Does Dorner have a .50 cal sniper rifle? Did he buy it legally before he turned "bad"?

[jpak]

If the answer is yes and yes, then why should anyone be allowed to own such a dangerous long-range weapon?

What legitimate purpose do these things have - except to kill at long ranges and penetrate body armor?

[Common Sense Party]

1. Well, he is all for an Assault Weapons Ban, so it's okay.

He's fighting for YOUR freedom.

[krispos42]

2. Pretty much any rifle will penetrate body armor...

...so your point is still on the weak side.


If Dorner can reliably hit a dinner plate at no more than 400 yards, then that is his maximum effective range regardless of rifle chambering.

And a conventional hunting rifle (say, a .270 Winchester bolt-action) will put more power down at 400 yards than (1,400 foot-pounds) than an AR-15 will at 1 yard.


Of course, a .50 is a lot longer, 3 to 8 times heavier, and uses much bulkier and harder-to-find ammunition than a .270.



No doubt you have a list of crimes committed with .50-caliber rifles. Police officers killed, police cars and helicopters destroyed, airliners shot down, etc. I look forward to your list with anticipation.

[jpak]

7. The Branch Davidians had 'em - Osama Bin Laden and other terrahrists too.

Voting From the Rooftops: How the Gun Industry Armed Osama bin Laden, Other Foreign and Domestic Terrorists, and Common Criminals with 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles

http://www.vpc.org/studies/rooftwo.htm

Advocates for the unrestrained sale of 50 caliber sniper rifles to civilians seek to cloud the debate with a smoke screen of two lines of argument. Both downplay the real danger. Both are demonstrably false. This section first disposes of those makeweight arguments, then demonstrates that terrorists and criminals in fact have acquired and used 50 caliber sniper rifles. America, now under ruthless attack from international terrorism, is at serious risk because precisely those terrorists—Osama bin laden and his Al Qaeda organization—have the destructive power of the 50 caliber sniper rifle and its ammunition described in the preceding section.

"A toy for a big boy"—the innocent oddity argument. One line of argument advanced by the gun lobby is that 50 caliber sniper rifles are an innocent oddity, owned by benignly responsible hobbyists and marksmen. Thus, when Ronnie G. Barrett, the founder and owner of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, talks to the civilian press about his sniper rifles, he doesn't talk about their ability to punch through armored cars, shoot down hovering helicopters, and set aircraft and high-octane fuel tanks on fire from 1,000 yards away. Instead, he calls his super gun "a toy for a big boy,"73 and "a fun toy, a nice collectible."74 A recent Forbes magazine article quoted Barrett's description of his civilian market as consisting of "gun collectors and long-range target shooters who fancy `bold weapons that can do bold things.'"75

<snip>

The innocent oddity argument collapses on both conceptual and factual grounds. Conceptually, the fact that a handful of hobbyists collect a functioning weapon of war with the devastating power of the 50 caliber super gun has little to do with whether or how it should be regulated. For example, under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) machine gunsk have been registered, with potential owners undergoing thorough background checks that include fingerprinting and local police sign-off. New production of machine guns for civilian sale has been banned since 1986. Yet machine guns are still legally collected and fired by enthusiasts.l

"Toys for Big Boys": Known Sales of Barrett 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles to Terrorists and Fringe Groups

Group

Number Sold

Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda 25
Church Universal and Triumphant 10
David Koresh (Branch Davidians) 2
Irish Republican Army 2
Militia Training Camp in Canada 1

<more>

[gejohnston]

8. seriously?

talks to the civilian press about his sniper rifles, he doesn't talk about their ability to punch through armored cars, shoot down hovering helicopters, and set aircraft and high-octane fuel tanks on fire from 1,000 yards away.

can they? Has it been done?

Number Sold

Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda 25
Church Universal and Triumphant 10
David Koresh (Branch Davidians) 2
Irish Republican Army 2
Militia Training Camp in Canada 1

Where is the citation? Didn't AQ get them during the Reagan administration?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. IIRC...

...the Taliban got various arms as large as helicopters from us plus they collected some things like Soviet RPGs from various sources. I'm sure the Taliban shared or sold to bin Laden. (Thank you Charlie Wilson.)

[krispos42]

13. It's like reading a Cheney speech, isn't it?

Fear fear terror violent criminals fear fear be afraid America under attack relentless attack, etc.



And again, where are the those killed in the US?


.50 caliber is 12.7mm. Al Qaeda got 25 of them, you say? Okay, how many 14.5mm (.57 caliber) sniper rifles did he get from other sources? Russia, South Africa, Hungary, India?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14.5%C3%97114mm#Chambered_weapons


How about RPGs and mortars? How about light anti-aircraft artillery? Betcha he's got all of those, too.


It's a WAR ZONE. There's a lot worse stuff out there than big-bore sniper rifles.

Which, again, require extensive training to use. The simple fact that the rifle is accurate to 1,500 yards does not mean that you, or I, could just pick up the rifle and begin hitting targets with casual ease from 150 to 1,500 yards.

There's a hell of a lot to shooting at that range, including knowing the exact range to your target, the exact ballistics of the bullet, altitude, wind at all points between you and the target, and humidity. It also takes extreme personal control to trigger such a gun without disturbing your sight picture.


You average police cruiser is not resistant to regular rifle bullets, much less the heavier-hitting stuff. You think a Crown Vic is going to stop even a .223? Try a .308 or .30-06 or a 7mm Rem. Mag. or a 7mm Ultra Mag or a .300 Win. Mag and the other stuff. They'll punch through a cop car (and the cop inside) with ease.

