Why aren't anti-2As more afraid of long-range "precision" rifles??


PDA






The_Next_Generation
December 30, 2011, 12:33 PM
Hey guys, this has been bothering me for a little bit so I thought I would share..

Why aren't anti-gun folk more afraid of "sniper" rifles? It seems that it would be all too easy to convince the sheople that any rifle capable of making precise hits at extended ranges should not be legal and is for "military use" only. "Because 'sniper rifles' kill people."

I would assume this would include popular bolt-action specimens as well as those scary "assault weapon" variants like the AR-10/LR-308 models. And who could forget the M82/M107 :what:

I know states like California have already banned .50BMGs and others are well on their way. But one would think that other, more precise weapons, would be on the list as well.

Maybe because long-range shots require patience, skill, and brains? Neither of which are of easy access to a criminal ;)

What do you all think?

- The Next Generation

If you enjoyed reading about "Why aren't anti-2As more afraid of long-range "precision" rifles??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
the_hustleman
December 30, 2011, 12:39 PM
Maybe because long-range shots require patience, skill, and brains? Neither of which are of easy access to a criminal ;)



says who?

Look at bernie madoff, he took people for BILLIONS, was investigated by the feds, and they couldn't even topple his criminal empire. His children ran it with him and he STILL made it.

His operations didn't fall until he told his son, and his son told on him.

I bet he's in PRISON now wishing he never told his son a darn thing!


He has plenty of patience, skills, and brains!

As do all the other criminals that don't get caught.

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

jtscuba02
December 30, 2011, 12:54 PM
They're on the list. Just not at the top. Kinda like a long range target.;)

Skribs
December 30, 2011, 12:55 PM
I'm guessing it's because they congregate around whatever new story they can, and 90% of those involve handguns. I have a coworker that saw the POF rifle in "hunting/sniper" configuration (refers to the rail, but she just saw "sniper") and said "so anyone with $2500 can get a sniper rifle?" Of course, the "tactical" version (which has a longer rail) would be just as good as a sniper rifle, but you know how much antis know...

Prince Yamato
December 30, 2011, 01:01 PM
I think many people assume that the more expensive and tactical looking then gun, the more of the work "it does for you".

That said, "sniper rifles" are low priority, but that doesn't mean they aren't on the list. California bans "sniper scopes" and NYC bans lasers on guns.

JohnBT
December 30, 2011, 01:02 PM
"Look at bernie madoff"

I wasn't aware he used a gun.

Skribs
December 30, 2011, 01:03 PM
Prince, there are "tactical" and "sniper" variants of POF rifles, in which everything (including the price) is the same, but the tactical has full-length rails and the sniper has quarter-rails. However, she looked at "sniper" and thought it was a "sniper rifle". I don't think she would have thought that about "tactical" (but she would have made a comment about how I don't need an assault rifle).

SimplyChad
December 30, 2011, 01:23 PM
They havent had a close call from one......
yet

Romeo 33 Delta
December 30, 2011, 02:06 PM
I don't think the "media" consider Precision Rifles to be as scary as "ASSAULT RIFLES WITH HIGH CAPACITY BULLET CLIPS". For my part, that makes me more than a little happy. I would rather take one, precise shot and eliminate my target as a threat than to empty a 30 round magazine and likely hit nothing. I hope they never tumble to how important precision shooting really is!

Shadow 7D
December 30, 2011, 02:12 PM
it's a semantics thing
"sniper"
is too easy to destroy them on
after all, how many 70's and 700's are there out there in a 'sniper caliber' (like you hunt deer with)

Way too easy for the NRA to hold up a 1903 or M1D and say 'this is a sniper rifle'
and then show the list of what the anti's want to ban and say
'this is a HUNTING rifle'

unfortunately even they are smart enough to avoid this topic right now
they use words like 'high power rifle' or whatever Kali used to ban Barrets.

youngda9
December 30, 2011, 02:30 PM
Simple...because they are rarely used in crimes. Pistols used just a bit more.

Skribs
December 30, 2011, 02:34 PM
I just wondered...who would hold up a convenience store with a Barrett?

ShawnC
December 30, 2011, 03:10 PM
I think since the one "legitimate" use of weapons they barely recognize is hunting, and a lot of "sniper" rifles are hunting rifles. At the moment it's just not politically expedient for them to go there. Eventually, though, they will get around to it.

essayons21
December 30, 2011, 03:20 PM
There hasn't been a high profile spree shooting or murder with them. The anti's MO is to dance in the blood of victims while crying for more control on whatever weapon or accessory was particular to that shooting. Usually its "assault" rifles, after the Tucson shooting it was 30-rd Glock magazines, etc.

Even the DC so-called "snipers" used IIRC a M4gery Bushmaster with an Eotech. Not exactly what most people would identify as a "sniper" rifle.

Secondarily, its pretty tough to ban rifles which are nearly identical to some of the most popular hunting rifles in the country.

EDIT: Fixed gun that the DC idiots used.

mgmorden
December 30, 2011, 03:26 PM
They like to practice "divide and conquer". When you consider that such long range rifles are generally prime choices for hunting rifles, it's hard to divide the community and target them.

