pball Apr 2013 #62
Paladin Apr 2013 #42
spin Apr 2013 #45
backwoodsbob Apr 2013 #46
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #47
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #48
Savannahmann Apr 2013 #61
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #67
Savannahmann Apr 2013 #73
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #75
Savannahmann Apr 2013 #76
NutmegYankee Apr 2013 #82
Bay Boy Apr 2013 #86
Savannahmann Apr 2013 #89
Bay Boy Apr 2013 #95
Chuuku Davis Apr 2013 #136
spin Apr 2013 #96
Bake Apr 2013 #53
sarisataka Apr 2013 #69
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #74
sarisataka Apr 2013 #91
LineReply .
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #70
Rex Apr 2013 #71
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #103
BainsBane Apr 2013 #79
pediatricmedic Apr 2013 #81
CokeMachine Apr 2013 #87
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #100
CokeMachine Apr 2013 #111
Paladin Apr 2013 #118
CokeMachine Apr 2013 #121
Xithras Apr 2013 #88
sarisataka Apr 2013 #93
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #102
sarisataka Apr 2013 #113
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #115
bluedigger Apr 2013 #94
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #101
1-Old-Man Apr 2013 #97
madville Apr 2013 #98
Hoyt Apr 2013 #104
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #112
hack89 Apr 2013 #114
sir pball Apr 2013 #117
Hoyt Apr 2013 #119
sir pball Apr 2013 #122
Hoyt Apr 2013 #123
REP Apr 2013 #131
sir pball Apr 2013 #149
Hoyt Apr 2013 #150
sir pball Apr 2013 #156
NickB79 Apr 2013 #120
ileus Apr 2013 #109
darkangel218 Apr 2013 #129
Bigmack Apr 2013 #125
ManiacJoe Apr 2013 #164
Bigmack Apr 2013 #165
ManiacJoe Apr 2013 #182
Bigmack Apr 2013 #186
hack89 Apr 2013 #189
Bigmack Apr 2013 #192
hack89 Apr 2013 #195
Bigmack Apr 2013 #203
hack89 Apr 2013 #213
Bigmack Apr 2013 #215
hack89 Apr 2013 #216
Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #168
Bigmack Apr 2013 #177
Bigmack Apr 2013 #178
wercal Apr 2013 #132
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #141
wercal Apr 2013 #142
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #148
1-Old-Man Apr 2013 #220
Chuuku Davis Apr 2013 #137
Hoyt Apr 2013 #145
Jake Izzy Apr 2013 #143
jmg257 Apr 2013 #146
jmg257 Apr 2013 #144
geckosfeet Apr 2013 #154
Bigmack Apr 2013 #181
geckosfeet Apr 2013 #206
OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #241
flvegan Apr 2013 #161
Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #167
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #166
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #169
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #183
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #184
Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #224
1-Old-Man Apr 2013 #234
newmember Apr 2013 #170
sarisataka Apr 2013 #175
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #179
newmember Apr 2013 #196
friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #207
1-Old-Man Apr 2013 #236
oneshooter Apr 2013 #248
sandy78 Apr 2013 #185
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #187
sandy78 Apr 2013 #188
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #191
sandy78 Apr 2013 #193
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #194
Marengo Apr 2013 #221
newmember Apr 2013 #197
Paladin Apr 2013 #198
newmember Apr 2013 #200
billh58 Apr 2013 #205
friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #208
Paladin Apr 2013 #214
Marengo Apr 2013 #222
sarisataka Apr 2013 #229
Paladin Apr 2013 #245
sarisataka Apr 2013 #246
ManiacJoe Apr 2013 #244
Marengo Apr 2013 #252
oneshooter Apr 2013 #249
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #257
Union Scribe Apr 2013 #270
mwrguy Apr 2013 #217
Marengo Apr 2013 #251
Paladin Apr 2013 #253
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #255
Paladin Apr 2013 #256
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #258
Paladin Apr 2013 #259
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #260
Paladin Apr 2013 #264
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #265
Paladin Apr 2013 #266
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #268
Marengo Apr 2013 #271
mwrguy Apr 2013 #269
rl6214 Apr 2013 #225
yurbud Apr 2013 #237
yurbud Apr 2013 #239
DeSwiss Apr 2013 #261
Howzit May 2013 #272
Paladin May 2013 #273
AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #274
Howzit May 2013 #275
AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #276

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:05 AM

1. Why not reinterpret the 2nd and have zero guns in the streets for private individuals

 

being that militias are the State National Guard

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:11 AM

7. So your goal is to only have zero guns "in the streets"? Why does anyone need a sniper rifle?

 

From the photo, it looks like the length of rifle would make it too cumbersome to use in a practical way for home defense.

Why would anyone need one of these in the home?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:26 AM

19. So a poster says that guns should be removed from the streets and your response is "Why would anyone

need one of these in the home?" It sounds to me that the user does NOT believe anyone needs one of these for the home. So what's your agenda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:33 AM

23. Are you suggesting that questions should be banned?

 

A question was asked.

Since the poster did not say that he "does NOT believe anyone needs one of these for the home," and has not since said that he "does NOT believe anyone needs one of these for the home," why would you say that it "sounds to" you that he holds that belief?

If he truly has such a belief, I believe that he can speak for himself and clarify any position that he holds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #23)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:41 AM

26. I'm suggesting that you have an agenda.

When someone posts something that pretty much agrees with what you say and then you respond with something that just restates your initial opinion with utterly nothing added to it, then yes, I think you've got an agenda. And the utter lack of details in your OP and subsequent posts also seems to suggest that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #26)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:22 AM

40. Everyone has an agenda.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #40)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:33 AM

44. Yours is quite transparent and it's not what you pretend it is. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #44)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:54 AM

49. If you have a logical reason for banning sniper rifles, why not post it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #49)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:59 AM

50. You were the one who posted teh OP. If YOU have a logical reason for banning sniper rifles, why

don't YOU. Why is it that you're so gun ho to eliminate a class of rifles that the great bulk of owners use for hunting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #50)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:10 PM

55. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

If I ever want to ban such rifles instead of eliciting information, I may post an OP advocating for that instead of posting a question to elicit information.

If.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #55)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:17 PM

57. It's a ignorant and deceptive question.

One that does nothing to further debate and seems to be only an attempt to provide some "gotcha" moment on your part. And the lack of detail on your OP only shows that debate isn't what you're interested in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #57)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:39 PM

60. IMO, people respond with fact-free insults when they are too ignorant to respond with logic.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #60)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:50 PM

65. You haven't presented a single fact in this whole OP.

You haven't even really alluded to what you're attempting to get at. Just more masturbatory, gun festishist bullshit. But then you knew that already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #57)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:48 PM

63. he doesn't want debate

 

this is flamebait trying to get gun owners to say something ban worthy.It's been going on for weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #63)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:53 PM

68. Wrong. And wrong.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #63)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:41 PM

85. I think you responded to the wrong person.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CokeMachine (Reply #85)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 07:36 PM

99. I think that you're right.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #99)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:49 PM

110. Either that or the poster hasn't read your posts to

 

know your views. I think your OP was brilliant for pointing that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:47 AM

212. There is no clear distinction between a hunting rifle and a "sniper" rifle.

Many rifles are designed to accurately shoot thousands of feet and to kill large game with a single well placed shot. Whether this is "hunting" or "sniping" depends on what is being fired at.

Almost nobody "needs" a large rifle in their home. The only people who do are those who live in remote areas with large animals like grizzlies. A hand gun and even most shotgun rounds are of limited use against an animal that size, and many of them are not shy about approaching people and taking what they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:46 AM

31. I will agree whole heartedly as soon as we ban all carbohydrates in our food supply

 

between carbs and guns, we could save a lot of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #31)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 05:57 PM

128. hahHahhahahahahahahhaha!!!

 



Good point though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:41 PM

247. Mayor Bloomberg, is that you?

Woohoo, hizzoner, ban everything!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:25 AM

41. You constantly conflate your belief that the second amendment will be reinterpreted

with your belief that guns will be outlawed.

Even if the SCTOUS was to reinterpret the second amendment, all it would mean is that Congress could constitutionally restrict gun ownership/use in ways currently not considered constitutional. But it wouldn't mean that Congress would do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 05:56 PM

127. No thanks. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:45 AM

174. You've said this on here a lot. I don't get it.

How could any reinterpretation of the 2cnd amendment by the Supreme Court mean "have zero guns in the streets for private individuals"?

I don't see how it could go from "right to bear arms" to "illegal to bear arms". Seems to me all they could do is say it's not a right, then leave it up to each state to decide. You could still end up with one state banning guns, and it's neighbor allowing them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:14 AM

176. The goal is law abiding citizens get

all their guns taken away while the criminals still have theirs and continue to break every gun law in place. Hooray! That sounds like a fabulous idea, doesn't it?

Britain took the guns away but it was years before they saw an improvement and the improvement hasn't been substantial. In fact along with a shit load of crimes still commited with guns (not just fatal results, but guns used in ANY crime) and higher instances of other violent crime (other types of weapons used, rape etc) and robberies and muggings have increased. And please, don't even think about comparing their stats to ours like so many like to do. Apples and oranges for a variety of reasons. Look at their own stats pre-1997 and after, up until now. Getting guns into England is harder than it would be here and there is still way too many. I thought I would be living in a gun free utopia. We all still had to worry about getting assaulted or killed by guns because they were taken away from the very people that were least likely to use them in a crime, not the ones who use them primarily for committing crimes. Yes you can take guns away from them too, but only in drips and drabs.

What that should tell you is it was never the majority of law abiding gun owners that was the problem. It was the criminals that were the problem and they still are a problem. Right now we have nowhere near a handle on our illegal population of guns and to think taking them away from the people least likely to use them in crimes and not eradicate the illegal population substantially faster than they can now is going to make huge differences in our gun crime stats, you're sadly mistaken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OwnedByCats (Reply #176)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:08 PM

180. There's some indicatation that firearms are still owned by some of the rich and the Royals in the UK

 



Driven duck hunting in the UK begins early September, while, Pheasant shooting season opens on the 1st of October, however most driven hunts start late October, or early November in Scotland and the North of England.

Driven hunts in the UK are typically more formal shooting days, where guns dress in smart tweed coats and jackets, with a tie often required.

http://www.eurohunt.co.uk/Scotland_Hunting/HuntingUK/DrivenDuckPheasant.html


This guy and his friends also seem to have engaged in hunting from time to time.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #180)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:21 AM

209. What does that have to do with anything?

You are allowed a shotgun as long as it is a "recognized good reason", such as hunting, farmers who use them for pest control or sport shooting. Automatic and semi automatics are not legal there. Most types of guns are banned. To own a shotgun, they must be registered and the owner licensed to do so. However to get a license, from what I was told, almost takes an act of God. It's very difficult for law abiders, but so much easier to acquire an illegal firearm. There are 62 million people in Britain, and only a little less than 600,000 have a license to own a shotgun.

In case you didn't know, the Royals were big on fox hunting. Do you know what that entails? Guns were rarely used. Fox hunters preferred training their dogs to find the fox, then tear them from limb to limb and they died. It's very much an elitist type of sport. Looks like an old photo of Charles - and seeing what he's wearing and he's on a horse, big chances are it's a fox hunt. They can't do that anymore however - fox hunting in that fashion was outlawed only a few years ago because it wasn't seen as humane.

So Brits owning shotguns is no surprise there as I already knew that. However shotguns are not the most popular gun to use in a crime, only a small percentage - the ones used in most of the crimes where a gun was used is mostly guns that are banned. The people who follow the law go through all the trouble and effort to get their license to own a shotgun, however criminals do not. If they are going to use it to murder people or use one to commit other types of crime, why in the world would they care about breaking a few gun laws? If they kill someone, they've already commited the worst act with a firearm - why should they care if it is illegal? I know if I ever was bat shit crazy enough to want to kill people, I wouldn't care about breaking some guns laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OwnedByCats (Reply #209)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 03:44 PM

218. Strange. In post #176 which I was responding to, you specifically said "Britain took the guns away."

 

Now you don't know or forgot that you said that?

And now, even you admit that is not true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #218)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:17 PM

219. I explained that you can have a shotgun

in Britain, but little else (absolutely nothing auto or semi auto)- and it takes almost an act of God to get a license for it, even though shotguns account for a small amount of gun crimes. The criminals have whatever they want because they don't go through the strict legal channels to use a gun. I didn't say they took ALL the guns away, they took most of the law abider's guns and haven't been as effective taking illegal guns, just the ones that get caught - so they still have more criminals with guns than law abiders. How is this hard to understand or somehow me contradicting myself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OwnedByCats (Reply #219)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:46 PM

223. Excuse me, but I did not see any reference to shotguns in post #176 to which I was responding.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that after I responded to your post #176 with my post #180, you then referred for the first time to shotguns in post #209, "What does that have to do with anything?" and then added "You are allowed a shotgun as long as it is a 'recognized good reason', such as ..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #223)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:25 AM

231. You made references to hunting

to which I explained that very few people in Britain have shotguns (580,000 out of 62 million). I asked what does it have to do with the guns that were banned. The ones that were used in the majority of crimes were banned. Those guns are still used in the majority of crimes despite being illegal. Banning guns doesn't mean they will disappear off the face of the earth. The criminals, who I believe are the biggest problem, will still use them.

That was my point - either address that point instead of going in circles or drop it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OwnedByCats (Reply #231)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:15 AM

235. Some people believe and spread the mistaken belief that guns are banned in Britain.

 

Your first post would either have a tendancy to perpetrate that myth or not.

1) Shotguns are a type of guns.
2) You origionally said that Britain does not have guns.
3) I pointed out that shotguns are not banned in Britain.
4) You replied and said that shotguns are not banned in Britain. (The two of us are in agreement on this issue.)
5) You then said that you pointed out that shotguns are not banned in Britain and you asked so what.
5) You pointed out that shotguns are not banned in Britain, but only after it was pointed out to you that shotguns are not banned in Britain.

I could be mistaken, but I believe that you would have otherwise allowed the myth to be perpetuated with your first post in this string.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #235)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:54 PM

240. You are desperately grasping at straws now

The fact they banned guns is no myth. Why don't you tell people like Piers Morgan and any other severe gun control/confiscation supporter that guns aren't banned in Britain like they say they are in just the same manner I did. Everybody loves to use them as an example when it comes to Britain's gun ban when they actually support a gun ban, but when someone comes out and says the ban didn't stop criminals, all of a sudden it gets twisted into Britain "didn't ban guns". Give me a break. They banned practically every other type of gun, the ones people used the most in crimes. Shotguns accounted for the least amount. They banned most types of guns and the one they didn't ban has severe controls - so severe that only a tiny tiny percentage of people in Britain actually own one. This is not rocket science McIntosh. The fact that you can't get over a very small population of shotguns compared to all the ones they banned that were most used in crimes is puzzling to me. I lived there for 10 years and I never knew a single person with a shotgun, but then again I wasn't friends with any farmers - and those are the ones most likely to have them, along with a few elites who like to go skeet shooting. However here I know more gun owners than I can shake a stick at. I moved to Britain the very year the bans came into effect. I lived in a safe area and didn't hang around the criminal element so I did not know anyone with an illegal gun either - but in the rougher parts of England, I still heard about people getting shot, many live but some do not. Your OP asked if banning sniper rifles would be a good idea. My point was you can ban guns, doesn't mean they go away and my example of Britain is valid because the guns they banned were and are still responsible for the most gun crimes, not shotguns, which only a minuscule amount of people are allowed to have and are used in the least amount of crimes. I do not know how to make this any clearer to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OwnedByCats (Reply #240)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:19 PM

242. When someone says that Britain banned guns without qualification, they intend for others to

 

believe that they have special knowledge with respect to Britain and Britain banned all guns.

Shotguns are guns. Britain did not ban them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #242)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:42 AM

250. I'm only going to say this one more time

Britain banned guns, except for shotguns and only for a small number of citizens who have to jump through hoops of fire to get a license for. A little less than 1% of their population has a shotgun - I would call that a HUGE gun ban. The fact that you don't, is your problem, not mine.

If they only ever had shotguns in Britain, yet 1% can still have them and I say they banned them - that is disingenuous. However the fact they banned every other type of gun, is a fact. Some perspective is something you should look into.

Whatever you want to think McIntosh, if you want to be this stubborn and obtuse, I simply don't care any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OwnedByCats (Reply #250)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:59 AM

254. So you admit "except for shotguns." Why didn't you admit that in the first place?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #254)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:57 PM

262. LOL

Either you are taking the piss or you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Either way, it's funny. LOL

Besides, I never once denied they have shotguns, and I've been saying YES THEY HAVE SHOTGUNS for how many posts now? LOL Why do you deny that their BAN OF EVERYTHING but SHOTGUNS left all but 1% without a gun not a gun ban of MOST of their guns?

The next time I speak of gun bans in the UK, just for you I will invoke the disclaimer that just under 1% were allowed to keep a shotgun for either hunting, farming or sport shooting as long as they can pass through all their strict controls to obtain a license and registration for said shotgun. That way for the nit wits who can't understand perspective can be spoon fed. Ok? Sound good? LOL

You're gonna give me a coronary lol


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OwnedByCats (Reply #262)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:10 PM

263. No one wants to give you "a coronary". I'm done.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #263)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 03:38 PM

267. Lighten up, it was a joke

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:15 PM

201. Wrong.

 

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to supernaut (Reply #201)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:00 PM

204. He's wrong about that too? Who would have thought?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:26 PM

226. And you wonder why gun owners scream about

 

The gun control zealots wanting to confiscate and ban all guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:06 AM

2. Do you want the blunt honest answer? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:12 AM

9. Is that an NRA talking point?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:14 AM

11. No. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:07 AM

3. What's the difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle?

Hint: the answer is "what you aim it at"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:19 AM

15. I hear that applies to other guns, too. But that's just me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:50 AM

34. Not much at all

 

here's a picture of a soldier in Vietnam with a sniper rifle, which is also a popular hunting rifle.



Remington Model 700

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:09 AM

4. Could it be that isn't a sniper rifle, but is actually a hunting rifle?

 

And rifles of ALL times account for only 3% of all firearm deaths?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:13 AM

10. Whatever the percentage, if they account for firearm deaths, shouldn't they be banned?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:05 PM

52. Since probably every gun made accounts for some percentage of firearm deaths

Why not just ban them ALL?

Which is what you ultimately want, of course.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #52)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:11 PM

56. Wrong.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #56)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:22 PM

58. Then why ban so-called "sniper" rifles?

Because you arbitrarily decided that no one "needs" such a rifle?

Color me shocked.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #58)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:35 PM

59. Find those who want to ban "assault rifles" and you may find those who want to ban "sniper rifles."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #59)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 02:10 PM

90. No doubt.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #59)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:41 AM

211. If you banned everything that could potentially

kill a person then you'd be banning everything and we'd all be living in our beds all day every day. Oh wait - people die in bed too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 02:18 PM

92. Ah

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:22 AM

17. Wait! That's NRAtalkingPoint™ No.20356.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:24 AM

18. You're right, of course.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 04:24 PM

243. I thought it was No.20355

 

Oh wait, one fell out of my Rolodex...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:09 AM

5. Any good hunting rifle can be used for sniping

 

The Remington 700 is a standard hunting rifle, although the one in the picture has been modified for military use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:10 AM

6. Low-capacity magazine and bolt-action chambering.

The scope I don't care about. Have you noticed the gun-nuts bent on mass murder don't seem to care much about marksmanship? Large-capacity magazines and semi-auto function give them all the massacre-capability they want.

