76/95 VA counties declare 2A sanctuaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

Citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

Citation?

LOL. No you don't get away with it that easy. I ask you for a source on your 300,000 murders and you cant answer, now you expect me to do your research for you? Talk about a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

Citation?

https://www.swatmag.com/article/distance-shooting-myth-average-engagement/

https://www.tierthreetactical.com/17-most-important-gunfight-stats-backed-by-data-and-real-world-experience/

https://thesurvivalmom.com/10-lessons-for-armed-citizens-from-the-aurora-theater-mass-murder/

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2018/7/17/the-statistics-of-self-defense-dont-bet-your-life-on-averages/

http://www.chucktayloramericansmallarmsacademy.com/close_quarters.html

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/what-do-fbi-statistics-really-say-about-gunfights/

https://concealednation.org/2016/09/what-distance-should-you-practice-with-your-concealed-carry-handgun/

https://www.chuckhawks.com/self_defense_ranges.html

https://modernsurvivalblog.com/security/self-defense-threat-and-the-tueller-distance-21-foot-rule/

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/

https://www.alloutdoor.com/2016/06/28/realistic-self-defense-shooting-ranges/

https://sofrep.com/gear/shocking-facts-gun-fights/

https://www.bluesheepdog.com/police-shooting-distance/

https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-distance-bias

[Anonymous]

Now how many murders occur at sniper distance or by "snipers"? You can use a non magnified optic or iron sights out to 500 yards, I would focus on the user and not on the product honey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Punishing the legal gun owners will not garner you any favor.

DP. “Legal” gun owners have done jack sh1t to promote reasonable gun control so I DGAF what they think. Plus, many have said they would blatantly break the law so not sure how “legal” they are in spirit.

Uhhh most gun owners are in favor or universal background checks.

Have you been on the Political forum? The gun owners on there definitely do NOT want any new gun controls. None.

No but i've been in reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're an adult. Go source it yourself, jerk.

I did some easy google fu on your claim. You are either a liar, a troll or just lacking a proper education. Whichever it is, you do have a chance to explain your claim if you wish to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

Citation?

LOL. No you don't get away with it that easy. I ask you for a source on your 300,000 murders and you cant answer, now you expect me to do your research for you? Talk about a hypocrite.

That was a DP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

Citation?

https://www.swatmag.com/article/distance-shooting-myth-average-engagement/

https://www.tierthreetactical.com/17-most-important-gunfight-stats-backed-by-data-and-real-world-experience/

https://thesurvivalmom.com/10-lessons-for-armed-citizens-from-the-aurora-theater-mass-murder/

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2018/7/17/the-statistics-of-self-defense-dont-bet-your-life-on-averages/

http://www.chucktayloramericansmallarmsacademy.com/close_quarters.html

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/what-do-fbi-statistics-really-say-about-gunfights/

https://concealednation.org/2016/09/what-distance-should-you-practice-with-your-concealed-carry-handgun/

https://www.chuckhawks.com/self_defense_ranges.html

https://modernsurvivalblog.com/security/self-defense-threat-and-the-tueller-distance-21-foot-rule/

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/

https://www.alloutdoor.com/2016/06/28/realistic-self-defense-shooting-ranges/

https://sofrep.com/gear/shocking-facts-gun-fights/

https://www.bluesheepdog.com/police-shooting-distance/

https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-distance-bias

Independent source? LOE?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

If the average distance of a shooting is five feet (let's just for the moment assume your sourcing is legitimate) then why on earth do you NEED a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away?

And why should anyone be practicing shooting long distances? That in and of itself strikes me as an alarming danger signal. Why would someone be practicing to shoot a distant targets? Who do they plan on shooting from afar? Sounds like an assassin wanna-be to me. JFK and MLK were killed at very long distances, nearly 70 meters in JFK's case. I would definitely think banning the type of guns capable of doing that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

If the average distance of a shooting is five feet (let's just for the moment assume your sourcing is legitimate) then why on earth do you NEED a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away?

And why should anyone be practicing shooting long distances? That in and of itself strikes me as an alarming danger signal. Why would someone be practicing to shoot a distant targets? Who do they plan on shooting from afar? Sounds like an assassin wanna-be to me. JFK and MLK were killed at very long distances, nearly 70 meters in JFK's case. I would definitely think banning the type of guns capable of doing that makes sense.