You'd be surprised how many gun owners have an active disdain for certain classes of guns. There are a lot of them that don't like handguns for example, or scary black "army" guns.

Skribs
December 30, 2011, 03:36 PM
Even the DC so-called "snipers" used IIRC a M4gery Bushmaster with an Eotech. Not exactly what most people would identify as a "sniper" rifle.

Stolen from the range that I use now.

Mgmordon, I understand. I personally had a dislike for revolvers up until recently, and I despise .22 LR.

Cokeman
December 30, 2011, 05:37 PM
Because the don't look scary. They look like hunting rifles.

The_Next_Generation
December 30, 2011, 07:00 PM
Not all "sniper" rifles look like hunting rifles. The Barrett and Cheytac rifles, along with some of those 'custom' builds can look pretty menacing :barf:

But I do agree, many of the "sniper" rifles are very good hunting tools, which would make them nearly impossible to ban.

One day in class, one of my classmates said, "Semi-automatics aren't for hunting, only assault weapons are semi-automatic". Good thing I was able to explain what an assault weapon really is, and that my 1957 Remington 740 is also semi-automatic. Then of course my buddy brought up the Knights SR25 along with the AR10/LR-308. Things got interesting :D

I just know that I would be much more afraid of an assailant 800+ yards out with a capable rifle, than if he was in a shopping mall spraying a an AK variant around.

BobOfTheFuture
December 30, 2011, 07:10 PM
I think it has to do with most "sniper" rifles were in hunting calibers during the Antis heyday, the mid-90's.

Im sure like the .50, the Laupua and cheytac chambered guns would have been made illegal if they had that chance. Now, if they bring up the legislation, they will just hurt their cause even farther, or maybe even bring Mr. Guera down on them.

Edit- What is funny, is they know they need 'hunters' to win votes. They must HATE that the AR type rifle is becoming the new norm for hunting rifles.

ms6852
December 30, 2011, 07:17 PM
You are wrong to beleive that criminals are not intelligent. Some of the more noted serial killers had higher than average I.Q.'s. They are cold, calculating and possess the patience of a snake and strike only when they can get away with it. Now back to the precision rifles.

By todays standards most out of the box hunting rifles are just as accurate if not more than the precision rifles or sniper rifles used during the WW1 and WW2, korean war, and Vietnam. The media and the ignorant are mostly interested in rifles that are of high capacity categories, such as AR platforms, and AK platforms that can hold a large number of rounds before reloading. Most criminal elements are usually gang related and gangs with the most firepower rule. I believe most gang member would have one of the platforms mentioned vs a bolt action hunting rifle that holds 4 rounds in the magazine. That is why they attack the "ASSAULT RIFLE", OR "BLACKRIFLE".

SharpsDressedMan
December 30, 2011, 07:21 PM
Shhhhhhh! No need to get them started on something new.............

jerkface11
December 30, 2011, 07:54 PM
There hasn't been a high profile spree shooting or murder with them

JFK and MLK Jr. come to mind...

ShawnC
December 30, 2011, 08:11 PM
JFK and MLK Jr. come to mind...
And the clock tower guy in Texas... But when they happened the antis were far fewer and less organized. Were similar incidents to happen today you can be sure that hunters would be the new terrorists.

gbran
December 30, 2011, 08:12 PM
Not many 338 Lapua drive-by's.

627PCFan
December 30, 2011, 08:29 PM
The antis fear random gunfire more than the pink mist.

BobTheTomato
December 30, 2011, 08:55 PM
This would be seen as going after hunting rifles. They need to ban the evil black rifles, then handguns, then hunting rifles.

hammerklavier
December 30, 2011, 09:18 PM
Evil sniper rifles have been getting a lot of play on cop shows in recent years. Make of that what you will.

I have also noticed more ex-soldiers as the suspect or criminal. Was a time when that wouldn't fly. Now they are "trained to kill" and suffering from PTSD.

firesky101
December 30, 2011, 09:25 PM
Sorry i am a little late to the party. As a cali resident what scopes am i not allowed to buy. All i have right now is my tab that sucks or i would quote the comment from the first page.

Deus Machina
December 30, 2011, 09:27 PM
IMO, it's because it would bring more attention to it.

Anti: We need to ban rifles with scopes, that fire these cartridges!
Fence Sitter: Wait, isn't that every hunting rifle?

And then people start noticing the antis' idiocy for what it is, because they drew attention to it. More than they usually do.

Bovice
December 30, 2011, 09:28 PM
Haven't you heard? Handguns are the most dangerous things to have ever existed on this earth.

Justin
December 30, 2011, 10:30 PM
Various anti-gun activists have railed against so-called "sniper rifles." The problem is, that right now, they can't even muster enough power to get anyone to care about banning standard-capacity magazines and evil black rifles, let alone precision bolt guns.

blue_ridge
December 30, 2011, 11:34 PM
Because anti's operate in total ignorance of guns, the Constitution and the principals this country was founded on.

Black Butte
December 30, 2011, 11:53 PM
My guess would be that from an anti-gun perspective, it's easier to argue that a semi-automatic is not needed for hunting. The antis probably focus their efforts where they feel they have the best chance to make gains.

The_Next_Generation
December 31, 2011, 12:39 AM
firesky101: I am not aware of any restrictions within the U.S. pertaining to optics, although I think they may be restricted beyond our borders as I have seen posted many times on various websites, "No international orders on (x y z) optics".

From riflescopes.com:

"Certain products such as rifle scopes, optical sighting devices (red dot, holographic sights, and reflex) and laser sights destined for certain countries may require an export license from the United States Department of Defense or Commerce (USDOC)"

From actionconcepts.com:

"Scopes are shipped to US locations only. No International orders or shipments."

From opticsplanet.com:

"For international orders, check local rules and regulations about all custom/brokerage fees, duties, taxes and restrictions imposed on goods imported into the country of destination."

Maybe someone with more knowledge/experience can chime in?

- TNG

firesky101
December 31, 2011, 01:40 AM
Thanks tng i was confused by prince yamatos comment. I tried searching, but found no optics restrictions.

Strange Bob
December 31, 2011, 02:24 AM
incrementalism (chipping away with rules and regs and banning certain segments) and the "divide and conquer" (pitting one group against another ... ie: the Jim Zumbo screw-up a few years back) are going to be the MO of the antis. Watch out if the present occupant of the WH gets another 4 years an a lame duck.

Mp7
December 31, 2011, 02:29 AM
i guess itīs about use in streetcrime and amok-runs.
Thatīs what scares the public - and where hi ammo capability does make a difference
bodybag-wise.

Bobson
December 31, 2011, 02:36 AM
California bans "sniper scopes" and NYC bans lasers on guns.
What makes one scope a "sniper scope" while another is a "hunting scope" or "target scope?"

That isn't sarcasm, I'm genuinely curious.

Shadow 7D
December 31, 2011, 04:28 AM
So, certain scopes, using certain types of technology, that is CONTROLLED by the DOD, or is regulated under UN anti-proliferation treaties are export restricted, you can export it, but you have to get the OK first, or go to jail....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

Deus Machina
December 31, 2011, 06:03 AM
Oh, as mentioned, the more 'logical' antis want to ban only (according to them) what is actually a 'problem'.

It's tough to hide a Remington 700 in your pants leg, and by the time someone gets that Mauser swung around in the back seat, they have just committed a 'drove by' shooting.

So they start with handguns (used in many shootings in actuality) and scary black rifles (used in many shootings in action movies).

olafhardtB
December 31, 2011, 06:54 AM
maybe sniping is just too dull for modern media. I have a hard time imagining prarie dog hunting as a spectator sport. Somehow the image of a hottie carrying arround a big rifle with a scope doesn't make it with me.

Pilot
December 31, 2011, 11:47 AM
I remember a few years back when the Brady Campaign or some such organization wanted to ban "sniper" rifles, and they were defining them as anything with a scope. It went nowhere, but it can, and probably will surface again.

gym
December 31, 2011, 12:18 PM
They don't "see" rifles on the news or on tv, as much as pistols. Since most stick ups and store robberies are usually commited with a handgun, that's where the focus is.
I would bet that the majority of non shooters couldn't tell you 3 calibers of rifle rounds. More than likelly not 1. Maybe a 22. They don't consider them a threat because the news never concentrates on them, other than the rare "sniper" story. It's all about the media's ability to say the word "automatic, Glock, and 9mm", if they said 556, or 338 lapua, no one would know what they were talking about.

mljdeckard
December 31, 2011, 12:46 PM
Make no mistake. ALL guns are on the ban list. They just put the styles of guns which are more popular for hunting at the bottom to falsely assure hunters that if they let scarier-looking guns go, their hunting guns will be safe.

About ten years ago, 60 Minutes did a big expose on .50 rifles and how scary and available they are, and how it is shocking it is that such guns are available to the general public. The original version of the GCA of 1968 included scoped rifles, if I recall correctly. Or there were legislators trying to include them.

awgrizzly
December 31, 2011, 02:41 PM
Why do you suppose stuff like bayonet lugs were included in the ban? Because they can... because they look nasty, especially if they are machine guns (realizing that the prefix semi means nothing).

The anti 2A devotees as a whole know absolutely nothing about guns but rely on cosmetics and myth. The movers and shakers who wantonly drive gun paranoia use a calculated strategy, one that promotes the most sustainable argument first.

Have you ever noticed how the downtrodden and children are used in these progressive schemes? Goodness, fairness, empathy, motherhood and apple pie serve well to promote that which cannot otherwise be justified. It's easy to ban what appears or can be portrayed as unconventional and ugly, which sets a precedent making it easier to ban the familiar, comely and conventional later. Example: Single out the radical sociopath conservatives first and then use them to indict the others (ie: clinging to guns and religion).

Whenever you see this strategy used you can safely assume a hidden agenda lurks beneath the slime. It's a Saul Alinsky thing.

benEzra
December 31, 2011, 03:21 PM
Simple...because they are rarely used in crimes.
That's true of all rifles, not just precision rifles. All rifles combined accounted for only about 2.6% of homicides last year, IIRC. This includes so-called "assault weapons."