I'm okay with a scope on a hunting rifle if it makes for a clean, accurate kill, reducing the suffering of the game animal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:45 AM

29. When hunting game such as deer states limit the capacity of the magazine in ...

a semiautomatic firearm usually to five rounds.

In some states where feral hogs are a problem, a hunter can use a hi-cap magazine to eliminate these pests. Feral hogs do considerable damage to the environment as they are not native to our nation.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 08:48 PM

105. the dc snipers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeadEyeDyck (Reply #105)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:41 PM

108. Once again, look at the number of victims with sniper rifles.

Charles Whitman killed fewer people in an hour and a half than the Newtown shooter killed in just a matter of minutes.

The DC snipers killed fewer people than that, and it was over the span of a few weeks.

Sniper rifles are deadly, to be sure, but they don't rack up the body count like semi-automatics with high-capacity magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeadEyeDyck (Reply #105)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:08 PM

133. They used an AR-15, not a bolt action deer rifle/sniper rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeadEyeDyck (Reply #105)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:45 PM

227. That's not the rifle the DC snipers used.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:52 AM

238. good point focusing on mass shooters. Another counters the "criminals will always get guns"

even if they are illegal."

True, but mass shooters typically aren't career criminals who would have the contacts to get illegal guns, so not being able to pick up an AK-47 with a banana clip at Walmart would be a serious impediment to them.

Also, criminals who want those kinds of guns are mostly killing each other over drug turf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:11 AM

8. First things first.

Low-hanging fruit first -- sort of like how admin has been banning the most obvious gun trolls first, then making their way through to the less obvious ones (as they make themselves more obvious).

No one would have imagined, for example, we'd even be having this conversation before Sandy Hook. Nothing has changed since before Sandy Hook, except that the hypocrisy of the NRA and its supporters has become more obvious.

Time changes all. Eventually those who stood in the way of gun safety legislation will look as anachronistic and backwards as those who stood in the way of racial integration, universal suffrage or heliocentrism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:17 AM

12. So wouldn't it be easier to ban sniper rifles?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:07 PM

54. It would probably be the most difficult ban possible to enact, actually.

 

As several have pointed out, there is essentially zero effective difference between a "sniper rifle" and a common hunting rifle. The political pushback against an attempt to ban these weapons would be crushing.,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #54)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:55 PM

72. You're right, of course.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #12)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:09 PM

134. Probably not.

Because you can't without banning all hunting rifles.

Any rifle powerful enough to kill a deer, let alone a moose or other large game, will perforate a human without even stopping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #8)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:18 AM

13. Does that take a clip or is it the kind you pull the handle back?

 

Scary looking and not the kind of hunting rifles I imagined.

Lets get rid of them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:20 AM

16. Good question.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #16)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:10 PM

135. That is a normal bolt-action rifle with a high quality scope.

The only difference between it and a 'classic hunting rifle' is the fact that the stock is black, rather than made out of wood.

Edit: Sorry, the other one was green. This one is black.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:04 PM

51. Internal magazine

 

it's a standard bolt action Remington 700, comes in various configurations, and calibers.

The one in the picture of the OP is no different in function as this one carried in Vietnam.



It's a very popular hunting rifle, no reason to get rid of them.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:18 PM

78. And what kind of "hunting rifle" did you imagine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #78)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:13 PM

107. Nice wood grain and maybe the person holding it wearing knickers

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:19 AM

14. This plays to the NRA theme- slippery slope BS

As someone else said here, first things first. A sniper rifle definition is too vague and only plays to the extreme right notion that any legislation is simply opening a door to banning ALL guns. Technically, a hunting rifle with a scope can be a sniper gun, and losing the real hunter block will doom any reasonable start to any gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ksoze (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:29 AM

20. No, that's NRAtalkingPoint™ No.20357.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #20)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 05:39 PM

126. If they have that many, it must be the 10188 repeat

of talking point #2.
The NRA is very conservative with talking points, continuously recycling the same old bull shit over and over again.
It is either run by slow learners or people who figure they don't have to have voter support, they can just buy the officials. After watching some of Wayne, I think it's both.
Some one should tell Wayne that the electorate is beginning to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #126)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 11:47 PM

230. "...watching some of Wayne," Still sourcing old oaters?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #230)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:21 AM

232. Sourcing the gun nuts' leaders

If you were going to source gun nuts, who else would you source, Mr. Rogers ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #232)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:41 AM

233. Oh, I thought it was Johnny-O.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ksoze (Reply #14)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:30 AM

21. I googled sniper rifles , PEOPLE can really buy these

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #21)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:36 AM

24. Maybe some people can. Have you seen the prices?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #24)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:41 AM

27. Tell me it's a joke that any person can buy one of these. Please watch this , insane

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:11 AM

36. A rifle is only as good as the person shooting it

A trained sniper would be vastly more efficient with a $300 Walmart rifle than your average joe with those fancy rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #24)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:49 PM

64. Building your own is much cheaper..

I got my hands on a 700 in .338 Ultra for the price of the (very nice) scope a while back. Once I get out of NYC and can keep it again, it's getting a new barrel and dropped into an Arctic Warfare stock. Should come in under $3000 from start to finish, 1/4 the price of a "proper" AW and minuscule compared to the PGM stuff.

But hey, it's not an assault rifle!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #21)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:45 AM

30. Why shouldnt they be able to?

 

Theyre just extremely accurate bolt action rifles with scopes on them.

Big deal.

Are we now going to mandate gun manufacturers make their guns unable to hit the broad side of a barn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #30)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:47 AM

32. Those are sniper rifles not hunting rifles

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #32)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:55 AM

35. A rifle is a sniper rifle when it is used by a sniper

 

To shoot people.

A hunting rifle is only a hunting rifle when it is used to hunt.

Otherwise its just a very accurate rifle with a scope.

Please explain to me what makes the so called sniper rifles posted in this thread any different from what you consider a hunting rifle to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #32)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:50 PM

66. There is no difference in equipment.

Most "sniper" rifles are hunting rifles. My uncle hunts with a Mauser (German Army bolt action Rifle) for deer that's been used for that purpose for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #66)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:17 PM

77. Please watch the video I posted

 

I have never seen any hunter walking around with rifles like those.
Even the manufactures of the rifles in the video call them Sniper rifles.

No one needs to be able to purchase something like that. If someone wants a
hunting rifle , fine

Those rifles in the video are not made for hunting 4 legged animals.
Yet If I wanted to buy one . I could go to the gun store and walk out with one today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #77)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:20 PM

80. It's just a marketing name.

You obviously don't hunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #80)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:29 PM

83. It's not just a marketing name

 

They talk to the manufactures in the video and specifically built
these from requests and requirements wanted in weapons systems from military.

These are not hunting rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #83)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:38 PM

84. Both hunters and military want the same thing - accuracy.

The M1903 is a classic sniper rifle. It's no different than a hunting rifle. And some folks use it as a hunting rifle. Google it if you must.

If you want to ban bolt action rifles, then just say so. But don't get surprised when hunters push back. Rifles like the 1903 are legal even in Australia, which has extremely strict gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #83)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:16 PM

140. You have no clue at all what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #140)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:10 PM

151. yes I do

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #151)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:12 AM

162. Then you would not say 'these are not hunting rifles'.

Because there is precisely NOTHING about them that ISN'T suitable for hunting game meat.

Humans are small, weak animals. Any rifle capable of taking big game at any range, is more than suitable for killing humans. The only difference between my wooden stock deer rifle and that rifle, is that mine is heavier due to the wood, and requires more maintenance and care for the wood. It is functionally identical.

So, want to retract what you erroneously claimed earlier?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #83)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 11:42 PM

171. And where do you think the features they refine for the military and police...

...trickle down to?

Any sniper rifle, even an expensive dedicated sniper rifle, can be used to hunt.

If it's in 7.62mm NATO, I can go to a gun store and buy some nice expanding bullets and go shoot a deer with it.


That's not the issue. The issue is diminishing returns for money spent. A super-high accuracy rig is wasted on most people because most people can't shoot to the level of the gun.

300 yards is a pretty long shot. It's about as long a shot as most hunters can make on a deer, which has vitals about 8" in diameter. So their shooting ability is about 2.7 MOA in the field.

Yeah, sure, at the shooting range under calm conditions, maybe they can shoot better. But in the field, from a standing or kneeling position, with the blood pumping from exertion and the range not certain, let's call it 2.7 MOA.

Now, if you were to put the rifle in a shooting vice to remove the human element entirely, and then shot for accuracy, you would find that a mass-produced $700 bolt-action rifle topped with a decent scope and loaded with decent ammunition would shoot to about 1.25 MOA, maybe a touch better.

So making the gun more accurate is not going to help most hunters. And there's a cost involved. To get a bolt-action rifle that shoots 0.75 MOA costs probably twice as much, and so on. These rifles that shoot tiny groups cost buttloads of money for an accuracy level that most people can't use and won't notice. It's like driving a Corvette in rush-hour traffic.

But the techniques trickle down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #171)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:03 AM

172. Sure any rifle can be used to hunt but when the military asks for a sniper rifle

 

their intention is not to hunt deer. This rifle the military is buying is more lethal than an average hunting rifle.
Do you think anyone should just be able to walk in a gun store and buy this rifle? I don't think that's a good idea.

Longer-range, harder-hitting sniper rifle eyed

The Army is watching closely as U.S. Special Operations Command fields a new sniper rifle designed to provide marksmen with greater range and more stopping power.

Snipers say the M40’s 7.62mm rounds lose some of their lethality past 800 meters.

The PSR’s effective range depends on the cartridge a shooter uses. Using a quick-change bolt-head system and interchangeable barrels, it can switch among 7.62mm NATO, .300 Winchester Magnum and .338 Lapua Magnum cartridges



http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130321/NEWS04/303210002/Longer-range-harder-hitting-sniper-rifle-eyed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #172)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:30 AM

173. They already can

The .300 Win Mag has been around for 5 decades, as have other powerful rounds. People use them for hunting all the time.