70 meters is not far at all by firearms standards. You don't need to kill anyone at any distance, however we do live in a world with physics. Look at how many homicides occur every year at 50+ meters. I don't know where you would even find this info but my guess is there are under 3 and that is a conservative estimate. 100-300 Meters is a common distance to shoot rifles at for hunting and sport, and you have long range hunting and competitions that push 1500 meters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

Citation?

https://www.swatmag.com/article/distance-shooting-myth-average-engagement/

https://www.tierthreetactical.com/17-most-important-gunfight-stats-backed-by-data-and-real-world-experience/

https://thesurvivalmom.com/10-lessons-for-armed-citizens-from-the-aurora-theater-mass-murder/

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2018/7/17/the-statistics-of-self-defense-dont-bet-your-life-on-averages/

http://www.chucktayloramericansmallarmsacademy.com/close_quarters.html

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/what-do-fbi-statistics-really-say-about-gunfights/

https://concealednation.org/2016/09/what-distance-should-you-practice-with-your-concealed-carry-handgun/

https://www.chuckhawks.com/self_defense_ranges.html

https://modernsurvivalblog.com/security/self-defense-threat-and-the-tueller-distance-21-foot-rule/

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/

https://www.alloutdoor.com/2016/06/28/realistic-self-defense-shooting-ranges/

https://sofrep.com/gear/shocking-facts-gun-fights/

https://www.bluesheepdog.com/police-shooting-distance/

https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-distance-bias

Independent source? LOE?

What is an independent source for this? Are you implying some people have a bias towards shooting people up close vs at distance?

What is LOE? Did you mean LEO? Because several of those links are written by LEOs.

Here is an ABC article saying that the average distance of a mass shooting is only 18".

https://abcnews.go.com/US/schools-preparing-active-shooters-wrong-experts/story?id=53360957&cid=social_fb_abcn



https://www.hptinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Officer-Involved-Shootings-What-We-Didnt-Know.pdf

https://www.handgunsmag.com/editorial/tactics_training_what_happens_gunfight/138051

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


If the average distance of a shooting is five feet (let's just for the moment assume your sourcing is legitimate) then why on earth do you NEED a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away?

And why should anyone be practicing shooting long distances? That in and of itself strikes me as an alarming danger signal. Why would someone be practicing to shoot a distant targets? Who do they plan on shooting from afar? Sounds like an assassin wanna-be to me. JFK and MLK were killed at very long distances, nearly 70 meters in JFK's case. I would definitely think banning the type of guns capable of doing that makes sense.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been shooting guns since I was about 8 years old (68 years ago). I've never shot anyone. Never shot AT anyone. Never pointed a gun at anyone. And never wanted to do any of those things. There are a lot of guys just like me out there who get a great deal of satisfaction in shooting a target at 200 yards or more, and hitting the center of the 1-inch bulls-eye. I am also sure that there are skilled guys out there who enjoy building things, or painting pictures....as a measure of their skill.
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I don't shoot animals, either. But I do take a good deal of pride in my marksmanship. As a matter of fact, most of my target shooting is done with a US Model 1855 Harper's Ferry muzzle-loading musket, although I shoot a good deal of small bore (22 caliber) rifle and pistol.
I won't pretend that non-shooters understand a lot of what we shooters do. But to call me an "assassin wanna-be" is indicative of a warped mindset. The modern guns I shoot are target guns. They were not designed to kill anything or anyone. The only gun I shoot that could fit the description of a gun "designed to kill" is my Harper's Ferry Musket, and it hasn't been used for that purpose for over 150 years.
As to our "NEED" for "a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away".... almost any gun can do that. So I can clearly see that you want to take them all. But remember, it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
Why does anyone NEED a car that will go over 120 miles per hour, when the average speed limit in urban areas is 35? Why does a husband and wife with no children NEED a house with 3 bedrooms and 2 baths when there are so many homeless people? Why does a single guy NEED a big Ford F-250 pickup truck when the only thing he ever hauls in the bed of his truck is a couple bags of groceries?
But I really have a bigger question: Why on earth are you so frightened of guys doing a bit of target shooting? Have you talked to your therapist about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

If the average distance of a shooting is five feet (let's just for the moment assume your sourcing is legitimate) then why on earth do you NEED a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away?

And why should anyone be practicing shooting long distances? That in and of itself strikes me as an alarming danger signal. Why would someone be practicing to shoot a distant targets? Who do they plan on shooting from afar? Sounds like an assassin wanna-be to me. JFK and MLK were killed at very long distances, nearly 70 meters in JFK's case. I would definitely think banning the type of guns capable of doing that makes sense.

70 meters is not far at all by firearms standards. You don't need to kill anyone at any distance, however we do live in a world with physics. Look at how many homicides occur every year at 50+ meters. I don't know where you would even find this info but my guess is there are under 3 and that is a conservative estimate. 100-300 Meters is a common distance to shoot rifles at for hunting and sport, and you have long range hunting and competitions that push 1500 meters.