The ban lobby wants to outlaw precision rifles too, and the VPC (creator of the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch) has been pushing for bans on "sniper rifles" and has published a number of position papers on the topic. But I think their strategy was to go after "assault weapons" first, considering them an easier target. Thankfully, they failed.

Zoogster
December 31, 2011, 03:23 PM
youngda9 said: Simple...because they are rarely used in crimes. Pistols used just a bit more.

MP7 said i guess itīs about use in streetcrime and amok-runs.
Thatīs what scares the public - and where hi ammo capability does make a difference
bodybag-wise.

That is not the reason. "Assault Weapons" as defined by most antis at the time in the early 90s (it now defines many additional types and more features in states with the term on the books) were rarely used in crime when the Federal AWB was put in place.
The numbers have been done before as the FBI keeps records on homicides by weapon type.

A quick search brings up this page:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

You have to like the cite from the Washington Post:

No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.

The antigun Post acknowledges they play a role in only a small percentage of crimes and so the legislation itself does little, but hope it will help lead to more anti-gun laws aka Gun-Control.


In the 80s and early 90s the bad guys in most action movies had full auto Uzis, Macs, Tec9s, and various full auto assault rifles.
Submachines and assault rifles were the choice of action movie bad guys.
This gave a false perception that criminals, gang members, and organized crime commonly used such weapons to people that get their perception of reality from media.
Since a lot of society sit in front of a TV for their hours of recreation, especially before the internet existed, this meant a lot of society was shaped by the perceptions of the media.
Hollywood was fascinated by those guns long before the population was, in fact you could argue that Hollywood played a large role in them becoming popular after bombarding society with their use constantly.
Yet in real life full-auto was almost never seen, and semi-auto long guns were rarely involved. Most homicides involved a cheap revolver.
But handguns were popular with society, and so hard to ban (they did try certain strategies though) while 'assault weapons' as then defined were not popular yet and so had less resistance when targeted.



Whether a type of firearm is actually involved in crime has little to do with why or if they are banned.
If they are it becomes a convenient excuse, but if they are not they can still be targeted.


Antis know they cannot simply ask for a blanket ban, and must rely on divide and conquer.
"Sniper" rifles are something they come back to later, after more immediate concerns are outlawed. In fact that type of firearm is generally covered by more general firearm restrictions such as increasingly difficult to acquire licenses and processes that pushes firearm ownership to lower and lower levels after more immediate concerns have been banned.


Ideally 'assault weapon' would have expanded to cover a wider and wider number of guns. Antis even highlighting gun owners who are citing they are no different than many other semi-auto firearms, as proof that they need to go for semi-autos in general down the road.
As was done in Australia and England, who we share a similar legal system with.
Once the type legally owned is narrowed down, ownership shrinks, and going on the attack becomes easier broad general gun legislation that targets all guns can be passed.
From legislation that makes it a lot harder to become a gun owner in general, to legislation that sets greater restriction on centerfire rifles, and various calibers. Both seen elsewhere.
It takes a lot of divide and conquer to get there.

Robert
December 31, 2011, 03:27 PM
Because "Gun Control" has little to nothing to actually do with guns. It is all about preception and they do not see a horrible "assualt weapon" when they look at a bolt action rifle.

If axes were the common carry weapon then we'd have ax control. It is less about the weapon in question and much, much more about the control.

Zoogster
December 31, 2011, 03:32 PM
firesky101 said: Sorry i am a little late to the party. As a cali resident what scopes am i not allowed to buy.

California law defines a 'sniper scope' as one that allows the user to see infared light.
All black and white cameras can see infared light, as well as color ones with the infrared filter removed.
This means a black and white camera set up on your firearm is an illegal 'sniperscope'.
As is any commercially manufactured scope that sees infrared light.


This use of such a scope is to allow one to see things illuminated by otherwise invisible infrared light at night, as well as to use infrared lasers that work just like a laser sight but cannot be seen with the naked eye.
It is a scope that lets someone see using light that cannot be seen with the naked eye.

Take any black and white camera and use your typical remote control next to it and it can see the otherwise invisible light quite brightly for an example.

California penal code 468:

Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes of, conceals, or has in his possession a sniperscope shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. As used in this section, sniperscope means any attachment, device or similar contrivance designed for or adaptable to use on a firearm which, through the use of a projected infrared light source and electronic telescope, enables the operator thereof to visually determine and locate the presence of objects during the nighttime. This section shall not prohibit the authorized use or possession of such sniperscope by a member of the armed forces of the United States or by police officers, peace officers, or law enforcement officers authorized by the properly constituted authorities for the enforcement of law or ordinances; nor shall this section prohibit the use or possession of such sniperscope when used solely for scientific research or educational purposes.


SO the law has nothing to do with long range scopes, but rather those that allow one to see infrared light sources and project infrared light.
The cheapest night vision systems work solely on this.
While many less expensive night vision scopes or image intensifiers that can work without additional infrared light use some to boost the performance. Using infrared light to boost the visible light and give a clearer picture than an inexpensive image intensifier would alone.
The difference in price between ones that benefit greatly from IR light and those that don't need it for a clear crisp picture can be thousands of dollars.