Now, the most popular cartridges tend to be .30 caliber or smaller, but there is no shortage of commercially-available .30-plus caliber fast cartridges.

Look up "Weatherby" in Google or Wikipedia. .340 Weatherby, .375 Weatherby, .416 Weatherby...

And I really don't worry about the problem. I'm pretty sure that I have a better chance of being hit by lightening while being eaten by a shark than being shot by a sniper at 900 yards or more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #172)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:53 PM

228. More lethal than the average hunting rifle?

 

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #171)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:30 PM

190. "If it's in 7.62mm NATO, I can go to a gun store ..." Maybe in your area.

 

In Northern Illinois, some shelves are empty. I had to drive to Wisconsin just to buy two boxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #190)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:04 PM

199. I actually went shooting today

It has been about a year since I last went.

I ran into Wal-Mart to grab some targets and some thumbtacks, and though maybe I'd grab another box of .22 ammo.

The shelves in there were virtually empty of ammunition. I could have shot a lot of .410 shotshells, I guess, a few 12 and 20 gage shotshells, and they had a couple of boxes of .22-250.

That was it.


This is in Connecticut. It was insane.

Fortunately my shooting buddy had plenty of .22 ammo he had bought last year. I went through probably 500 rounds over the course of the day, half of which I had brought from home... and was also left over from last year.

Lord knows how I'll replace it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #199)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:17 PM

202. Years ago, I used to press my own until I had time constraints and just bought off the shelf.

 

Tomorrow, I'm going to look for some reloading equipment. I'll take the time.

Incidentally, someone other than me observed that the shoulders for the 7.62 are slightly different than the .308's. With different shoulders, they have to chamber somewhat differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #202)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:35 AM

210. Oooo, can of worms with that one.

It looks like the exterior dimensions of the two are the same, but the 7.62 is loaded to a slightly lower pressure than the .308, and the case wall of the 7.62 is a bit thicker. It also seems that the chamber tolerances for the 7.62 are a little bit looser.

So if you shoot a .308 in a 7.62, the brass will stretch more than it would in a .308 chamber.

That's my interpretation, at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #77)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 11:14 AM

116. What, specifically, would you ban about those rifles, without affecting "hunting" or "target" rifles

Here's the rifle the US Olympic shooting team uses:



Here's an exceptionally high-end hunting rifle:




Please explain what features or capabilities of the "sniper" rifles bother you, and exactly how you would like to see a law written to prohibit their rifles while allowing the above rifles to still be sold - I'm assuming you're OK with competition shooting as well as hunting. I respect your opinion on the issue (even though I personally think it's pretty much laughable), I'm really curious as to how you think on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #116)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:12 PM

152. That's not a hunting rifle

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #152)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:17 PM

153. It's built and sold as such

How is it not? And how is the first one not a "sniper" rifle, it has the scary adjustable stock..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #153)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:28 PM

157. Who is the builder and markets that as a hunting rifle?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #157)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 10:44 PM

160. Dixie Precision Rifles

You still haven't answered my original question - what in your opinion makes that not a "hunting" rifle? It does have features that make it more accurate and reliable but is functionally (and legally) absolutely identical to grandpa's wood-stocked blue-metal 30-06.

I'm not trying to be confrontational; you're the first person I've met who seriously advocates this and I'm honestly curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #77)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:15 PM

139. Actually, it's an excellent rifle for most game in North America, with perhaps the exception of

Kodiak and polar bears (Neither of which is hunted to my knowledge, but guides may have occasion to kill them in defense)

However, if you're going to Africa, you need something bigger. Otherwise, you might annoy something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #139)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:53 PM

147. Here's a photo from the web showing an animal in Pennsylvania that might be annoyed.

 



I don't know what that kid is holding but it doesn't look big enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #147)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:22 AM

163. 'Hogzilla' was about 800lbs.

The kid is standing far back from the pig to make it look bigger. (Also, it was a slightly feral former farm pig, half wild, half domesticated. His name was 'fred'.)

Here's what it looked like next to a grown man.

Big, but not the rhino sized beast they made it out to be. Bigger than a deer, smaller than a moose... I wouldn't use a pistol, but then again, I wouldn't kill such an animal and bury it without eating it either. 800lbs of waste for the thrill of the kill in a canned hunt. I find that disturbing.

That kid had to shoot the animal 9 times to finally put it down. A miserable, painful, sad end, given the time to reload that weapon.

A wild boar? That kid would not have pulled it off. You shoot a wild boar and it doesn't go down, you drop your rifle and climb the tree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #32)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:14 PM

138. And the difference in your mind is.... ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:31 AM

22. Because that is a hunting rifle.

As someone already pointed out, its not a sniper rifle if you don't shoot people. I have no problem with hunting rifles being legal. I am not a hunter or a fan of it for that matter, but I would much rather a hunter use a precision rifle as opposed to buck shot or something that will cause pain to the animal.

Most of the rifles like the one pictured come in two form a clip loaded and spring loaded. Both hold about 5 rounds + 1 in the chamber, and the bolt action increases power but slows the fire pace. Full auto guns, high capacity mags and other weapons designed to cause extreme damage in a short amount of time have no place in society. Hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns (with a permit) should be allowed.

That being said, it should be harder for any random person to get a handgun, one week waiting period and background checks are a great place to start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:39 AM

25. Virtually every deer hunter has a scoped rifle,,,,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deaniac21 (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:09 PM

106. I don't.

 

Rifles are illegal for deer in Ohio.

I do have a scope for my shotgun though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #106)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 04:49 PM

124. Learn something new every day....

What is the reasoning behind the rifle restriction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #124)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:02 PM

130. Its a bit safer

A slug from a shotgun doesn't travel as far as a bullet from a rifle....so it should prevent accidents.

It also makes it more difficult to hunt (you have to be alot closer to a deer)...but I doubt that is the goal, since deer populations are out of control in most places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wercal (Reply #130)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:23 PM

155. Same thing in Illinois. No rifle hunting.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #155)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:32 PM

158. Unless the rules have changed, I think that hunting with muzzleloaders are legal provided that

 

they fire a single round of .45 cal or more and have a barrel of at least 16".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #158)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:47 PM

159. Correct, I know several counties have a ML season. I was just thinking of centerfire rifles.

 

I have a .50 Cal. Hawken and a .50 Kentucky Rifle I've been meaning to play with a little one of these days. Awful pretty hanging on the wall with the brass all polished up too.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:42 AM

28. Because people use them for hunting? nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:50 AM

33. if that is chambered in .300wsm

 

you posted a pic of my gun!
How did you get a pic of my gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #33)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:11 AM

37. Does yours have much of a kick?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:16 AM

38. it does

 

I use a pad but it has a little kick to it.
Honestly,my .30-06 kicks harder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:32 AM

43. if you want kick

 

my uncle growing up had a .459 long tom.

THAT gun had a kick that would rattle your teeth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #33)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:44 PM

62. I thought so too, but it's too short to be mine

Full-blown 300 Mag. Great for whitetails across Louisiana soybean fields, but a little brisk on the shoulder..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:29 AM

42. Gun Enthusiast Flame Bait. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:35 AM

45. Since it appears impossible to pass an assault weapons ban ...

why would you suggest banning a bolt action rifle with a scope?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:41 AM

46. because he is baiting gun owners

 

he wants any gun owner to post something alert worthy to try to get as many gun owners as possible banned from this site

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #46)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:46 AM

47. Wrong.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:51 AM

48. I'm asking a question. Others can post what they want. I'm not suggesting banning a bolt action

 

rifle with a scope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #48)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:44 PM

61. Especially one that is inherently flawed and dangerous.

 

I'm not sure how many saw the special report of how dangerous those rifles are, and how many have died because of the design flaws, but I found a couple links to lawfirms that are suing the company, after a CNBC report on the inherent design flaw of the rifle.

Waiting for the pro gun people to disavow the idea that a rifle might be dangerous in 4. 3. 2. 1.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #61)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:51 PM

67. Would you only favor banning "sniper rifles" manufactured by a company sued by some of its customers

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #67)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:07 PM

73. This one should have been banned long ago.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #73)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:10 PM

75. Lawn darts are banned?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #75)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:23 PM

82. They are no longer manufactured.

Too many children got impaled by them. They are still legal to own and many people have them sitting in an attic somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #73)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:52 PM

86. I own a 700 and

had one of those 'moments'. Fortunately I was following one of the rules of safety and didn't have the rifle aimed at anything I didn't want destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #86)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 02:07 PM

89. So the obvious question is this.

 

If you have a rifle, that when used, and maintained properly, can still fire for no reason other than an obvious design defect, why is it still manufactured? Why hasn't it been banned as a defective/dangerous item? Even if you were not to ban any other rifle, that one should have been banned decades ago when this first came to light. It is obviously defective, and dangerous, and yet it continues to be sold today with exactly the same trigger, with the same design defect, as it has always had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #89)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 03:52 PM

95. I did take it to a gunsmith and had it modified...

...Remington paid for it. Other than that I don't have an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #89)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:12 PM

136. That trigger has not been made

for a while

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #48)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 06:20 PM

96. That's reasonable. ...

The suggestion of banning a bolt action rifle with a scope would anger most of the deer hunters in our nation including those who see no use for assault weapons.

My suggestion for reducing gun violence in our nation is first to simply to better enforce existing gun laws in our nation and impose a strong punishment on those who break them. Secondly we could pass new legislation to help make our law enforcements more effective in catching those who own and carry illegal firearms and to fight the straw purchase and illegal smuggling of firearms to the inner streets of our cities.

Of course we could improve our mental health care system and finally realize that we lost our War on Drugs years ago and legalize some drugs to reduce the profit from smuggling them into our nation.

