U.S. House kills gun proposal

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

Ed said:
Ruger makes a dandy .44 mag. rifle.

I'm not talking about the rifle.

Who could any person, as a civillian, legally kill at a distance?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

CFLarsen said:
Who could any person, as a civillian, legally kill at a distance?

A thief on your property, the specifics depend on the state.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

Grammatron said:
A thief on your property, the specifics depend on the state.

Why would you use a sniper's rifle for that? You would have to lie in wait for him, calmly killing him, without giving him notice.

That would raise the question of how you determined the thief really was a thief. You'd be a one man police, judge, jury and executioner.

Or, perhaps, you would give him notice, and then, when he's running, you shoot him.

Of course, you'd need a huge estate. You wouldn't need a sniper's rifle, if you were a normal house owner in the suburbs, would you?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

CFLarsen said:
That would raise the question of how you determined the thief really was a thief. You'd be a one man police, judge, jury and executioner.

Perhaps the intruder is an air marshal?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

CFLarsen said:
I wasn't the one bringing up sniping.

A sniper needs accuracy over a long distance. Want to persuade me that a Magnum is good for sniping?

Ignore him, He's using the larsen method again.
 
Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

CFLarsen said:
Why would a civillian need a gun for sniping?

It's fun trying to shoot a target from a concealed position at long range without giving away one's location. You should try it. I have an extra ghillie suit that would probably fit you, and 300 acres in central Michigan in which to run around...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

CFLarsen said:
Why would you use a sniper's rifle for that? You would have to lie in wait for him, calmly killing him, without giving him notice.

Or, perhaps, you would give him notice, and then, when he's running, you shoot him.

Of course, you'd need a huge estate. You wouldn't need a sniper's rifle, if you were a normal house owner in the suburbs, would you?

That's all not relevent since I've already said it may not be for killing people or even shooting at people. I simply answered your question and need doesn't factor into it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Why would the NRA care about restricting exports of a weapon? The measure, as reported in that link, would have done nothing to restrict possession or sale within the US. Does the American gun lobby really want foreigners to enjoy the same quality and quantity of guns as Americans? Why?

Especially since the government does most of the exporting. Maybe they should ban the export of shoulder fired missles?

Terrorist seem to like RPG and AK-47. Maybe they should ban the export of those? Err. . . Sorry. They use weapons made in Russia!
 
A 50 BMG rifle can and has been used to shoot down aircraft, but only 50 caliber machine guns. The military has used lighter semi-automatic and single shot 50 BMG rifles against stationary aircraft and missiles, but not against those in flight.

A 50 BMG rifle is good for hunting, target shooting, and informal linking. I myself participate in formal 50 BMG shooting matches several times a year in WA State.

Defeating this ban is not dumb. There are manufacturers of all manner of rifles outside of the USA that will damage aircraft in flight or on the ground.

Anyone who claims that 50 BMG sporting rifles (single shot or magazine fed) can bring down aircraft at 1000 meters is at best an alarmist, at worst a liar.

A civilian can use a 50 BMG rifle for sniping. It is also called target shooting. The definition of sniping is not limited to killing people from a distance using a rifle.

I have no idea why you ask if a "magnum" is or is not a good choice for "sniping". Just so you know, the word magnum was first used to describe a large bottle of wine. The firearms industry uses it to describe a larger cartridge case. Such as 38 special vs 357 magnum, or 44 special vs 44 magnum, or 7mm -8 vs 7mm magnum. It is a marketing strategy. Slightly longer cases are also to prevent chambering the more powerful cartridge into a gun not designed to hold up to the greater pressures. A 44 magnum is suitable for sniping, at under 200 yards, but there are better options available out there.

Snipes are "Any of various long-billed shore birds of the genus Gallinago or Capella" The word sniper as applied to marksmen came from the bird hunters in Great Britian.

Oh, and as a supporter of other 50BMG bans in the USA, when Moran says he is not trying to ban these rifles in the USA, he is lying.

Ranb
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

Kodiak said:
It's fun trying to shoot a target from a concealed position at long range without giving away one's position. You should try it. I have an extra ghillie suit that would probably fit you, and 300 acres in central Michigan in which to run around...

If you could address the point, instead of making a mockery of it.

You brought up sniping. Please explain why a civillian would need a gun for sniping?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

Grammatron said:
That's all not relevent since I've already said it may not be for killing people or even shooting at people. I simply answered your question and need doesn't factor into it.

No, you didn't answer the question about sniping: That is, killing people at a distance.
 
Just so we are all on the same page:
Sniping
to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage
(Webster)

Who could any person, as a civillian, legally kill at a distance? Use the gun for sniping, that is.

Anyone?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

CFLarsen said:
No, you didn't answer the question about sniping: That is, killing people at a distance.

Ok, I have a sizeable property and someone entered it with intent to give me harm which in this example I know for a fact. I pull up rifle and shoot that someone dead or otherwise. And just so happens in the state I reside in it's perfectly legal.

Happy?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

CFLarsen said:
If you could address the point, instead of making a mockery of it.

"Mockery"? I'm serious! I would love the chance to rid you of your ignorance regarding firearms...

CFLarsen said:
You brought up sniping. Please explain why a civillian would need a gun for sniping?

Well, I sure as hell am not going to use a slingshot!

Again, demonstrating "need" is not a requirement...
 
merphie said:
Especially since the government does most of the exporting. Maybe they should ban the export of shoulder fired missles?

Terrorist seem to like RPG and AK-47. Maybe they should ban the export of those? Err. . . Sorry. They use weapons made in Russia!

The US is the worlds largest arms exporter.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030210-071004-9188r

Maybe guerillas tend to use AK-47 and RPGs and stuff because they're cheap and rugged. At least, that's what our prejudices tend to make us believe: when we imagine a guerrilla fighter, we imagine a guy with a beard holding an AK47. I don't really know if this is generally true, and I'm willing to bet that it changes from country to country. Also, if I'm not mistaken, AK-47s are now produced in all kinds of places by all kinds of people, right?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

Grammatron said:
Ok, I have a sizeable property and someone entered it with intent to give me harm which in this example I know for a fact.

How so?

This would, naturally, render it useless for suburban owners. Agree?
 

Back
Top Bottom