Carl N. Brown
December 31, 2011, 04:58 PM
I thought Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center was spouting off every other week about "sniper rifles".

Maybe he has a point. Winchester Model 70 with Weaver K4 riflescope: sniper system of choice of Fidel Castro, obviously a gun only a Commie revolutionary could love. AND THEY ARE STILL LEGAL IN THE US THANKS TO THE GUN LOBBY. (That was sarcasm.)

sgtstryker
January 1, 2012, 01:58 PM
Don't forget, the guy in Shooter, shot the bad guys with a .22 lr bolt gun, standing in a boat, with a liter coke bottle for a suppressor. And he made one shot kills, so, it can happen? Right? The Anti's think like this..

KenW.
January 1, 2012, 02:15 PM
Places have outlawed guns because of bayonet lugs (and other things in a made up defition) as though there's been a problem with drive-by bayonetings.

The_Next_Generation
January 1, 2012, 03:01 PM
Don't forget, the guy in Shooter, shot the bad guys with a .22 lr bolt gun, standing in a boat, with a liter coke bottle for a suppressor. And he made one shot kills, so, it can happen? Right? The Anti's think like this..

I'm not saying I've tried this, but I did see a guy where I was shooting use a water bottle as a sound moderator. It was surprising how far those little .22lr bullets managed to penetrate phonebooks, pieces of wood, and other junk. Even after punching through the bottle :what:

I guess curiosity hasn't killed THAT cat...yet.

- TNG

happygeek
January 1, 2012, 03:03 PM
Three pages in and no one has posted a link to this yet? http://www.vpc.org/graphics/snipcov2.pdf

It's the only "study" I've seen from either the Brady's, CSGV, or the VPC on "sniper rifles", although it's entirely possible I just haven't dug enough. It's easy to find this stuff on vpc.org as it seems they never take anything down. You'll notice they published it in May 1999, during the Federal AWB, and that they wanted to ban a whole lot more than just 50 BMG caliber rifles.

The funny part is at the end (around page 33) where they list some "sniper rifles" by name. Some of the named models are also "assault weapons" according to them, even though at the bottom of page 4 of the same study we find this:


Such emphasis on accuracy makes the sniper rifle the exact opposite of
another military weapon which has come into increasing civilian circulation, the
semiautomatic assault weapon.

Tiberius67
January 1, 2012, 04:30 PM
Why aren't anti-gun folk more afraid of "sniper" rifles? It seems that it would be all too easy to convince the sheople that any rifle capable of making precise hits at extended ranges should not be legal and is for "military use" only. "Because 'sniper rifles' kill people."

I would assume this would include popular bolt-action specimens as well as those scary "assault weapon" variants like the AR-10/LR-308 models. And who could forget the M82/M107

I know states like California have already banned .50BMGs and others are well on their way. But one would think that other, more precise weapons, would be on the list as well.

But they are.....the time just isn't right yet. If you look at the VPC 'report', aka propaganda, you see that they want to ban the Remington 700 and Savage 110, both very popular hunting rifles. The M-1 Garand, which they met too much resistance to banning as an "assault weapon", was to become a sinister 'sniper rifle' and banned that way.

They haven't pushed real hard yet because they need allies in the gun community to make thier policies sound 'reasonable'...and so far the closest to that they have found is in the hunting community, aka 'Fudds'. Many people in this community don't like 'black rifles', and think they are ugly and serve no good purpose. One popular writer who got himself into hot water for saying in print what many in that group think is Jim Zumbo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Zumbo). The antis are courting people of this mindset...even to the extent of trying to set up thier own "pro gun" organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association) targeted towards them...to create the false impression most gun owners actually support the anti-gun agenda.

If the anti's had thier way, a Remington 700 would be a NFA weapon, but many otherwise decent people don't understand that...which is just the way anti's want it until it is too late for them to fight back. What's ironic though is that, as others on this thread have noted, the AR-15 is now gaining acceptance in the hunting community. Cerebus's move to market a AR-15 under the Remington brand name, not to mention Ruger (in a stark turnaround from Bill Ruger's self-serving support of anti-gunners) and S&W fielding thier own, is a serious blow to the anti's divide and conquer campaign.

Patriotme
January 1, 2012, 05:57 PM
As an earlier poster wrote, "They're on the list."

The thing is that most anti gunners realize that they cannot simply ban all guns at one time. They have to work to ban each catagory of firearm while claiming to simply support "Common Sense" gun control.
So what do they do? They go after firearms that look extra scary to the uninformed and the guns that many other gun owners don't care about. That's how we got an "Assault Weapon" ban in the 1990's.
Most scoped rifles look a lot like your Dad's (or your own) deer rifle and working towards a ban on these rifles kind of looks like the anti gunners might just be lying about supporting hunting and sporting firearms. Of course if the "Sniper Rifle" is all tricked out then they may be able to try the "Assault Weapon" hysteria on it if the gun is black enough and covered in picatinny rails.

DavidMS
January 1, 2012, 11:18 PM
I believe that proponents of gun control (at least not political/economic elites) honestly want to ban specific/all guns to symbolically because the symbols that make them uncomfortable are no longer present make themselves feel safer. Since they are unwilling to treat drug addiction as a public health issue the next best thing is to symbolical reassure themselves that because criminals (and for that matter everyone else does not have guns and soon thereafter chopsticks) people won't harm each other. If only it was true.

crazy-mp
January 2, 2012, 08:31 AM
I just wondered...who would hold up a convenience store with a Barrett?

Well that's one way to strike fear in the heart of the guy behind the bullet proof glass.

ApacheCoTodd
January 2, 2012, 08:44 AM
Of course, they in fact are concerned about them but in their clever use of turning factions within the gun owning community against one another, it's currently in their best interest to use as many of the "hunters" as possible against assault rifle and handgun owners. Later, the hunters will be swept up in the sniper/precision/long range effort.

Ky Larry
January 2, 2012, 08:51 AM
Could it be because they don't have "the shoulder thing that goes up?":rolleyes:

alsaqr
January 2, 2012, 09:04 AM
Why aren't anti-gun folk more afraid of "sniper" rifles? It seems that it would be all too easy to convince the sheople that any rifle capable of making precise hits at extended ranges should not be legal and is for "military use" only. "Because 'sniper rifles' kill people."

Short answer: The antis would like to outlaw your scoped Winchester model 94 rifle.

http://nrpc.net/article.php?story=20070219170835600

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.....

PowerG
January 2, 2012, 10:01 AM
They want to ban ALL guns, don't misunderstand their intentions.

heavydluxe
January 2, 2012, 10:24 AM
PowerG is absolutely right.

I think they are, for the moment, largely ignoring long, precision rifles because (as an earlier poster noted) handguns provide more bad press for them to feed on and because they have managed to create an intimidating category called 'assault weapons' that has registers an instant, negative reaction in the non-firearms community.

For a little while, I occasionally have listened to Tom Gresham's radio show online. I greatly appreciate his counsel that we need to try to redeem the term 'assault weapon' or, perhaps more appropriately, come up with a new, more accurate name for these weapons that will allow us to fight on more level ground in the PR battle.

wally
January 2, 2012, 11:56 AM
I'd wager its the very last item on their agenda just before a total ban on firearms ownership for the simple reason that every "deer rifle" is a sniper rifle and this would finally wake up the Fudd's about what "reasonable gun control" is all about.

leadcounsel
January 2, 2012, 12:17 PM
Simple - the Antis use a "divide and conquer" and incremental incroachment technique.

Think of the support group for
1) machine guns and SBRs. Very small. that went down without a fight because it was "their guns, not our hunting rifles."
2) then it was assault weapons with evil features, and high capacity magazines. at the time, not a huge support group for it and it was "their guns, not our hunting rifles."

Thankfully the AWB sunset without renew. Now pro-2A have woken up and united against it because we caught on.

Had the anti-s attacked scoped rifles from the start they would have not gained any ground.

Deanimator
January 2, 2012, 12:35 PM
Why aren't anti-2As more afraid of long-range "precision" rifles??
Who says they AREN'T???

I've personally seen them complain about rifles that are "too accurate".

They want only themselves and their lackeys to have guns. The kind of gun is immaterial.

atblis
January 2, 2012, 12:43 PM
I think what they fear most is "poor" people having guns. Thus affordable guns are what they go after. They'd never articulate that they really do mean to deprive poor people of firearms. There used to be a strong racial component to this as well (there still is actually). Precision rifles are not particularly cheap. Yes I know what a Dicks/Walmart varmint rifle can do, but it has more to do with what the antis believe.

Guy B. Meredith
January 2, 2012, 12:56 PM
Best not to give the "progressive" law makers any ideas.

As a slight aside, with all the attention on micro stamping and ammo registration is certain places I wonder how long it will be before my revolvers are banned and I am forced to buy only semis. Revolvers don't leave brass around while semis ensure evidence will be left at crime scenes, you know.

It appears that when the courts look at 2A the term "in common use" keeps coming up so we need to get to work buying up enough EBRs and "precision sniper rifles" to ensure they meet that standard. I'm willing to do my part.

Re "Have you ever noticed how the downtrodden and children are used in these progressive schemes?" Yeah, but there is an inconsistency there. In protecting the downtrodden shouldn't they be supporting the use of "Saturday nigh specials"?

Zoogster
January 2, 2012, 02:41 PM
atblis: I think what they fear most is "poor" people having guns. Thus affordable guns are what they go after.

Sometimes, but that is just one segment they target.

