76/95 VA counties declare 2A sanctuaries

[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.

Because you would totally know before, if someone shot you at 20 yards? I think you sound a bit ridiculous, but if the only firearm experience you have is with Hollywood or video games I totally understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I'll be contacting members of the VA legislature and asking them not to forget your long range sniper guns when it comes to gun safety laws this session. They will be as alarmed as I was to learn you could shoot someone 1,500 meters away. We're going to do something about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Physics. If you want to limit a guns range to under 100 yards, were talking shotgun and larger sized rounds which are even more devastating to human tissue. Hit with a golf ball at 400mph or hit by a brick at 100mph. Many smaller and older individuals will have trouble shooting these firearms simply because of the recoil.

200 yards? So you want to ban every single hunting rifle out there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I'll be contacting members of the VA legislature and asking them not to forget your long range sniper guns when it comes to gun safety laws this session. They will be as alarmed as I was to learn you could shoot someone 1,500 meters away. We're going to do something about that.

No you aren't, you sound like a lunatic who's watched to many movies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because you would totally know before, if someone shot you at 20 yards? I think you sound a bit ridiculous, but if the only firearm experience you have is with Hollywood or video games I totally understand.

I could see someone 60 ft away from me, and try to evade them. At least I'd have a chance. There is no chance at all if the person shooting at me is 300 ft away. That's what needs to be outlawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because you would totally know before, if someone shot you at 20 yards? I think you sound a bit ridiculous, but if the only firearm experience you have is with Hollywood or video games I totally understand.

I could see someone 60 ft away from me, and try to evade them. At least I'd have a chance. There is no chance at all if the person shooting at me is 300 ft away. That's what needs to be outlawed.

How many shootings happen at that distance? I think you are living in a fantasy world. If you want to do something about guns that doesn't make you sound crazy, focus on the ones that do the killing.

[Anonymous]

The Texas tower shooting was probably the furthest at around 70 meters. That isn't even close to "sniping".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I could see someone 60 ft away from me, and try to evade them. At least I'd have a chance. There is no chance at all if the person shooting at me is 300 ft away. That's what needs to be outlawed.

Shooting at someone is already outlawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I'll be contacting members of the VA legislature and asking them not to forget your long range sniper guns when it comes to gun safety laws this session. They will be as alarmed as I was to learn you could shoot someone 1,500 meters away. We're going to do something about that.

No you aren't, you sound like a lunatic who's watched to many movies.

No, you sound like the lunatic, because you think it's ok to own a gun that could shoot someone from almost a mile away.

Good luck convincing anyone that that's ok

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I could see someone 60 ft away from me, and try to evade them. At least I'd have a chance. There is no chance at all if the person shooting at me is 300 ft away. That's what needs to be outlawed.

Shooting at someone is already outlawed.

And that law doesn't work, obviously, so regulating the behavior of people is pointless, we need to regulate the device itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Physics. If you want to limit a guns range to under 100 yards, were talking shotgun and larger sized rounds which are even more devastating to human tissue. Hit with a golf ball at 400mph or hit by a brick at 100mph. Many smaller and older individuals will have trouble shooting these firearms simply because of the recoil.

200 yards? So you want to ban every single hunting rifle out there?

I didn't say anything about banning hunting. I don't support that, I have relatives who hunt. I understand the importance of hunting deer, especially, because there are too many of them. I am NOT in favor of banning hunting. I'm only saying that guns that have the ability to hit something beyond a reasonable distance, say up to even a hundred feet, are not acceptable to me because they have the potential to be misused.

You can hunt with a bow and arrow, you know. You don't need a gun with a powerful telescope to help you aim at something hundreds of feet away. It's unnecessary and unsportsmanlike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I'll be contacting members of the VA legislature and asking them not to forget your long range sniper guns when it comes to gun safety laws this session. They will be as alarmed as I was to learn you could shoot someone 1,500 meters away. We're going to do something about that.

No you aren't, you sound like a lunatic who's watched to many movies.

No, you sound like the lunatic, because you think it's ok to own a gun that could shoot someone from almost a mile away.

Good luck convincing anyone that that's ok

Back to fantasy land princess.

[Anonymous]

They keep getting more extreme. Now you guys want to take away hunting rifles?

This pattern of behavior is why sanctuary Counties have been created, no one trusts you guys.

[Anonymous]

Well finally some good news. My state senator Richard Saslaw appears to have realized that most of his bills won't pass, SB16 included!

He did however note that he will still push for SB16 while trying to draft similar legislation that might garner more support in the future.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1 It's like they enjoy gridlock instead of progress.