Now, I understand that a 22lr is no 5.56, and you can't hope to get through any armor with it. Definitely not a first choice for world domination. But I just can't wrap my head around why countries and states that are so strict with rifles don't include .22. For example: ALL semi-auto and pump action rifles are banned in England..... except for .22's. A British citizen can have an M&P Sport 15-22 with 25/30 round magazines. WHAT!? And I believe in Canada, all semi-auto rifles are restricted to 5 round magazines except for... you guessed it... .22 caliber! Could someone explain to me the reasoning behind this? Is it that they think a .22 is so weak, there's no point in restricting them? You would think people so scared of guns wouldn't care what size round your firing. Someone determined with a .22 would still be able to inflict a lot of damage to a lot of people. Keep in mind that a .22 magnum (still .22 caliber) can put out around 300 ft/lbs of energy. Very similar to a .38 spl +P. I just don't get this.
Why are .22 caliber rifles always exempt from gun bans?
- Thread starter James3008
- Start date
- Status
Ohen Cepel
Member
I think the left leaves them out as banning them would go after too many gun owners who otherwise wouldn't care. Sort of like leaving lever action rifles alone, they want to divide and conquer. Now, if they are able to ban everything but .22's and lever guns they will simply come for those next.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
I figure because .22 LR and its kin are not a military or police cartridges.
Yes, but neither is a 25 acp. They put out around 65 ft/lbs. Same with .32. They put out less than or equal energy to a .22lr, yet both of those would still be banned.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
We're still talking about countries other than the USA, right?
I figure that the .22LR in those other countries was and is considered mostly a pest control or target shooting cartridge, not a self defense cartridge.
I figure that the .22LR in those other countries was and is considered mostly a pest control or target shooting cartridge, not a self defense cartridge.
FL-NC
Member
a combination of priorities and the fact that there are so many 22's with tube mags, I think.
Interesting points. I would say though, they could simply ban ALL semi-autos with detachable magazines, period. That would still allow the millions of tube mag .22 for pest control and plinking. I guess I'm just surprised that people so against guns would be so "kind" as to not include so many rifles in their sweeping bans. This is also how UK citizens get around handgun bans. Extend the barrel, add a counter weight/wrist balance to the back, chamber it in .22 and you've got UK legal "pistol!"
BrocLuno
Member
22's are in the Olympics and almost all training programs. Youth shoots, all sorts of indoor range stuff, carnivals, etc.
More meat put on the table around the world with 22 than all the other calibers combined ... Not a smart move to upset the gun owners who don't actually do much people damage.
Assassins often use 22's. But they don't have registered weapons of any kind ...
More meat put on the table around the world with 22 than all the other calibers combined ... Not a smart move to upset the gun owners who don't actually do much people damage.
Assassins often use 22's. But they don't have registered weapons of any kind ...
This. They simply haven't successfully managed to ban the other rifles. Had they succeeded, 22LRs would surely be next. Until then, no need to
rile up the opposition that trying to ban 22LR first would cause.
larryh1108
Member
Kind of like what any gun ban does?
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
They will come after them the first time a madman or terrorist goes on a rampage with a high capacity .22.
They want them ALL.
They want them ALL.
Carl N. Brown
Member
OP#1 I would presume that is because .22 rimfire rifles, like single barrel and double barrel shot guns, are seen as farmers' guns for hunting and pest control or for target practice for recreation or marksmanship training, owned by millions world wide for benign purposes and seen not as guns designed and intended for use against people.
I think that most anti-gun folks have the an arbitrary line in the sand on what constitutes a "weapon". Sure, there are some who ban sling shots and marbles if they could, but I think the area where a gun transforms from tool into weapon revolves around handguns with higher capacities (or handguns in general of any capacity and caliber) and centerfire rifles that fire big scary looking bullets.
I too don't understand the reasoning behind "allowing" a bunch of .22s and NO 5.56 put of a rifle, but I could see the military background and large "aggressive" size of the 5.56 cartridge being a factor. I mean, your grandma swallows pills larger than a .22lr cartridge
The .22 is a fantastic tool and a poor weapon (generally). That's one thing the goofballs tend to get "correct".
I too don't understand the reasoning behind "allowing" a bunch of .22s and NO 5.56 put of a rifle, but I could see the military background and large "aggressive" size of the 5.56 cartridge being a factor. I mean, your grandma swallows pills larger than a .22lr cartridge
The .22 is a fantastic tool and a poor weapon (generally). That's one thing the goofballs tend to get "correct".
Cowhide Cliff
Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2015
- Messages
- 1,089
I think that most anti-gun folks have the an arbitrary line in the sand on what constitutes a "weapon". Sure, there are some who ban sling shots and marbles if they could, but I think the area where a gun transforms from tool into weapon revolves around handguns with higher capacities (or handguns in general of any capacity and caliber) and centerfire rifles that fire big scary looking bullets.
I too don't understand the reasoning behind "allowing" a bunch of .22s and NO 5.56 put of a rifle, but I could see the military background and large "aggressive" size of the 5.56 cartridge being a factor. I mean, your grandma swallows pills larger than a .22lr cartridge
The .22 is a fantastic tool and a poor weapon (generally). That's one thing the goofballs tend to get "correct".
"aggressive" size of a 5.56? 556 are baby cartridges.
That's the problem may want to talk about banning based on "power" of a cartridge and a typical AR-15 5.56 is by most not considered an ethical deer hunting round.
Theohazard
Member
They're not. Just off the top of my head I can think of two major bans that didn't exempt .22s: The 1994 federal assault weapons ban and New Jersey's assault weapons ban that famously banned the Marlin Model 60. I'll bet there are other bans that don't exempt .22s also.James3008 said:
Sav .250
Member
May be they look at "rim fire" in a different light. J s/n.
Speedo66
Member
The ambiguous term "high powered" inevitably comes up in official and news reporting. .22's don't meet that criteria.
Yes, I know it's a little cartridge with a low mass bullet, and you know it's a little cartridge with a low mass bullet, but if you aren't a gun person it looks "scarier" with its pointy bullet and bottle necked shape than the almost cute little .22lr.
All my parenthesis are trying to describe the potential mindset of the why someone could be against a .22 caliber centerfire cartridge and be totally ok with a .22 rimfire.
22-rimfire
Member
My personal take is it is purely a political decision as 22 rimfires are probably the most common rifle and handgun caliber and the caliber that many non-gun people might own for recreational, hunting, or pest control. I do believe the magazine restrictions impact 22 handguns.
BrocLuno
Member
Cali separates rim-fire form center-fire. They are after center-fire first. So I propose we get someone to make a 30 cal rim-fire so Cali folks can have access to High Powered w/o center-fire
Deus Machina
Member
ARs and AKs are scary.
Large-caliber or high-velocity rounds are powerful.
Large magazines allow someone to shoot faster.
Those are their selling points. .22LR is not large, powerful, or particularly fast. Not many come with large magazines. Not many are used--as far as the public at large is concerned--as concealable weapons for robberies or terrifying tools of mass shootings.
So the people calling for a ban that actually consider their intentions good aren't particularly concerned about them, and the people that hate or are frightened by the tools above the users can make their little steps without alienating everyone--the "it's okay, they're not taking mine" effect.
Large-caliber or high-velocity rounds are powerful.
Large magazines allow someone to shoot faster.
Those are their selling points. .22LR is not large, powerful, or particularly fast. Not many come with large magazines. Not many are used--as far as the public at large is concerned--as concealable weapons for robberies or terrifying tools of mass shootings.
So the people calling for a ban that actually consider their intentions good aren't particularly concerned about them, and the people that hate or are frightened by the tools above the users can make their little steps without alienating everyone--the "it's okay, they're not taking mine" effect.
I'll bet there are other bans that don't exempt .22s also.
Several years ago, California banned (well, classified as 'assault weapons') pistols where the mag wasn't housed in the grip. The intention was to ban Mac-10's and things like that, but of course that definition includes high end rimfire competition pistols like the Hammerli. I recall hearing someone ask the then-AG about that; it affected a couple of young ladies who were Olympic contenders. His answer was 'they can move out of CA'.
Several years ago, California banned (well, classified as 'assault weapons') pistols where the mag wasn't housed in the grip. The intention was to ban Mac-10's and things like that, but of course that definition includes high end rimfire competition pistols like the Hammerli. I recall hearing someone ask the then-AG about that; it affected a couple of young ladies who were Olympic contenders. His answer was 'they can move out of CA'.
danez71
Member
^^^^^ That recollection is wrong.
The Hammeli and other Olympic pistols are specifically exempted in the from the bans in CA.
Rimfire isn't considered High Powered enough for them to go after now. Tools not weapons is a good analogy.
Divide and defeat as someone mentioned above.
It's been a successful tactic for them for decades.
The Hammeli and other Olympic pistols are specifically exempted in the from the bans in CA.
Rimfire isn't considered High Powered enough for them to go after now. Tools not weapons is a good analogy.
Divide and defeat as someone mentioned above.
It's been a successful tactic for them for decades.
Danez: That's odd; my recollection was pretty clear. I went a'googlin.
You are certainly correct about the current law - it specifically allows certain competition pistols. Thanks for pointing that out.
But I think that is a recent revision, that is, I believe there was a period when Hammerlis et al were banned. I couldn't find a site that had the history of revisions explicitly, but found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989
and followed some of it's footnotes to e.g. this:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
That was written in 2001, and lists the generic language "(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip" without the 'olympic' exceptions.
Disclaimer: I'm not from California, so I don't follow stuff there closely, but my memory of the AG's dismissive comment stood out at the time. Goodness knows my memory isn'r perfect, but the memory of that comment is pretty clear.
You are certainly correct about the current law - it specifically allows certain competition pistols. Thanks for pointing that out.
But I think that is a recent revision, that is, I believe there was a period when Hammerlis et al were banned. I couldn't find a site that had the history of revisions explicitly, but found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989
and followed some of it's footnotes to e.g. this:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
That was written in 2001, and lists the generic language "(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip" without the 'olympic' exceptions.
Disclaimer: I'm not from California, so I don't follow stuff there closely, but my memory of the AG's dismissive comment stood out at the time. Goodness knows my memory isn'r perfect, but the memory of that comment is pretty clear.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
