New Sniper fall out

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by *\Conan/*: Just a quick comment that the Terrapin game (nationally televised) and Americas Most Wanted are airing tonight in Maryland. I Hope some good tips come in and its a great chance to get the word around. Mybe someone could explain fully why these round size's are important. To my limited knowledge I can only guess that a smaller round like this fired at a high rate of speed would break-up upon impact. Would this suspect possibly load his own ammo or have a buying record to get such things? Would he have a membership or possibly recorded alot of firing range visits in the past year? Do you have to have a DL to join a club or even fire at one? *\Conan/*

I think it's more of a personal preference thing, as far as people arguing about which round is better. [img]smile.gif[/img]

IMO(and *without* jumping into a calibre debate) I think that the 'sniper' is probably using a .223 because A) it *is* an accurate, light calibre ammo and B) is cheap and easy to obtain, or self-load and C) the small bullet tends to break up on impact. I was watching the news last night and they commented on the fact that the police were having some trouble tying in several of the bullets because of that fact. Especially where the victim was shot in the cranium. The skull is pretty thick and tends to make the bullet fragment.

Sorry for being grisly, just trying to make a point. :S

As for the Topic on hand...Well, despite the fact that I'm a *VERY* outspoken pro-gun/pro-NRA advocate, I think that a *temporary*(emphasis on TEMPORARY) hunting ban isn't all that bad of an idea. While I agree with the esteemed Mr Harris that there's very little chance of this wackjob shooting someone out in the boonies, I also dont want to see some innocent sportsman get himself shot by a nervous SWAT counter-sniper because he's driving a white mini-van and has his fun in the back seat.

On the refund issue...From a pragmatic standpoint, 6 bucks isn't that big of a deal. It's about the cost of a box of ammo. And the money is probably already allocated to various conservation/forest service needs. However, the principle of the thing says that, when one pays for services rendered, one should expect to get those services, or if not, then one should expect a refund.

That's my [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img] anyway.

[ 10-18-2002, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

[Ronn_Bman]

If I heard correctly, a large part of the reason for implimenting the hunting ban was to reduce the number of calls to police reporting the sounds of gunfire. For that reason and others listed here I think it's a good idea, but I found it interesting that gun ranges were not effected by the temporary ban. Maybe the people in the vicinity of the ranges are so used to gunfire they don't think that will be a problem?

[Nachtrafe]

MOVED TO TIMBER_LOFTIS' WOLVES AS ENDANGERED SPECIES THREAD.

[ 10-18-2002, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: If I heard correctly, a large part of the reason for implimenting the hunting ban was to reduce the number of calls to police reporting the sounds of gunfire. For that reason and others listed here I think it's a good idea, but I found it interesting that gun ranges were not effected by the temporary ban. Maybe the people in the vicinity of the ranges are so used to gunfire they don't think that will be a problem?

LOL...Cynical much?

[Ronn_Bman]

Only a little [img]smile.gif[/img]

I was really curious though because people in my area who live near a range call to report the sounds of gunfire in their neighborhood MUCH more than rural residents who live in/near known hunting areas.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Only a little [img]smile.gif[/img] I was really curious though because people in my area who live near a range call to report the sounds of gunfire in their neighborhood MUCH more than rural residents who live in/near known hunting areas.

LOL...I guess common sense seems to have escaped them. People are usually cooking off entire boxes of ammo at one time in a shooting range. When you're hunting, you fire off half a dozen shots the whole day, unless you're having a really rotten luck.

Oh, and lest anyone accuse me of being insensetive...Yes, I understand that listening to a constant barrage of gunshots can be annoying. But indoor ranges are *supposed* to be soundproofed so that they can't be heard from more than a hundred feet or so(at least, that's the law in Idaho). I suppose if you live near an outdoor range, you're kind of in a predicament though. But then, I'm cynical enough to say 'you should have inspected the neighborhood *before* you moved in'.

[Sir Krustin]

Post moved to "Wolf as an endangered Species" thread.

[ 10-18-2002, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

[Sir Krustin]

Post moved to "Wolf as an endangered Species" thread.

[ 10-18-2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

[John D Harris]

ALL RIGHT THAT'S IT!!! Twice I've been called esteemed!
1st of all I don't "steam" anything, I'm from the South we fry everything, 'cept our peanuts we boll'em.
2nd I got a reputation to hold down on the board here.

Apparently the hunting banis only for public lands. I work with a guy who left early today so he could go hunt on his friends farm. (It has a lot of wooded area.) So Im completely confused about what our Governor is trying to accomplish. I think maybe he just needed some way to get some publicity since he stepped on his crank while on air at the beginning of this. The investigators really ripped him and others a new one for antagonizing the sniper while on the air. He was calling the guy all kinds of names and such and I guess the police had specificly asked himnot to do that.