I feel that there is much we can do that does not involve banning any firearms or limiting the right of honest and responsible people to own them.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:06 PM

53. Was a "sniper rifle" used at Newtown? Aurora? Columbine?

Any of them?

Just asking a question.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:53 PM

69. Pick the sniper rifle

A-

B-

C-

D- All of the above

E- A & B

F- A & C

G- B & C

H- None of the above

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #69)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:08 PM

74. Obviously "C," if you like a 1907 design and you're sniping prairie dogs.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #74)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 02:14 PM

91. I do

though I prefer something a bit more utilitarian, similar to the OP picture in a smaller chambering

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:54 PM

70. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:55 PM

71. Because a hunting rifle is a sniper rifle.

 

I personally think you should have to sneak up on the deer and take it down with a buck knife. Then again, I believe in fairness and that is why I won't shoot deer anymore - it just does not feel right at 300 meters. Also, I rarely eat deer anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #71)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 08:02 PM

103. I wonder if sneaking up on any of those feral hogs that we hear about would work?

 

It would certainly be interesting. And more invigorating than coffee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:21 PM

81. Nice rifle, don't think i want to pack that around on a hunt

Assault rifles are already banned by law anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:54 PM

87. Good job!!

 

Some of the responses are priceless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CokeMachine (Reply #87)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 07:51 PM

100. Thanks, friend.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #100)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:52 PM

111. Back at ya!!

 

One of the best threads I've read in a while. Some of the responses didn't know to agree or disagree. Priceless

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CokeMachine (Reply #111)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 11:48 AM

118. It doesn't take much to impress you, does it? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #118)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 12:16 PM

121. You impress me -- hope that makes you feel special.

 

Out of all of the posts in the thread you chose to use your one reply to respond to me. Thank you for the support!!!

You make me feel special -- Thank You .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:55 PM

88. Lol. The first rifle I ever bought myself was a Remington 700

Chambered in .30-06 for deer hunting. I sold it years ago because I no longer hunt, but there was nothing spectacular about it at all...it's was a fairly typical hunting rifle.

The only real difference between the civilian and the "tactical" versions are the colors, and a few bolt on features like the top rail and the bipod underneath. Neither of these really impact accuracy (historically, the most accurate "bipod" for a sniper is a sandbag).

The military has a couple rifles of their own (one is the M24, I can't remember the other) that are built around the Remington 700 receiver, but they're heavily redesigned and really aren't the same rifle any longer.

The Remington 700 is an ordinary civilian hunting rifle that was repurposed for police and military use...not the other way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #88)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 02:20 PM

93. The USMC M40

Marine snipers had to build their own rifles in Viet Nam, there were no designated sniper rifles for a time. Armorers obtained Model 700s and did some accurizing. Pretty typical stuff today, but revolutionary then. Once money was specified, Remington worked with the Corps to purpose build rifles.

Essentially the 700 and M40 start the same but, as you stated, they do end up different. Many upgrades are known and can be found in civilian rifles; the total package is still classified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #93)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 07:59 PM

102. You may have already seen this. But, if not, more interesting information can be found here:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #102)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 10:58 AM

113. That is an interesting link

thanks

I forgot about the Mod 70s, I mentally combined them with the 700s.

I may one of Gunny Hathcock's contemporaries before he retired. He had many good stories of working up the accurarcy of the rifles and issues in the jungle environment.
For those who are wondering- no stories about the actual combat use, except in technical related issues. Like all snipers I have met, they take no pride in the actual kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #113)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 11:03 AM

115. S f

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 02:32 PM

94. I can't believe how many DUers think you are baiting Gungeoneers.

You've really got them snookered with your slippery slope NRA argument. Well played.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #94)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 07:53 PM

101. Thanks. Your comments are appreciated.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 06:31 PM

97. The Remington 700 has been around forever and is one of the most popular hunting rifles around

While they are by no means cheap they are still affordable by the average hunter and for the money they are a superb firearm in any of the various calibers they are chambered and barreled for. By the way, the 700 is a bolt action rifle, one shot and then you have to manually eject the spent round and manually load the next round before firing. Bolt action rifles are inherently the most accurate of personal firearms but of course they do not have rapid rates of fire and very rarely have very large magazines either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 07:20 PM

98. Handguns would make more sense

Since they account for around 90% of all firearms related homicides. Let's ignore 9 out 10 gun deaths and focus on the firearms that account for less than 5% of deaths, makes total sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 08:05 PM

104. Strange fascination -- training with sniper rifles. I doubt anyone is going to need to defend

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2013, 08:46 PM - Edit history (1)


themselves at 300 yards. But when it comes to gun cultists, the paranoia and/or thrill of preparing to kill someone at that distance, makes them drool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #104)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 10:49 AM

112. Strange fascination -- Seeking to undermine the views of firearm-owning Democrats with insults

 

Millions of Democrats own firearms, including many on this board.

When a Gallup poll was taken, here was the response:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

What's the purpose for your insults? Somehow I don't think that your meaningless insults are going to change their minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #104)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 11:00 AM

114. Target shooting for the sake of target shooting.

why do you think it has anything to do with killing?

If it was, surely there would be a lot more murders with rifles. They are very low on the list of potential murder weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #104)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 11:24 AM

117. I love long-range target shooting, but for reasons you probably literally couldn't understand.

It has zip, zero, zilch to do with killing. The thought of it could not be farther from my mind when I'm settling the crosshairs onto a barely visible speck at 600 yards - there's not much on my mind at all actually, it's an honest, legitimate Zen moment; my conscious mind goes completely blank as I exhale and begin the slow squeeze - if you think about getting the sights steady and exactly when to fire, you're going to do it at the wrong time. Only your subconscious can do that. I invariably come away from a serious session like that with absolute peace and tranquility.

I got started in it doing this, which I hope even you would agree isn't about kill-thrill. The mental process are unchanged for me, I just find I enjoy it more with a rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #117)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 11:54 AM

119. Sniper rifle induced Zen -- now that is sad.


Why do manufacturer's advertise their lethal weapons with ads like this -- WTF are they trying to appeal to?









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #119)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 03:06 PM

122. Are bows or swords somehow less offensive to you?

Those are also single-purpose weapons of war, designed solely to kill, differing only from guns in their range. Do you think Japanese archery or swordsmanship to be sad or sick? The mental process of releasing the arrow or drawing the sword is identical to the trigger squeeze.

Please stop with the disingenuous BS about marketing - I said nothing about snipers, ghillie suits, suppressors it "tactical". I even happen to agree that the people who subscribe to that marketing are schmucks who couldn't use that kind of gear if their lives depended on it.

So to get back on subject, what's the problem with target shooting as a mental discipline exercise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #122)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 04:19 PM

123. To keep you happy in your guns, we have to allow the "schmucks" to collect these type weapons.


As far as "target shooting" -- too many folks talk about target shooting, when they really are shooting targets that resemble humans, or something like this:




I think spitting melon seeds might be just as "relaxing" -- or get a laser target set. Why not, are they not lethal enough to induce zen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #123)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:06 PM

131. Most of them are shooting at impossibly small circles through iron sites

Although I like to shoot the spots of playing cards.

You don't see a lot of Camp Perry and other competition footage, because to the average schmuck, it isn't exciting: people in one of three positions, taking slow careful shots at tiny circle targets. No cheering. No rapid fire. Nothing to get angry about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #123)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:00 PM

149. So what would you restrict to eliminate the "sniper"appeal?

Replacement barrels? Precision actions? Adjustable stocks? Scopes above a certain magnification? All products used mostly by long-distance hunters and target (and by that I mean rings and dots on paper) shooters. Hell, put a scope and bipod on an Anschutz Olympic rifle and it would look like the most advanced sniper rifle ever made. At least you're being (more) honest - it's all about looks and looks are all that matter.

A laser or other bulletless system would be fine if it simulated recoil, wind, environmental conditions, and every other variable in tight shooting - and fuck you and your implication I somehow get off on lethality (hi jury) I guess kyudo and iaido are just as odious to you..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #149)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:06 PM

150. Truthfully, I'd like to see gun cultists start acting responsibly, and become

spirit-of-the-law abiding. Truthfully gun cultists need to think about their warped views that have longterm implications for our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #150)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:24 PM

156. Define "spirit of the law abiding"?

Laws aren't supposed to be about "spirit", that's way too fast and loose a concept for the judiciary. Laws are by design specific and ideally unambiguous.

For what it's worth, if I hit Powerball I'd build a rifle along these lines:


Not that I care, but is that sufficiently un-"sniper" for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #117)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 11:59 AM

120. I think target shooting and playing golf share the same mentality

In the fact that the goal is to drive a small projectile hundreds of yards and hit a small target at the other end of the course/range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:44 PM

109. Let's be progressive on the 2A.

Help save the bolt and semi...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #109)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 05:58 PM

129. I agree.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 05:12 PM

125. Anybody think these fucking things should be available...

 

... to every asshole with the money to buy one?

http://www.barrett.net/firearms

One mile + kills... thru armor...

Think POTUS or any high value target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #125)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 08:46 PM

164. $10K for the gun, $4.50 per round.

If you have the money, desire, and skills, then have at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #164)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 10:46 PM

165. "Have at it.."? WTF

 

An instant kill on any politician - Democratic politician - you don't like...? From a mile? Thru armor?

"Have at it.."?

Jesus H. Christ!

Stupid fucking thing to say!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #165)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:52 PM

182. You are probably over estimating your shooting abilities.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #182)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:00 PM

186. My shooting abilities are not the question...

 

The question is what the Barrett... and like weapons can do.

You obviously don't know shit.

Allow me to enlighten you...

Remember, this is a armor... not body armor.. piercing round.

(FYI... I shot Expert in the Marine Corps. Went to sniper - not Scout-Sniper - school.)