Do you really think that a person is deader because he's shot with a .50 versus a .30?


You're worrying too much. You have a better chance of being hit by lightening while being eaten by a shark then being hit by a .50 BMG. Now relax, before you grind your teeth down.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Oh boy, a rifle used in four whole crimes.

Physically present when a man went on a shooting spree after his wife in a grocery store, but not used.
Mounted on 'killdozer', no fatalities. (aside from the user himself)
Used on a Wells Fargo armored car, two people injured.
Used by the Branch Davidians, against BATFE agents. (No apparent fatalities related to the weapon)


Did I miss any?

Big fucking deal. Your moral panic is a waste of time, legislatively.

[gejohnston]

3. maybe, and no

since he is in California. On a cop's pay and CA's high cost of living, I doubt he has the disposable income to afford one even if he could.

then why should anyone be allowed to own such a dangerous long-range weapon?

I see that as a conservative outlook. To me the liberal question should be "is there a compelling state interest" not to allow it. I don't know anyone who owns one, nor are they allowed on any range I have been to. Perhaps a better question would be "why would you want one?" That does not mean there isn't one, that simply means I don't know what range would.

What legitimate purpose do these things have - except to kill at long ranges and penetrate body armor?

AFAIK, they are anti material weapons, your .30-06 can penetrate body armor.

[holdencaufield]

4. "except to kill at long ranges"

Ever been hunting? Killing at long range is kind of the idea.

[Ashgrey77]

5. .50 BMG rifles are illegal in California.

But you probably already knew that right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_Caliber_BMG_Regulation_Act_of_2004


My favorite part and I quote

"Despite the legislature's claim of a terrorist threat, as of 2012, there have been no terrorist attacks involving a .50 BMG. In fact, not only has the .50 BMG never been used to harm or kill anyone in California, there is no record of a .50 BMG rifle ever being used in the United States to commit a crime."

[littlewolf]

18. which is why Barrett made a .416

slightly different then the .50bmg. enought to get by the ban

[Eleanors38]

22. And there is the .338 Lapua, another countyline rifle

[AtheistCrusader]

26. I can think of 4 crimes.

Well, three really, not four. It was just present in one of them. Post 25.

Still pretty goddamn underwhelming.

[Ashgrey77]

28. I stand corrected.

I copied and pasted from Wikipedia. I should have known better. And yes it is very underwhelming.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I'm surprised the wiki article is that out of date.

There are some wiki pages that reference these crimes.

I smell an edit war coming on.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. let us face it. all guns have a legitmate purpose to do damage, whether it is for good or bad

is determined by who is it holding it at the time.

[Remmah2]

9. Stolen from the LAPD?

Not for sale in California.

[oneshooter]

10. I own one, a bolt action AR-50.

I use it to shoot matches at 600yds+. The long range target shooters developed the rifles for their matches, and the military got the idea from them.

http://www.fcsa.org/wwwroot/index.php

[iiibbb]

12. Then again he probably can't tote it that far and has a fraction of the ammunition he would have

So on balance it's probably good he made such a bad choice.

[ileus]

14. A friend of mine bought one to cull deer on his dairy farm

They get 30-40 or so deer permits a year. He thought it would be a fun little (big actually) gun to remove these deer with. I tried to tell him it would just punch little holes in deer but he wouldn't listen. Sure enough it only produces 1.5" exit wounds in the deer he removes.

While he has plenty of gun for distance he would have been better off getting a 6.5 grendel and producing a much larger wound channel in the deer.

The 6.5 is good for 1000 yards and doesn't weigh or cost near as much to shoot.

The 50 BMG is just a novelty item IMHO not much practical purpose unless you like to spend big bucks on ammo and shoot really long distances.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. While I am impressed...

...by snipers, I don't have what it takes, neither in skill nor patience. Not many do. Aside from all that; if I were wanting to shoot people long distance while a fugitive, I sure wouldn't want to be carrying a .50 and its ammo.

[applegrove]

16. And you can buy 50 cal tracer fire and take down a plane or a helicopter too. What fun!

[gejohnston]

17. actually, you can't

or is that the sarcasm part?

[applegrove]

19. 60 minutes did a story on it a decade ago. I didn't know they had tightened up

gun and ammo laws in the last decade? Did they?

[gejohnston]

20. just because they did a story on it

doesn't mean it can be physically be done. Besides, someone likely to do such a thing isn't likely to get the gun legally since the average gun shop doesn't carry such gun nor ammo.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. HAAHAHAA no.

This is a non-issue. Any rifle can do that, and 'incendiary' ammo is not required.

Two Canadian geese brought down the Hudson river crash plane. There is no deer rifle mild enough to be safe to shoot at an airplane. The .50 would, at best, let you do it from a couple hundred yards further away. BFD. Nobody's done it yet. Not bloody likely to happen either, given the geometry of making the shot in the first place.

[didact]

32. Marky Mark did it in The Shooter!

[dizbukhapeter]

24. You know what else can take down a plane?

Birds and pebbles.

[guardian]

21. They are fun to shoot.

Number of people Dorner killed with a .50 cal? Zero.
Number of people killed in the U.S. with a .50 cal? Zero

Number of antigunners worrying needlessly? Too numerous to count.

[dizbukhapeter]

23. Any standard rifle round will defeat most police body armor

Most vest worn by police are soft body armor and will only resist pistol rounds.

[melm00se]

30. already illegal in California

the ".50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004" effectively banned their ownership in CA.

[Eleanors38]

31. Don't know. 'Still waiting to see when I "go bad." nt