Not really. Most sniper rifles are .308 (7.62x51) which is a typical deer rifle cartridge. Others are in .300 Win. Magnum, which is a typical elk cartridge. There are a few in .338 Lapua and in .50 BMG, which were originally designed (the rifles, not the cartridges) for long-range rifle competitions.
Do you just make this stuff up? I can't find a record anywhere of Marine Scout Snipers using a .338. What's your source? The Marine Sniper Rifle is a bit more powerful than what the earlier poster said, but it's still in a fairly common hunting rifle cartridge--the .300 Winchester Magnum. It replaces the M-40, which was in 7.62x51mm (.308 Winchester). The caliber of both rifles is the same .308. The cartridges are different, with the 7.62x51 having a case that is about 2 inches long (51mm), and the .300 Win Magnum having a case that is 3.3 inches long (85mm). https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/ne...y-started-fielding-the-new-mk13-sniper-rifle/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_rifle
They probably think everybody can't be shooting at bull elk. In some areas, target shooting is it for certain weapons. Exceptions could be made for special circumstances, like target shooting, when someone demonstrates they are worthy of such a permit. Generally, we are better off living with fewer weapons that can quickly cause mass death. There should be magazine size restrictions, particular to the area. There is no good use for silencers. It would be nice if the NRA returned to gun safety again. Gun violence is a gun safety issue.
I saw a late WW1 to an early WW2 anti armor rifle and long range sniper rifle being adv on the net not that long ago. My god what an animal the damn thing happen to be. [youtube]
"According to a 2015 ranking of 50 cities by The Economist, New York was the 10th overall safest major city in the world, as well as the 28th safest in personal safety.[5] In 2017, there were 290 homicides—the lowest number since the 1940s.[6]" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#Notable_recent_crime_trends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state NYC has less murders than the state of Virginia with both having about the same population.
It proves NYC got tough on guns and reduced homicide to less than the state of Virginia managed to do.
California as a WHOLE state is extremely tough on guns. So your analysis is only focusing on one area that it appears to be working for. Explain why it doesn't work for LA?
The cameras in NYC and the NYPD watching everybody from their huge control room make the difference. The USA needs more cameras and more police watching everybody.
I imagine LA hasn't tried what NYC did to removed enough guns to make it work. In NYC, the cops searched people suspected of carrying guns on the streets. It became very risky to possess a gun on the streets. Keeping gun shows away from cities helps, too. NYC is close to many other states, so a regional effort was required. I picture LA as having cops in cars, like Adam 12 and NYC having cops on the streets. In some places of NYC, you can walk to get there faster than drive. My analysis is focused on a policy that worked to remove crime from a city. I haven't seen another city try it.
NYC has been tough on guns for over a century. It didn't do anything to stop crime until police started to use questionable tactics, that IMHO are illegal and unconstitutional. That, and the basic gentrification effect.
Nonsense, you just don't like what works. Would it be bad to live without guns for protection and allowing cops without guns to enforce the law? So what if the doughnut dump cops need to approach a situation in numbers as long as they deal with a situation. People shouldn't need guns for protection, besides from the wild in nature, but hunting, target shooting and collecting guns are legitimate reasons to allow responsible people to have them. The goal should be to get the guns out of the hands of the wrong people and who cares if some of the right people wanting, guns for a legitimate reason, have them. If that standard bothers you, then maybe you shouldn't have a gun. Otherwise, you are a believer of some mythical Constitutional right, that totally ignores the Constitutional responsibility of government to protect the welfare of it's people. That's like the mind of an anarchist and should worry anyone seeing their political party having a do nothing policy. What the hell does your delusions about Constitutional rights have to do with an area of our country making logical laws for their people? Are other people suppose to live according to your ignorance? It doesn't disarm a citizen to say certain weapons are too lethal for general possession. There has to be a line somewhere between no weapons and a hydrogen bomb that both allows the public to be armed and prohibits logical types of arms to protect the people. It doesn't have to totally be a federal law or even a state law covering the whole state. I've heard the complaints, the NYC cops were checking people they suspected of having a gun on the streets. They did it safely in numbers, but people soon learned to not have a gun on the streets. Of course, the NRA types call this illegal, because they believe they have the right to tell the people in NYC what kind of gun laws they need to have.
Your entire claim is based on the fallacy that correlation proves causation. That is, a post hoc fallacy. Unless you can demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws enacted and the effect you claim they had, you have nothing. Current jurisprudence draws this line - the 2nd protects the rights to own and use ''bearable arms" - that is, firearms in common use for traditional legal purposes.
I live close enough to NYC to know things that were announced. This wasn't accomplished in secret, but it did produce results quicker than many thought it would. This policy was also attacked for being illegal as soon as it started. You're just a typical right-wing denier. It's only common sense if guns aren't on the streets of a city, that homicides get reduced. There are only so many places to shoot someone. It's just too bad reality doesn't mirror your pro-gun ways.
Nothing to do with the NRA. It's a concept called privacy rights and the ability to be safe from search and seizure. It was codified into our Constituion in 1791. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This is basic civil liberty 101. Also, it was not the NRA that stopped this, but the ACLU.
It has everything to do with what I call NRA types who believe a jurisdiction doesn't have the rights to protect the public. Densely populated areas don't want people carrying guns on their streets, because people get shot when they do. Since when aren't cops able to search a suspect? Would you leave a suspect armed? If you really study what the founders were concerned with, you should know the focus was on not having a standing army. There was fear a tyrant could control such an army, so they decided on the militia option. They threw in language to prevent the government disarming the population, because it was another safeguard against tyranny. Let me point out, we now have a large military force, so the militia option didn't pan out. Getting your capitol burned tends to change the perspective on this issue. The issue boils down to where you draw the line on disarming the public. Is telling someone they can't have a Thompson Machine Gun disarming them? What about explosives? What about high capacity magazines, silencers and certain types of knives. What about a weapon that just lends itself for it's ability to cause mass casualties? What I call the NRA types are people who never want any gun laws changed in a manner that doesn't give them total freedom with firearms. They can live three thousand miles away from people wanting laws changed, but they don't care. They can't see it from their house.
So... the ACLU are "NRA types". As previously noted: This has been resolved in current 2A jurisprudence. These people are rare, if they exist at all. Thus: A nice straw man you have there.