Rob Furlong, a former corporal of the Canadian Forces, holds the record for the longest confirmed sniper kill in combat, at 2,430 metres (2,657 yards, or 1.51 miles). Established in 2002, the shot exceeds that of Sgt Brian Kremer of the 2nd Ranger in 2004 Iraq (2,300 meters).

- wikipedia. "Rob Furlong". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong, Nov 2009

Corporal of Horse Craig Harrison, a British Army sniper, killed two Taliban machine gunners in Afghanistan from a distance of 8,120 feet, Sky News reported.

NY Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/05/03/2010-05-03_british_sniper_craig_harrison_the_silent_assassin_breaks_record_kills_target_fro.html#ixzz0n4FoWEIT

Actually, Kreg Slack, and Bruce Artus of Colorado made a 3120 Yard shot on a prairie dog. That is a confirmed World Record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #186)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:22 PM

189. So you want to restrict any rifle in any caliber that is accurate past 1000 yards?

1500 yard? What is your standard here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #189)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:07 PM

192. Man...! This is amazing.

 

Nobody seems to think a weapon that can bust an armored personnel carrier and kill somebody at a mile and a half should be restricted!

How about this: No armor-piercing or incendiary rounds... no bullets heavier than 400 gr....

Black powder weapons excepted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #192)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:00 PM

195. It just seems like a silly thing to fixate on

can you even show where someone has been killed by one of these things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #195)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:31 PM

203. Fixate..?What the hell is wrong with you..?

 

...(perhaps) no one has been killed with these things yet. Not yet. Would you rather just wait until somebody takes out a high-value target?

Why are you fixating on defending these weapons?

There are about 2500 of these weapons in the civilian population in the US. The exact number of 50 caliber semiautomatic rifles sold in the domestic civilian market cannot be determined, since Barrett Arms has refused to cooperate with the GAO inquiry.

There's been some close calls, tho.

In January 2009, an Omaha, Nebraska man was arrested for threatening then-President-elect Barack Obama. The man told a Veteran's Affairs official,"I would like to shoot Obama and do it with a sniper shot." The man, Johnnie Galarza, claimed he owned a .50 sniper rifle and that he was trained as a sniper in the U.S. Army. Galarza's threat was reported to the Secret Service.

On April 4, 2008 a Florida man was arrested on federal charges of using the internet to make threats to recreate the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech that left 32 people dead. The man had amassed an arsenal that included a 50 caliber sniper rifle along with 13 other firearms and 5,000 rounds of ammunition, including 50 caliber rounds.

On April 1, 2008, police in Hanover Maryland found a cache of firearms including a 50 caliber Barrett sniper rifle, an Uzi, and several other rifles and handguns in a hotel room after a man was evicted from the room.

In March 2008 a police officer in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico was killed with a 50 caliber sniper rifle. The gun's origin was linked to Phoenix, Arizona according to law enforcement officials.

On February 17, 2008 police in Newbury, Massachusetts charged a man with 26 counts of failing to safely store weapons after officers responding to a domestic violence call found 20 firearms including a 50 caliber Armalite sniper rifle.

On September 20, 2007, federal agents seized a 50 caliber sniper rifle from Ray Ross who was indicted in connection with a massive criminal conspiracy to distribute illegal anabolic steroids and other illicit drugs.

On September 12, 2007, police in Suffolk County, New York arrested a man and charged him with conspiring to aid tax protesters who had barricaded themselves in their fortified home in New Hampshire in an effort to evade arrest on numerous tax charges. Police seized firearms, including two 50 caliber sniper rifles and a bomb, from the New York man's home.

On September 11, 2007, a Salem Oregon man was arrested on charges of second-degree criminal mischief and reckless burning after starting a wildfire by firing armor-piercing incendiary ammunition from a 50 caliber sniper rifle into a tree stump. The fire took days to extinguish and caused major damage to private forest land. The sheriff's department spokesman was quoted as saying, "The problem with a weapon like this is that you can't safely shoot it anywhere."

On July 16, 2007, police in New Haven, Connecticut arrested a Yale University student for illegal discharge of a firearm, reckless endangerment, and second degree threatening, among other charges. Police seized a 50 caliber sniper rifle, an AR-15 assault rifle, numerous pistols, and "various chemicals" from the student's fraternity house.

On May 16, 2007, law enforcement officials in Connecticut charged James E. Gasser with multiple crimes in connection with a lengthy standoff with police after the man discharged a firearm in his home. Among the guns police seized from Gasser's home was a 50 caliber sniper rifle along with .50 ammunition.

On April 30, 2007, Arthur A. Garcia of Rice Lake, Wisconsin was arrested on federal charges of being an unlawful drug user in possession of firearms. An arsenal of weapons was seized from his mobile home, including a Vulcan Arms 50 caliber sniper rifle along with assault weapons, body armor, and armor-piercing ammunition. A police informant stated that he had been to Garcia's home several times in a two month period and during each visit Garcia talked continuously about shooting people. According to the informant's statement, Garcia threatened to shoot his ex-girlfriend and her family while they attended church services. Referring to the recent shootings at Virginia Tech, Garcia stated, "The guy had a good start, but screwed up when he shot himself in the head," according to the informant. Garcia also allegedly told the informant that he (Garcia) would have to be killed but not before he had a body count of 1,000.

In August of 2006, William Gerald Thomas of Gainesville, Georgia was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and use of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol for brandishing a rifle and then a machine gun at a bystander after the parents of two 14-year old girls intervened to stop Thomas from harassing the girls at a motel pool. When police executed a search warrant on Thomas' SUV, they found 38 weapons including 50 caliber sniper rifles, assault weapons, and 2,000 rounds of ammunition.

In June of 2006, Anthony Troianello was arrested in Binghamton, New York on illegal weapons charges. The cache of guns that police recovered at his home included several assault weapons, three handguns, and a 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifle.

In May of 2006, a White Supremacist gang was indicted in Arizona on drug and weapons charges, including the sale to undercover officers of a stolen 50 caliber sniper rifle. The rifle was represented by the gang as powerful enough to destroy an armored car or shoot down a Phoenix Police helicopter. According to a special agent from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms who participated in the investigation, "The destructive capacity of those weapons [50 calibers] makes the streets much safer without them....No question."


In March of 2005, Kyle Harness of Marina del Rey, California, was arrested after being pulled over on a traffic stop and found to be in possession of a stolen Armalite 50 caliber sniper rifle. Harness was stopped for having a broken taillight and false registration tags, and was on parole for armed robbery at the time of his arrest.

In June of 2004, Marvin Heemeyer of Granby, Colorado, plowed a makeshift armored bulldozer into several buildings in response to a zoning dispute and fines for city code violations. Heemeyer armored his 60-ton bulldozer with two sheets of half-inch steel with a layer of concrete between them. He methodically drove the bulldozer through the town of Granby, damaging or leveling 13 buildings before taking his own life. Heemeyer mounted three rifles on the bulldozer, including a Barrett 82A1 50 caliber sniper rifle.

In February of 2004, Donin Wright of Kansas City, Missouri, lured police officers, paramedics, and firefighters to his home where he shot at them with several guns including a Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle. Authorities discovered at least 20 guns, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and the makings of 20 pipe bombs inside Wright's home.

According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), 50 caliber sniper rifles have been found in the armories of drug dealers in California, Missouri, and Indiana. A federal investigation in 1999 was "targeting the movement of .50 caliber semi-automatic rifles from the United States to Mexico for use by drug cartels."

On March 19, 1998, following an undercover investigation, federal law enforcement officers arrested three members of a radical Michigan group known as the North American Militia. The men were charged with plotting to bomb federal office buildings, destroy highways, utilities, and public roads, and assassinate the state's governor, senior U.S. Senator, federal judges, and other federal officials. All three were ultimately convicted. A 50 caliber sniper rifle was among the weapons found in their possession.

In the summer of 1995, Canadian officials in British Columbia found a Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle, 500 rounds of ammunition, and enough explosives to fill a five-ton truck at a remote site. It is believed that members of a Texas militia group planned to set up a training camp at the site.

On April 28, 1995, Albert Petrosky walked into an Albertson's grocery store in suburban Denver, Colorado, and gunned down his estranged wife and the store manager. Armed with an L.A.R. Grizzly 50 caliber sniper rifle, an SKS Chinese semiautomatic assault rifle, a .32 revolver, and a 9mm semiautomatic pistol, Petrosky then walked out into the shopping center parking lot, where he exchanged fire with a federal IRS agent and killed Sgt. Timothy Mossbrucker of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. Petrosky, who was known to his friends as "50-cal Al," fired all four weapons, including the 50 caliber rifle, during his murderous rampage.

Branch Davidian cult members at a compound in Waco, Texas, fired 50 caliber sniper rifles at federal ATF agents during their initial gun battle on February 28, 1993. The weapons' ability to penetrate tactical vehicles prompted the agency to request military armored vehicles to give agents adequate protection from the 50 caliber rifles and other more powerful weapons the Branch Davidians might have had. Four ATF agents were killed.

On February 27, 1992, a Wells Fargo armored delivery truck was attacked in a "military style operation" in Chamblee, Georgia, by several men using a smoke grenade and a Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle. Two employees were wounded.

In 1989, two members of a church in Gardner, Montana, who were part of what ATF has described as a "doomsday religious cult," were arrested and charged with federal firearms violations. The two suspects had purchased hundreds of firearms, including ten 50 caliber semiautomatic rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition, using false identification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #203)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:25 AM

213. I am not defending the guns. I am questioning your logic.

You want to ban a type of gun that you cannot show has been used to murder anyone. Which makes me wonder what you think about those guns that we know kill tens of thousands. Is it safe to assume you support the banning of all guns? If not, I would love to know why not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #213)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 11:10 AM

215. Are you being intentionally obtuse..?

 

A deer gun is not a weapon that can kill at a mile and a half. A duck gun is not a weapon that can penetrate armor. A home defense weapon doesn't use explosive bullets. A target rifle is accurate to perhaps 500 yards.

