Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Left - Authoritarian

Left - Centre

Left - Libertarian

Centre - Authoritarian

Centre - Centre

Centre - Libertarian

Right - Authoritarian

Right - Centre

Right - Libertarian

Other

Don't care to do the test / View poll

[Strife26]

I think what you are missing is that with a gun, one can easily kill persons from a distance away with next to no effort, especially with sniper rifles readily available.

And anyone with a tiny degree of competence could rig up an IED and blow someone up as far away as they'd like.
 Plus the fact that hunting rifles are literally never used in crimes (I'd be amazingly surprised if it came up as even .01% of gun crimes involved the use of a rifle).

Despite the legislature's claim of a terrorist threat, as of 2009, there has been no terrorist attacks involving a .50 BMG. In fact, not only has the .50 BMG never been used to harm or kill anyone in California, there is no record of a .50 BMG rifle ever being used in the United States to commit a crime.[5][6][7]

Off of the Wikipedia page for California's "WE HATE BIG BULLETS" law.

[ChairmanPoo]

well, there was that shooting in Texas. And the Washington sniper.

[Andir]

A "sniper" doesn't need to be using a .50 caliber sniper rifle to be a sniper.  The .50 caliber rifle is used mainly for extra long range military target sniping and anti-vehicle sniping.  They are banned by the Geneva Convention for use against human targets though.  (If you've ever seen pictures of someone shot by one, they quite literally tear your body apart like it was a watermelon.)

You can classify someone a "sniper" if they were using a pellet rifle with a scope... even though it would likely not be a deadly shot from so far away.

Edit:  I don't even know if you need a scope to classify a sniper.  Some WWII Snipers didn't use scopes.

[Dwarf]

It's not forbidden by Geneva Convention actually.

[RedKing]

I think what you are missing is that with a gun, one can easily kill persons from a distance away with next to no effort, especially with sniper rifles readily available.

And anyone with a tiny degree of competence could rig up an IED and blow someone up as far away as they'd like.
 Plus the fact that hunting rifles are literally never used in crimes (I'd be amazingly surprised if it came up as even .01% of gun crimes involved the use of a rifle).

Difficult to tell, given that as far as I can tell, nobody keeps publicly available statistics of crime by specific type of firearm.

Despite the legislature's claim of a terrorist threat, as of 2009, there has been no terrorist attacks involving a .50 BMG. In fact, not only has the .50 BMG never been used to harm or kill anyone in California, there is no record of a .50 BMG rifle ever being used in the United States to commit a crime.[5][6][7]

Off of the Wikipedia page for California's "WE HATE BIG BULLETS" law.

And yet, for such a rare firearm, they seem to pop up disproportionately in the hands of criminals, terrorists and militia nutballs "responsible gun owners". Odd that.

[Shades]

It's not forbidden by Geneva Convention actually.

He's probably referring to the fact most (not all) .50 cal rifles are designated as anti-tank (or techically anti-materiel) and so illegal to fire at personal. However not all of them are and at any rate I imagine when there are multiple valid targets it would be hard to say someone wasn't aiming for the tank.

[Dwarf]

They are still not forbidden. It is disencouraged in the army, but not illegal.

[RedKing]

They are still not forbidden. It is disencouraged in the army, but not illegal.

Correct. There is in fact, no portion of the Geneva Conventions banning a specific weapon other than chemical and biological weapons. There is language against indiscriminate carpet bombing, but that's a proscription against a tactic rather than a weapon. There's also some language in the 1907 Hague Convention against "arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering", but this is talking about weapons that wound and leave you alive for some time in extreme pain. A .50cal round isn't going to leave you in extreme pain.

EDIT: For one thing, the Geneva Conventions do *not* apply to active combatants, only to those who are non-combatants or have been wounded and are no longer attempting to fight.

There's also the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration which banned exploding or flammable ammo under 400g (small arms ammo). Of course, the United States never signed that one in the first place, so it's a moot point. But I think that, combined with the Hague Convention language, might be the source of this misconception.

[Andir]

And yet, for such a rare firearm, they seem to pop up disproportionately in the hands of criminals, terrorists and militia nutballs "responsible gun owners". Odd that.

36 over the span of 18 years... it's an epidemic!

(some bad sarcasm back at you...)

Again, they are tools.  A good portion of those reports had more than just that one gun.  You can't say those people wouldn't have used another weapon in place of those guns.  I seriously hope you're not insinuating that these crimes wouldn't have happened if these people didn't have sniper rifles...

[KaelGotDwarves]

People tend to be sniping, shooting, and killing less when they have to snipe with knives, just saying.

[Realmfighter]

People tend to be sniping, shooting, and killing less when they have to snipe with knives, just saying.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO EMPOWER THESE PEOPLE?

[Andir]

People tend to be sniping, shooting, and killing less when they have to snipe with knives, just saying.

Did you read through those reports?  Some of them listed Sniper rifles that were never used, but they were in the ownership of the person committing the crimes or registered to the person charged...

[Andir]

I'll bet every single one of them reported criminals had televisions as well.  Maybe we can link the possession of televisions to people who commit crime.

[Aqizzar]

Plus the fact that hunting rifles are literally never used in crimes (I'd be amazingly surprised if it came up as even .01% of gun crimes involved the use of a rifle).

I'd like to point out that this is not true.  No, muggings are not usually committed with large rifles.  Assassinations of abortion doctors are, and that guy's litany of likely crimes certainly wasn't the only one.  The Christian Army of God handbook used to suggest using hunting rifles to kill people, precisely because the law doesn't keep track of such guns, but that little snippet isn't on their website anymore.  And let's not forget The D.C. Sniper.

Those are all pretty isolated incidents yes, but I want to be thorough about this.

[Andir]

Plus the fact that hunting rifles are literally never used in crimes (I'd be amazingly surprised if it came up as even .01% of gun crimes involved the use of a rifle).

I'd like to point out that this is not true.  No, muggings are not usually committed with large rifles.  Assassinations of abortion doctors are, and that guy's litany of likely crimes certainly wasn't the only one.  The Christian Army of God handbook used to suggest using hunting rifles to kill people, precisely because the law doesn't keep track of such guns, but that little snippet isn't on their website anymore.  And let's not forget The D.C. Sniper.

Those are all pretty isolated incidents yes, but I want to be thorough about this.

Still... maybe %0.01 of gun crimes... unless you are like the page linked above that lists hunting rifles as part of the crime even if they are in another state or country at the time of crime...