sgtstryker
Member
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..
Why aren't anti-2As more afraid of long-range "precision" rifles??
- Thread starter The_Next_Generation
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
The_Next_Generation
Member
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
I guess curiosity hasn't killed THAT cat...yet.
- TNG
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:
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:
http://www.vpc.org/graphics/snipcov2.pdf said:
Tiberius67
Member
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. The antis are courting people of this mindset...even to the extent of trying to set up thier own "pro gun" organizations 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.
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.
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.
Symbolic Reasurance
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.
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.
ApacheCoTodd
member
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.
alsaqr
Member
Short answer: The antis would like to outlaw your scoped Winchester model 94 rifle.
http://nrpc.net/article.php?story=20070219170835600
PowerG
Member
They want to ban ALL guns, don't misunderstand their intentions.
heavydluxe
Member
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.
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
Member
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
member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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"?
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"?
Last edited:
atblis:
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.
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.
Last edited:
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
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!
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!
Ryanxia said:
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.)
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.)
Last edited:
essayons21
Member
jerkface11 said:
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"
OP
OP
The_Next_Generation
Member
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
- TNG
Ignition Override
Member
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked