Law 7.8 - Possession of restricted firearms (Bonus definition)

Messages
2,143
Reaction score
6,537
Points
630
Location
the crematorium
Is this a new law or a change to a current law: New Law

What law do you wish to change/add: A law banning the production, possession of supplement of certain

7.8 - Restricted Firearms - Any person that produces, possesses or supplies a restricted firearm commits an offence

Felony - Liable to $X000 and asset forfeiture


Restricted firearm - A firearm deemed unsuitable for home defence by the paralake police department. These include SR-25 (maybe), pretty much everything 50 calibre. (Up for discussion)

Why should this change/addition be made: Because realistically certain firearms serve no legally justifiable purpose. The excuse of self-defence only goes so far and can be applicable to assault rifles and below, and perhaps at a stretch the Remington M24, but any 50 Calibre sniper rifle that has the ability to tear a hole through somebody (or perhaps even the SR-25 due to it's high fire rate,) cannot be justifiably proportionate to any situation whatsoever.

What is the aim of this change/addition: To make paralake a safer place, in essence, the fact that these sorts of firearms are openly circulated leads to the PD being outmatched in terms of weaponry. High calibre sniper rifles that can one shot SWAT serve no practical purpose except for the aforementioned, which is obviously illegal.

Additional Information:
 
Messages
40
Reaction score
165
Points
335
What if they go hunting with high caliber rifles and are just really bad sportsmen?
 
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
2,811
Points
630
Location
United Kingdom
I agree very heavily with this being an addition, There is no valuable reason to ever see anyone with these snipers most of the time, therefore they should be outlawed with grenades and bombs. We discussed this briefly in bazaar and pretty much the only excuse someone can come up with to carry a 50cal sniper is to go hunting.
stock-photo-mud-splat-cartoon-character-94640527.jpg
your animal once u've shot it with a 50cal
Going for a stroll with your sniper is ridiculous, and as you said you cannot justify a 50cal sniper to be used in self defence as it kills instantly.
 
Messages
595
Reaction score
1,236
Points
580
Location
United Kingdom
I mean I see your point you are trying to put across here Exrobite but if it is made illegal for anyone to own and sr-25 or m82 it would make the police department way to overpowered being a swat the m24 can 1 shot a citizen body and above where as a citizen would take 2-4 shots to kill a swat officer the point in the sr-25 and m82 is to give them a chance also if a raid was set up perfectly there would be no where to be sniped from.
 
Messages
2,031
Reaction score
8,138
Points
455
Location
United Kingdom
While I can see the benefits of this, I don't agree with restricting what firearms can be purchased. High caliber weapons often provide a lot of income for people in sales and when people are leveling up, it is very slow without making snipers. For those who don't plan on using them they can sell them in bazaar.

Taking away this would not do any real good, police will be able to confiscate a few more guns.
 
Messages
434
Reaction score
1,723
Points
590
Location
USA
The justification for possessing a high caliber gun is a easier to justify then a full auto gun. High caliber firearms are used by marksmen and typically are used for a low rate of fire and high damage. Full auto guns you point and hold it down and 30 shots are released, people use high caliber guns so they can restrict property damage instead of just destroying your door. Single shot rifles like a SR-25 or M82 are guns that typically are used to fire a single shot and kill someone, and be over with.
Don't seem to understand the point of restricting these guns, in-addition what about farm? When someone is defending their property and their outside in there field and they have bad aim, they at least stand a chance. The point of firearms to give people defending themselves a chance to do so. If high caliber/marksmen rifles were banned it would only be assisting the PLPD and helping criminals who want to break the law, making it easier to do so.

An M4A1 can do just as much damage as an M82 due to the fact it's full auto. Restricting high caliber guns shouldn't be a concern for the PD.
 
Messages
6,207
Reaction score
8,328
Points
665
Location
REHAB
Automatic weapons and Handguns are more harmful to society than High Caliber rifles. That said, I agree somewhat, Sniper rifles should be limited to defending large properties, such as the Farm. If you take up private security work as an occupation, you should be allowed access to such weapons, but if you buy an M82 to defend your slums apartment, well, some raiders are going to be the proud new owners of an M82.
 
Messages
2,143
Reaction score
6,537
Points
630
Location
the crematorium
The idea of the damage of a rifle being more than a sniper is probably correct, however, the focus of this restriction is more the purpose of the weapons. Sure, assault rifles can be utilised long range but they're better mid - short range, making them quite suitable for home defence.

Snipers, however, are pretty much solely long ranged, and are, as people have said, outclassed at other ranges. Such a weapon serves no purpose for home defence as you should never need to snipe anybody, considering the PLPD should have been informed and on scene at the point where such intervention (pardon the mw2 pun) is required.
 
Messages
68
Reaction score
191
Points
405
Location
United States
I could see the benefit of this. However, owning a firearm privately has remained pretty unrestricted. Although I can't see a reason for having a sniper rifle for home defense, it should't be up to a law that decides what firearm someone should use to defend their home. When it comes down to it, the person breaking in is breaking the law, and probably is carrying an illegal firearm. All you can try to do it even the playing field with a better weapon that what they have.
 
Top