1500'meters is nearly a mile. That's absurd. There is absolutely no need for something like that. A person (or animal, for that matter) has no chance at all if they can't even see or hear being shot at from such a distance, it's completely unsportsmanlike when it comes to game animals, and completely unfair when it comes to people trying to avoid being shot.

Again, I'm not a gun expert, but I will say you're not doing your hobby a favor by arguing in favor of stuff like this. I find it alarming that someone could shoot at me from 1500 meters away, and I wouldn't even know until I was hit by the bullet. That's totally unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

If the average distance of a shooting is five feet (let's just for the moment assume your sourcing is legitimate) then why on earth do you NEED a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away?

And why should anyone be practicing shooting long distances? That in and of itself strikes me as an alarming danger signal. Why would someone be practicing to shoot a distant targets? Who do they plan on shooting from afar? Sounds like an assassin wanna-be to me. JFK and MLK were killed at very long distances, nearly 70 meters in JFK's case. I would definitely think banning the type of guns capable of doing that makes sense.

70 meters is not far at all by firearms standards. You don't need to kill anyone at any distance, however we do live in a world with physics. Look at how many homicides occur every year at 50+ meters. I don't know where you would even find this info but my guess is there are under 3 and that is a conservative estimate. 100-300 Meters is a common distance to shoot rifles at for hunting and sport, and you have long range hunting and competitions that push 1500 meters.

1500'meters is nearly a mile. That's absurd. There is absolutely no need for something like that. A person (or animal, for that matter) has no chance at all if they can't even see or hear being shot at from such a distance, it's completely unsportsmanlike when it comes to game animals, and completely unfair when it comes to people trying to avoid being shot.

Again, I'm not a gun expert, but I will say you're not doing your hobby a favor by arguing in favor of stuff like this. I find it alarming that someone could shoot at me from 1500 meters away, and I wouldn't even know until I was hit by the bullet. That's totally unacceptable.

Your concerns are unwarranted please move along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


If the average distance of a shooting is five feet (let's just for the moment assume your sourcing is legitimate) then why on earth do you NEED a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away?

And why should anyone be practicing shooting long distances? That in and of itself strikes me as an alarming danger signal. Why would someone be practicing to shoot a distant targets? Who do they plan on shooting from afar? Sounds like an assassin wanna-be to me. JFK and MLK were killed at very long distances, nearly 70 meters in JFK's case. I would definitely think banning the type of guns capable of doing that makes sense.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been shooting guns since I was about 8 years old (68 years ago). I've never shot anyone. Never shot AT anyone. Never pointed a gun at anyone. And never wanted to do any of those things. There are a lot of guys just like me out there who get a great deal of satisfaction in shooting a target at 200 yards or more, and hitting the center of the 1-inch bulls-eye. I am also sure that there are skilled guys out there who enjoy building things, or painting pictures....as a measure of their skill.
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I don't shoot animals, either. But I do take a good deal of pride in my marksmanship. As a matter of fact, most of my target shooting is done with a US Model 1855 Harper's Ferry muzzle-loading musket, although I shoot a good deal of small bore (22 caliber) rifle and pistol.
I won't pretend that non-shooters understand a lot of what we shooters do. But to call me an "assassin wanna-be" is indicative of a warped mindset. The modern guns I shoot are target guns. They were not designed to kill anything or anyone. The only gun I shoot that could fit the description of a gun "designed to kill" is my Harper's Ferry Musket, and it hasn't been used for that purpose for over 150 years.
As to our "NEED" for "a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away".... almost any gun can do that. So I can clearly see that you want to take them all. But remember, it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
Why does anyone NEED a car that will go over 120 miles per hour, when the average speed limit in urban areas is 35? Why does a husband and wife with no children NEED a house with 3 bedrooms and 2 baths when there are so many homeless people? Why does a single guy NEED a big Ford F-250 pickup truck when the only thing he ever hauls in the bed of his truck is a couple bags of groceries?
But I really have a bigger question: Why on earth are you so frightened of guys doing a bit of target shooting? Have you talked to your therapist about this?

I'm not going to pretend to understand all the minutiae of your gun terminology, because I don't. I only understand that something capable of accurately hitting something 200 yards away is something that shouldn't be in the hands of the public because it has so much potential to be misused. Frankly, guns shouldn't be accurate beyond a reasonable distance, say 50 feet. Because anyone farther away from than that can't in any way be construed to be a threat.