Antis have tried to set an arbitrary minimum price on handguns to reduce the lower income segment of society from being able to afford them. "Saturday Night Specials" "junk handguns", minimum melting points for the frame (which are higher than any polymer frame can withstand), prohibiting certain materials that allow inexpensive production etc Disguising a lot of it as some sort of safety legislation. But many guns that fell into those definitions worked fine or were reliable. They certainly were not of the quality of more expensive firearms when made to meet a low price point. There were some that did jam, or were unreliable, but they didn't blow up on people and either functioned safely or didn't function.
The legislation was designed to disarm the low income while allowing the middle class to keep their firearms (low income neighborhoods are where most violent crime is, but also where you are most likely to need to defend yourself.) Resulting in fewer firearms available for good or bad in low income neighborhoods, benefiting the middle and upper class, while only hurting the law abiding low income person that cannot afford protection and must challenge violent gangs and thugs at a greater disadvantage.


It was yet another effective divide and conquer strategy, we only want their guns, not the ones you like.


.50 BMGs were banned in California for the opposite segment of the community, but working on the same underlying strategy.
They were expensive rare rifles, using ammunition costing several dollars per round. Few people owned them or could afford to shoot them. This meant those who possessed them were a small minority, often wealthier than your average gun owner, and easily split from the rest of gun owners.
Once again, "we only want to outlaw those people's guns, not the ones you like."
Knowing those not effected directly are less motivated to help protect guns that they themselves do not own or plan to own, leaving the minority to fend for themselves ineffectively.

Divide and conquer is the basis behind most gun control, until you get to a point that the community has been weakened enough that you can pass 'comprehensive' widespread blanket gun control that targets everyone. And implement the type of legislation seen in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and similar easily researched English speaking nations further along in the process which had legal firearm ownership with a law system similar to ours prior.
At which point tiered systems of ownership, with increasingly difficult and ungranted permits are required. Centerfire rifles, or 'sniper rifles' are not at the bottom of the tier in most of those systems.
Once you get to that point fewer and fewer gun owners jump through the hoops for various tiers, when it is even possible, and it becomes easier and easier to pass more and more broadly encompassing anti-gun laws because gun ownership and firearm experience per capita is lower and lower.

Ryanxia
January 2, 2012, 03:05 PM
Plus handguns are easier to hide/conceal and that makes them even more scary :)

Strykervet
January 2, 2012, 03:15 PM
Oh, this question is easy! Their fear is based on ignorance, and long range shooters are a little more rare, especially on television where their fears are usually carrying AK's or "some other machinegun". In a way, most criminals can't shoot, so their fears may be correctly placed --the only real long range murderer I can recall was that moron in DC. They are indeed rare.

And usually, since they get their education from Hollywood directors about functions of society, the long range shooter is portrayed as the HERO, not the villain.

Simple solutions for simple minds!

Zoogster
January 2, 2012, 03:52 PM
Ryanxia said: Plus handguns are easier to hide/conceal and that makes them even more scary

On the contrary, one must be careful in being honest about motivations of the gun grabbers.
Handguns are involved in most crime and murders, and are the least feared by government because they can readily deploy forces with body armor and rifles to crush citizens armed with handguns.

Handguns are simply the most convenient group of firearms, the most likely to be used in criminal offense, or lawful self-defense. The most likely to be outside of the home because they can be concealed. And even the most likely to be involved in the home because someone can investigate with them without startling people.
They are also easier to store or transport in a convenient accessible manner because of their smaller dimensions.

But government fears handguns the least. While rifle restrictions are often about power, handguns restrictions are the least about fearing the citizen.
They know they can always deploy forces that can defeat any person or group armed with handguns at a moment's notice.
In many nations of the world handguns are permitted where rifles are not for this very reason.
Brazil has some of the most blatant examples of such law, but they are behind the legislation in many nations.
This means handgun restrictions have a higher percentage of anti-gun supporters with more noble ideals than you see with some of the other bans.
Handgun restrictions are actually about trying to reduce crime, not power grabs more often (though they can also be about reducing self reliance and related mentalities, and increasing reliance on the professionals and government.)
The powerful elite are much more concerned with rifles, and things that might cause some trouble in the hands of the free people, not little pistols. (Though they can support gun-control in general and as a result support handgun restrictions, handguns are a much lower concern.)
Which is why in places like Brazil caliber limitations are not about stopping crime, but protecting heavily armored police and military forces from any threat the serfs might pose.
So you are free to own impotent calibers that all body armor will defeat, but can still kill other regular peasants. Just nothing that might threaten those in power or the forces they deploy.

Similarly places like Australia while not as blatant as Brazil in the legislation, will allow civilians to own semi-auto pistols fairly readily, but semi-auto rifles, and many centerfire rifles, are really difficult. Even though more crime is committed with pistols, more people are murdered with pistols, criminals prefer and try to acquire pistols more than long guns, and pistols have been used in just as many mass murders.
Pistols pose a much greater risk to other citizens in Australia, yet are less restricted than modern centerfire rifles, because its more about control than reduction of harm to other citizens.
They may pose more risk to other peasants, but no risk to the power structure.
Its about control, and peasants with pistols are still easily controlled compared to citizens with rifles. A mob armed with pistols won't rise up and pose much risk, you just deploy some paramilitary forces in body armor and they can easily take down 10x as many pistol armed citizens.
You can raid homes with less risk in body armor, and generally act with more impunity. Handguns pose limited threat to the power structure.
While a mob armed with rifles, well, they take a lot more effort and resources to deal with, and so if you get enough of them across the country things get really difficult. You lose more men clearing homes, and it is more taxing on your resources in general to maintain power because the population poses a bigger threat. You are more subject to the will of the people, and maintaining their support.
(Though you still plan trump cards like military forces and martial law if necessary, they are not as easy to deploy or readily accepted, and can actually encourage an insurgency and less stability if used against a strong willed people.)

essayons21
January 2, 2012, 04:22 PM
JFK and MLK Jr. come to mind...

I guess if you don't pay attention to details. MLK was a Remington 760, a pump action hunting rifle. Accurate enough, but hardly a long-range precision rifle as mentioned in the OP.

JFK was shot with a Carcano, an Italian bolt-action rifle, but also one noted for its inaccuracy.

Charles Whitman (Texas clocktower shooter) primarily used a Rem700 with a 4x scope, which would be closest to a "long-range precision rifle"

The_Next_Generation
January 2, 2012, 04:46 PM
The 223, 308, 7mm mauser, 30-06, and 6.5x55 have no place in the hunting fields of France. Firearms shooting these calibers are military weapons only designed for killing PEOPLE and should be kept out of the hands of the general population.

alsaqr, that was a particularly interesting link!

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone else as well for the information about this. I guess I should do some more digging to see what else they have to say about these dangerous "sniper" rifles :what:
- TNG

Ignition Override
January 2, 2012, 06:30 PM
There are so many ironies regarding guns.

A tv show recently on the Military Channel described the killing of the Canadian scientist (Gerald Bull?) in a Brussels apartment. He openly worked to help the Iraqis develop a super long range gun capable of hitting very distant targets with a small nuke (?), and he had been warned.

Nobody seems to publicly state which intelligence agency hit him.
The Mossad often used a .22 handgun. Mr. Bull was killed with a .32 or such (therefore Not the Mossad?;)).
Anyway, these are not known as powerful, or "assault" handguns.

Zoogster: There appears to be pending legislation in Canada which will liberalize ownership, or at least standardize some part of it, and eliminate some civil/criminal penalties up there.

Zoogster
January 2, 2012, 06:47 PM
Zoogster: There appears to be pending legislation in Canada which will liberalize ownership, or at least standardize some part of it, and eliminate some civil/criminal penalties up there.

That is why I didn't mention Canada. While they went somewhat restrictive Canada has the wilderness on its side.
Being a nation of low population density, large expanses of land, and a ton of predator filled pristine wilderness with large numbers of grizzly bears and wolves, it has a lot of variables to resist restrictive gun control.

Its legislative capitol of Ontario with high population density in close proximity to that region of the US has hurt it.
Half of the country has landscape similar to Alaska, and its not people there that don't appreciate firearms.


If Canada had good gun laws and allowed US travel with guns I might consider spending a lot of time in that wilderness hiking, exploring. Fishing, and possibly some hunting, though I would hate to see its wilderness get as spoiled as most in the US from abuse.


Australia has similarly low overall population, but not enough things on land to eat people and remind them why guns are necessary. Saltwater crocodiles are too easily avoided and not widespread enough.

On that thought, I am hoping for a grizzly bear and wolf reintroduction to California to help Californians wise up.
After all the Grizzly bear is on the state flag, the state had some of the densest wild grizzly populations on the continent, and its about time we get a captive breeding program and start reintroducing them to the wild.

The most likely need for defense is against predatory humans, but predatory animals do a lot more psychological convincing in support of gun ownership. Even if they are in reality easier to work with than human predators, and are easier to avoid any need for shooting most of the time if you take a little time to understand how to act with them.

The_Next_Generation
January 3, 2012, 06:31 PM
Could it be because they don't have "the shoulder thing that goes up?"

Would that be a barrel shroud?

Nevermind, must be a banana assault clip :neener:

Carl N. Brown
January 3, 2012, 08:40 PM
The antis suffer from a Goldilocks Complex.
These bullets are too soft (dumdums); those bullets are too hard (copkiller).
That gun is too small; this one is too large.
Those guns are too inaccurate; these guns are too accurate.
But none will ever be "just right".

Bubbles
January 4, 2012, 09:08 AM
Oh, this question is easy! Their fear is based on ignorance, and long range shooters are a little more rare, especially on television where their fears are usually carrying AK's or "some other machinegun". In a way, most criminals can't shoot, so their fears may be correctly placed --the only real long range murderer I can recall was that moron in DC. They are indeed rare.

And usually, since they get their education from Hollywood directors about functions of society, the long range shooter is portrayed as the HERO, not the villain.
Good point - get a few movies where the villains kill the good guys at 1500 yards (or more) with a custom .338LM rifle and the anti's just might start going :what:.

TEX
January 4, 2012, 10:57 AM
They do care about them and would like to see them destroyed as they would like to see all firearms destroyed. They just are not at the top of the list, but you can bet that if they get the top priority items banned ,then they will work their way down to scoped bolt guns. I seem to remember reading something a long time ago that back in the 30s or 40s there was a push to make optics illegal for civilians, so the fear of them is out there.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why aren't anti-2As more afraid of long-range "precision" rifles??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!