The Barrett and like weapons are designed for long-range sure kills.

If you can't see the difference....

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #215)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 11:15 AM

216. But they are not killing people while all those other guns are.

so why focus on the gun least likely to be used in a crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #125)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 11:24 PM

168. Any asshole who can legally own a rifle should be able to buy one

 

since that's all it is...a rifle, albeit one more powerful than most.

thru armor

Your Grandpappy's .30-30 will penetrate body armor. Want to make that illegal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph Ledger (Reply #168)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:04 AM

177. Jesus Fucking Christ...!

 

Are you dense?

Or don't you know anything about weapons?

I said "armor" not "body armor"..



Your Grandpappy's .30-.30 won't go thru a steel I-beam.... or an armored POTUS limo.

You might take a look at this: http://www.vpc.org/graphics/whyregulate50s.pdf

From BMG Ammo Supply.com
"Due to an unusually high volume of orders we are currently 8-9 weeks behind on orders. We thank you for your patience as we try to fill all orders as quickly as possible in the order they are received."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph Ledger (Reply #168)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:28 AM

178. Not your grandpappy's .30-.30...

 

"Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda bought 25 Barrett 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles in
the late 1980s. The IRA bought several in the United States, then shipped them
abroad to kill British troops and Irish constables. The Cali cartel and other
murderous drug syndicates have bought them. A Michigan militia group bought one
as part of a plan to kill federal judges and elected officials. They are now showing
up in the hands of lone wolf fanatics. As recently as February 2004, firefighters,
police, and emergency personnel in Kansas City were blasted with a hail of 50
caliber rounds that left gaping holes in fire trucks and an ambulance—fired by a gun
crazy fanatic who eventually died in a fiery siege."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:06 PM

132. There is nothing extraordinary about that rifle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wercal (Reply #132)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:16 PM

141. Some think that it is rugged and exceptionally accurate.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #141)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:28 PM

142. Really?

"Some think that it is rugged and exceptionally accurate."

An accurate rifle is extraordinary?

So all legal firearms should be inaccurate?...and delicate?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wercal (Reply #142)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 07:00 PM

148. Yes, "Some think that it is rugged and exceptionally accurate."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wercal (Reply #132)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:02 PM

220. The Remington 700 is about as well made a production gun as can be bought

The Remington 700 model has been chambered for dozens and dozens of calibers and sold to hunters world-wide for decades. It is a top of the line production gun, far better designed and built than many others. It has been available in several models over the years and there has almost always been a version that had a "bull barrel" which is an overly thick barrel that is used to cause the rifle to be more accurate. They are used when the purpose of the gun is to shoot "varmints" at long range. Someone who didn't know any better could describe them as sniper rifles I suppose, but it would be an incredible display of ignorance to do so.

As for the model 700, that is actually the designation of the "action" which is to say the mechanical part of the rifle that moves the bullet from the magazine up and into the chamber. This is a manual operation with the 700; its bolt must be turned a partial revolution, pulled back, pushed forward, and returned to its original position and then the safety disengaged in order to fire it. A second shot required a repeat of the operation. While this can be done rather quickly by a skilled shooter it normally takes a couple of seconds for us neophytes to accomplish. The point is this is anything but a rapid rate of fire weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:13 PM

137. Please define

"Sniper rifle"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chuuku Davis (Reply #137)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:34 PM

145. Like "assault" rifle, most folks know what it means.


-- Except gun cultists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:32 PM

143. I don't know the difference between the two

 

I thought sniper weapon was an assault weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jake Izzy (Reply #143)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:40 PM

146. These days that is possible. Traditionally

though sniper rifles were bolt actions usually with heavy barrels, more traditional bedded stocks (these days synthetic) and 5 round magazines.

Compared to assault weapons which are semi-auto versions of assault rifles...hi capacity mags, pistol grips, bayo lugs, flash supressors, muzzle brakes, often smaller calibers, etc.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:33 PM

144. Think it's hard to articulate "Assault Weapons"? It'll be mind-boggling to

attempt to write a compromise bill targeting "sniper rifles".

For now, no sense in going for it. Not until the semi-auto assault rifles are banned AND confiscated will it be worth any effort to try to go after 'sniper rifles'. Likely handguns should also be limited 1st.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:23 PM

154. Why do you give a fck if someone owns a rifle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #154)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:33 PM

181. Because, if they are mentally ill...

 

..or political/religious whackjobs, they might kill a lot of innocents.

Let me modify your post a little and see if you think any differently.

"Why do you give a fck if some bearded, wild-eyed jihadi Muslim owns a (sniper) rifle?"

Feel different now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #181)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:55 PM

206. no. not really. i don't respond to that kind of fear mongering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #181)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:15 PM

241. A person like that

can just as easily make a bomb as well, if a gun is not handy. A person like that can decide to run over a bunch of people with their vehicle, or go on a knife stabbing spree - so long as they know how to kill a person quickly with a knife instead of just stabbing aimlessly. Some whack job could decide one day that he's tired of his life and hates his job as a cook in a restaurant and poison everyone in the place - the list goes on. If a person wants to kill mass amounts of people, there are plenty of ways to go about doing that. We need better treatment for the mentally ill, without that they will always find a way to take people out no matter what you ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:14 AM

161. Why not just ban shooting living things with anything?

Unless in absolute defense, that is.

Yeah, that's uncomfortable isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #161)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 11:10 PM

167. Because that would be, well...really dumb.

 

Yeah, that's uncomfortable isn't it?

Not in the slightest, as it has no chance of coming to pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 10:53 PM

166. Never heard of a "sniper rifle." That's just a rifle, right?

Why do you want to ban it? It's not a mass killer, or is it the high mag count that can be used with it?

It won't be banned. Not a chance. There WAS a chance to ban high count mags, but that opportunity passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #166)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 11:26 PM

169. You've never heard of a "sniper" rifle? Really? Is that an NRA talking point?

 

What's next? Are you going to say that you never heard of "assault rifles"? That category of firearms has been in the news. Some on DU have repeatedly referred to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #169)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:40 PM

183. Are you an NRA nut?

Just thought I'd return the favor. Is that the way you respond to legitimate posts? By personal attack?

I have no interest in answering your questions or engaging in a discussion with someone like you.

I will remember the name....mcintosh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #183)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:50 PM

184. You say, "I will remember the name....mcintosh." Do you scare many people?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #166)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:49 PM

224. Many semi-automatic rifles are used as sniper rifles.

Like the AR-15, AR-10, and Mini-14 variants.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #224)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 08:56 AM

234. Yes, but the rifle in the original posting is a manually operated bolt action rifle

and bolt action rifles are inherently more accurate than any (semi)automatic ever has been or ever will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 11:34 PM

170. Sniper with sniper rifles , hunter with shotgun

 



Sniper rifles , Should this be for sale to anyone? These are not hunting rifles




These are hunters






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #170)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:44 AM

175. These are...

soldiers, with shotguns


hunters with rifles


and a sniper rifle

as the saying goes, you can't judge a book...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #170)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:36 AM

179. Clothes make the difference? Would you be in favor of banning certain types of clothes?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #179)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:27 PM

196. I still haven't heard a reason for owning a sniper rifle

 

That can kill a man from over a mile away. When I watched the video posted about
the Barrett shooting through steel I-beams it gave me chills knowing I or anybody
can walk in a gun store and buy a rifle that can shoot down a plane amile away with armour piercing bullets .

Can explain to me a reason why a person other than the military needs a sniper rifle like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #196)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 03:00 AM

207. When you become Secretary of Needs, your opinion will matter.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #196)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:46 AM

236. Two things that don't exist except in the mind, Superman and Sniper Rifles

Any rifle in the hands of a sniper is a sniper rifle, or more correctly its a sniper's rifle. The same rifle in another man's hands is called a hunting rifle. No, you can not kill a man from a mile away with a sniper's rifle - you can't hit him, at least not with any reliability what so ever. Anyone who tells you they can hit a man-sized target from a mile away with any kind of rifle is simply lieing to you. Oh, and there is no gun shop on the country where you can walk in and buy a gun that will shoot down a plane a mile away, that is just utter nonsense.

Now, as to the reason anyone would want a rifle like the one in the original post the answer is simple - ground hogs. Of course there are other answers too, coyotes, prairie dogs, crows, even rats at the local dump. Its called varmint shooting and lots of people do it, and lots of them own Remington Model 700 rifles fitted with bull barrels to do it with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #236)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 08:10 PM

248. This fellow had no trouble with using a unscoped rifle.

As a matter of fact he preferred it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:58 PM

185. We can't ban all guns at once

 

We have to start with semi-automatics like AR-15 and then after those are banned we can move onto sniper rifles, and then finally pistols. If we try to ban all guns at once it probably won't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sandy78 (Reply #185)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:12 PM

187. You are going to ultimately "ban all guns"? You better pack a lunch. It's going to be a while.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #187)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:17 PM

188. Once again...no one needs a gun

 

The majority of gun owners are a dying breed......white male Republicans. It may take a few more generations but soon all guns will be banned like the rest of the developed world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sandy78 (Reply #188)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:35 PM

191. Actually, millions of Democrats own firearms, including many on this board.

 

When a Gallup poll was taken, here was the response:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #191)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:14 PM

193. That is an poll from the year 2000

 

Reality is that Democrats have become more progressives and gun ownership is drastically shrinking from Democrats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sandy78 (Reply #193)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:43 PM

194. No. It's not. As clearly indicated by Gallup, it is a poll covering 2000 THROUGH 2005.

 

When Gallup conducts conducts a similiar poll, the results will be available at that time.

Since you are new at DU with only 13 posts at this time, you should look for previous polls on DU in which DUers were polled and repeatedly rejected the - we're-so-much-smarter-and-better-informed-than-the-Democrats-who-own-firearms crowd.

Here's one DU poll:
Do you support the confiscation of all currently legal firearms? 83% DUers answering the poll said no.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172119394

In another DU poll, the question was
Do you believe individual gun ownership prevents dictatorship, or could do so? 55% DUers answering the poll said yes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172102791

And in another DU poll where the question was asked
Where do you stand on banning guns?, 58% agreed that
"Things should stay basically as they are--semiauto handguns and rifles legal, no limits on ammo capacity, strict regulation of machine guns, short barrelled shotguns and the like."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=55387

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #194)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:23 PM

221. It's dead Jim...

 

Sandy78 that is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sandy78 (Reply #188)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:43 PM

197. Some of the sniper rifles posted in this thread are actually owned by regular citizens

 

I will admit I don't know as much about guns as some of the DU members
posting in this thread . After doing some research on sniper rifles it frightened me
to see all the sniper rifles people are allowed to legally purchase.

These riles were designed for one purpose only. To Kill
Some of these will take down a plane.






I'm new here also welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #197)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:59 PM

198. This thread was designed to elicit responses such as yours.


Our resident Gun Enthusiasts get a kick out of laughing at participants who don't have as much technical knowledge of firearms as they do. Which ought to give you a pretty clear picture of the type of people we're dealing with. Don't be intimidated; an intricate grasp of firearms terminology and functions is not necessary for formulating an opinion on this issue.

Helpful hint: don't encourage these individuals with the whole "take down a plane" thing. Invariably, we find that some of these folks have put WAY too much time and effort into determining just what sort of firepower is needed to bring down an airliner. Believe me, I've seen it happen on a number of occasions over the years, here at DU. Ugly, disturbing stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #198)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:13 PM

200. Thank you

 

If they want to laugh at me , I'm okay with that.

I know in my heart I'm on the right side of this issue even though I don't have as much detailed knowledge of firearms.


and thanks , I'll stay away from the plane thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #198)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:10 PM

205. Yep, this OP is

nothing but flame bait, and an attempt to play "I know more about gunz than you." What a bunch of maroons...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #198)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 03:12 AM

208. "(A)n intricate grasp of firearms terminology and functions is not necessary for formulating...

 

...an opinion on this issue." True.

However, it is necessary to have such a grasp to achieve anything politically in re
firearms- a fact you may wish to remember...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #208)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:29 AM

214. Why don't you remember this:


This is an on-line political talk site, it is not a Senate markup session. Firearms esoterica are used by Gun Enthusiasts almost exclusively to intimidate and ridicule---this rancid thread is a prime example.

And yet again for the record: I am a long-time gun owner, someone who is familiar with all the bells-and-whistles terminology. And I know for a fact that an intimate knowledge of the differences between a "magazine" and a "clip" is in no way a prerequisite for having skin in this game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #198)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:43 PM

222. Is the "take down a plane" argument not valid?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #222)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:54 PM

229. Like most sound bites...

it is and isn't.

A very good (by good I mean buy a lottery ticket lucky) shot will bring down a plane; it does not have to be a fifty.

In WW2 the typical US fighter carried 6-8 .50 cal machineguns firing 600-1200 rpm.

Airplanes can take a lot of damage in many areas and fly on. A bird hit in a vulnerable area can bring them down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #229)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:33 PM

245. See what I'm talking about, newmember? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #245)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:38 PM

246. A poster asked a question

I answered.

In my past the question of how to take down a plane and, more importantly, how to prevent it was more than just an academic consideration. I know quite a bit more but I think I sufficiently answered the poster's question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #222)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:21 PM

244. In the context used, it is not valid.

However, the .50 cal rifles are really good at disabling stationary planes by putting 1/2 inch holes in the landing gear or engines, which is how the army normally does the "plane" shots with a rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #244)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 06:17 AM

252. That's what I was thinking: The anti-material role of the rifle in question...

 

I found the phrasing of Paladin's statement odd. He seemed to be advising newmember not to make the argument not because in can be countered, but because someone has taken the time and made the effort to gather data with which to counter it. He then seems to suggest that introducing data to counter this specious argument is somehow ugly and disturbing.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #197)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 08:21 PM

249. So you are saying that a single shot

or five shot semi auto will take down a modern aircraft?

Look at what the aircraft of WW2 withstood with multiple hits.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newmember (Reply #197)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:01 PM

257. You say, "Some of these will take down a plane." See # 253 where the guy giving you advice

 

immiately below your post at #197 wrote:
"That having been said, I think that anyone who publicly speculates about what sort of gun is preferable for downing an airliner is probably somebody whose access to firearms should at least be monitored, and maybe even curtailed. Call me finicky...... "


Please also note that there are those routinely call those Democrats, and others who own firearms, "gun nuts."

I do not know whether you are inclined to do so. But if you are, you should also know that the person giving you advice often says that he is a gun owner.

If I may caution this: Things are not always as they seem. Some people just like to stir things up. If you are a liberal, you'll think for yourself. When particular posters act in inconsistent manners, you can note that and be aware that they are just trying to stir it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sandy78 (Reply #188)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 02:13 PM

217. Assault Rifles have to go first

It's just a matter of strategy. No guns is the goal long term, but you have to go after the assault rifles first.

Assault rifle owners will go apeshit at the thought of any gun being banned, and normal hunters will also be up in arms if they think their deer rifle will be banned. That's a huge group to piss off.

If you just go after assault rifles, many hunters won't care, so you only have the fringe nuts to contend with. Then, later on when we go after other rifles the assault rifle owners will be already be out of the game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #217)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 06:02 AM

251. To clarify, your goal is to prohibit the civilian ownership of firearms?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #251)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 08:25 AM

253. To clarify, that is most certainly not my goal.


To repeat a fact I have stated repeatedly throughout my years at DU: I am myself a long-time gun owner, and in no way, shape or form do I wish to prohibit all civilian ownership of firearms. I don't even view that as a remotely attainable goal. What I support is a rigorous system of controls on the sale and use of guns, so that gun violence in this country is significantly reduced. I believe that a significant reduction is a worthy goal; I do not harbor any illusions that all instances of firearms misuse can be prevented.

That having been said, I think that anyone who publicly speculates about what sort of gun is preferable for downing an airliner is probably somebody whose access to firearms should at least be monitored, and maybe even curtailed. Call me finicky......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #253)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:09 AM

255. This isn't about you. He was responding to #217, "No guns is the goal long term,"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #255)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:53 AM

256. Yeah, well: Sorry I fucked up this lovely thread of yours...... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #256)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:06 PM

258. This isn't about you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #258)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:13 PM

259. It's about YOU---and how bad this thread of yours makes you look. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #259)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:17 PM

260. Are you a gun owner? Are you one of those who thinks that gun owners are "gun nuts?" Are you a

 

gun nut?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #260)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:15 PM

264. As I mentioned up-thread, I am a long-time gun owner.


Long-time, as in continuously, for the last 50 years. I choose to no longer use the term "gun nut"; rather, I draw a distinction between gun OWNERS---including myself, and gun ACTIVISTS---the vast majority of whom are doctrinaire right wingers. And as far as I'm concerned, your origination of this unpleasant, agenda-driven thread makes you a gun activist, as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, you have a lot of company here at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #264)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:29 PM

265. If I was to refer to someone who is a "gun nut," and I don't, I would use the term to refer to

 

someone who displays a constant need to tell others that he is a gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #265)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:52 PM

266. I hope your gun safety practices are more developed than your insult skills.


There seem to be plenty of DU participants who claim to be loyal Democrats, but who follow the NRA line on firearms policy. I think it's worthwhile to state that there are gun owners who actually follow Democratic policy on firearms, rather than drinking the latest batch of Wayne LaPierre's Kool-Aid. If you have a problem with that, I'm glad to hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #266)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 04:46 PM

268. Back to the "NRA" bullshit?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #253)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 06:38 PM

271. If that is not your goal, then why state "No guns is the goal long term"...

 

No guns for who? Whose goal is it if not yours?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #251)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 05:19 PM

269. Absolutely.

It's a very long term goal, generational even.

The most egregious have to go first, but someday no one will need machines designed to kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:24 PM

225. That's a hunting rifle

 

What's the big deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:49 AM

237. because you can actually use that for hunting?

How many sniper mass shootings have we had in the last fifty years?

Three?

And what's going to count as a sniper rifle, anything with a scope instead of iron sites?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:53 AM

239. how about crossbows, regular bows, spears, and sharpened sticks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:20 PM

261. ....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed May 8, 2013, 07:43 AM

272. This type of rifle is identical to the typical hunting rifle

The stock may be different, but it is really the intended target that makes the difference - as it is with all guns.

I suppose you want to ban hunting rifles and handguns too, just not all at the same time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Reply #272)

Wed May 8, 2013, 07:59 AM

273. Catch a clue. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Reply #272)

Wed May 8, 2013, 11:52 AM

274. No, ban them all at the same time if they have scary adjectives. "Assault" rifles. "Sniper" rifles.

 

"Automatic" pistols.

And add "cop-killer" bullets to the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #274)

Wed May 8, 2013, 04:55 PM

275. Assault is a verb, not an adjective.

Any gun can be used for assault, as can any other weapon at hand. What makes a weapon useful for assault also allows an 80 year old grandmother to fend of a 20 year old rapist with ease - a double edged sword if you will.

"Military style" weapon is either a silly term or a very clever one - all gun types were or are used by the military - they all have triggers and bullets come out of the front.

Talk of banning guns just makes people buy more of them.

Even if you could ban guns, even these guys can make guns that they can use to take more sophisticated arms from those who retain the power to have them:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/african-village-vs-rape-cult/all/1


[img][/img]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Reply #275)

Wed May 8, 2013, 06:40 PM

276. No. It depends upon the context. In one context (i.e., "assault" weapon), it is an adjective.

 

In another context, it is a noun.

In a third context, it is a verb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread