jkcerda on 26/3/2018 at 23:31
why the hell should I be in a gun club to own such a thing? clubs cost money. NOW if ANYONE can say they are a "collector" then Im ok with it
Starker on 26/3/2018 at 23:41
Clubs cost money, but not as much as the weaponry they could potentially have there.
LarryG on 27/3/2018 at 00:25
Everything costs money. If you can't afford to kick into the kitty, don't play. You expect someone to subsidize your hobby?
Tocky on 27/3/2018 at 03:40
Quote Posted by heywood
If you think that banning particular weapons could reduce gun deaths, surely it makes sense to start by looking at the weapons that kill the most people, not the ones that kill the least.
As someone pointed out it's not actually the caliber that helps kill the most. A .50 caliber might go through a car a cop is hiding behind but mostly it's the number of bullets fired without a reload in crowd settings where folks are running away. If we restricted all rifles to a five round mag and seriously confiscated with stiff fines anything more then we might save a few in these shooting gallery type settings like schools and nightclubs. It wouldn't save all but a few more might get away while the shooter reloaded and possibly dropped mags in his excitement maybe even jamming it. He might forget his bag of mags or fumble with them in his pockets. It wouldn't stop all death just some. Isn't that enough to implement it?
I really don't want to get back into this discussion because the gun nuts never give an inch nor acknowledge any small degree of credibility if it means they can't play super commando Rambo with neato massive firepower though it isn't required if you are a decent shot. I wish folks could think of guns as a tool but to some they will always be a toy to play with. My rights! My guuuuuuuuuuns! Yeah yeah and your blood on your hands by not giving an inch. Get yourself a bump stock and .50 cal little boy who never got over playing combat hero. Then ignore the truth because you want to justify it.
Just a drive by. I've seen all the arguments. No point even trying to get through any thick skulls. Gun nuts have the thickest ever. So fire away.
Draxil on 27/3/2018 at 04:29
Quote Posted by Starker
So, the moment someone shoots down a helicopter with one, it's banning time, not before?
I'm guessing you've spent a lot of time at (
www.vpc.org) before posting about this. Google says it seems to be the source for a lot of your .50 BMG talking points.
The .50 BMG was a round designed towards the end of WWI for a belt fed machine gun (BMG=Browning Machine Gun) to be fired at a rate of about 400 rounds per minute. I believe that is still the method it is primarily used for in the military. It's an anti-armor round if deployed at a sufficient rate. As a sniper rifle it's an anti-personell weapon that has incredible penetrative power. It delivers an unbelievable amount of energy to the target at great ranges. A 250 grain .338 Lapua Magnum round at 500 yards has a energy of 2706 fl/lb, accrording to Hornandy. The 750 grain .50 BMG delivers
9,538 ft/lb at the same range. Either is lethal at mile+ ranges, if you're skilled enough to make such a shot. You are equally dead from both. That same .338 Lapua Mag has enough power to stop an engine, too. So does a 12 ga shotgun slug. So do many center-fire rifle cartridges. I'd wager that, between Vietnam and Afghanistan, the rather mundane 7.62x39mm round has taken down more helicopters than all other calibers combined. But shooting a moving helicopter out of the sky with a sniper rifle is pure Hollywood, and rather ridiculous. Youtube has videos of people shooting a stationary F-150 directly through the engine block multiple times without stopping it. It would take an incredible sniper to send a 1/2" round through the engine of a helicopter moving at 150 mph with enough accuracy to make it crash. A hovering helicopter, maybe. But, again, a hovering helicopter is probably vulnerable to most center-fire rifles.
Quote:
No, limiting deaths would not be the reason to ban particular weapons like these. The reason would be that they are a way too dangerous and destructive to have in civilian circulation. Weapons like these have been confiscated from terrorist organisations and organised crime armories.
Handguns, shotguns, and rifles have been confiscated from terrorist organizations and organized crime armories, too. Does that mean they're too dangerous and destructive to have in civilian circulation?
Quote:
It's the same reason you don't allow Stingers (I assume) to be in the civilian market just because only a few people die to them. And, at least in the US, there is no recurring problem of people shooting down helicopters with Stinger missiles either.
There's already a line drawn between rifles and destructive devices, as catbarf said. The line has to be somewhere, and I think it's appropriate where it is. For most practical purposes, there's very little difference between the effects of a .50 BMG and a lot of the big game cartridges that have been on the market since the late 19th to early 20th century. I have no doubt that cartridges designed to humanely take down an elephant or a cape buffalo could stop an engine just as effectively as a .50 BMG.
Quote:
On the other side of the coin, what would be the reason to allow them to be widespread? They are impractical for hunting or self-defence. And all the recreational shooting would be covered by them being restricted to collectors and gun clubs.
That's not the way it works in free societies. If you had to prove the practicality of every item you owned that was capable of misuse and harm, then most people shouldn't own computers, or cars, or matches, or fertilizer, or anything sharper than a butter knife. Did you know that computers can be used to destroy people's lives, steal their money, and bully innocent people to the point of suicide? That Islamo-nutjob in Nice killed more people with a truck in 10 minutes than were ever killed by civilian owned .50 rifles.
I think your approach to this is illustrative of why gun laws in this country are unlikely to change. Rifles are used in a tiny portion of crime in this country. Hi powered exotic rifles like the Barrett .50 BMG are never used for practical purposes. You came up with 5 cases in the past 34 years where a .50 was even tangentially involved, and no one was killed with one or even shot with one in those five cases. Yet you, and your VPC buddies, and your ideological mates, are focused on this weapon. If you're so intent on banning such an irrelevant weapon, why should any gun owner believe your willingness to compromise when it comes to much more commonly used and owned weapons like pistols?
Draxil on 27/3/2018 at 04:33
Quote Posted by Tocky
As someone pointed out it's not actually the caliber that helps kill the most. A .50 caliber might go through a car a cop is hiding behind but mostly it's the number of bullets fired without a reload in crowd settings where folks are running away. If we restricted all rifles to a five round mag and seriously confiscated with stiff fines anything more then we might save a few in these shooting gallery type settings like schools and nightclubs. It wouldn't save all but a few more might get away while the shooter reloaded and possibly dropped mags in his excitement maybe even jamming it. He might forget his bag of mags or fumble with them in his pockets. It wouldn't stop all death just some. Isn't that enough to implement it?
I really don't want to get back into this discussion because the gun nuts never give an inch nor acknowledge any small degree of credibility if it means they can't play super commando Rambo with neato massive firepower though it isn't required if you are a decent shot. I wish folks could think of guns as a tool but to some they will always be a toy to play with. My rights! My guuuuuuuuuuns! Yeah yeah and your blood on your hands by not giving an inch. Get yourself a bump stock and .50 cal little boy who never got over playing combat hero. Then ignore the truth because you want to justify it.
Just a drive by. I've seen all the arguments. No point even trying to get through any thick skulls. Gun nuts have the thickest ever. So fire away.
California banned all magazines over 10 rounds, and has strict fines and confiscation if you're caught with them. According to a pro gun control person on NPR the other day, there has been practically
zero compliance with the law. There's an estimated 7 million high capacity magazines in California. That horse is out of the barn, for good. I inherited a good deal of my uncle's guns and gun stuff, and have literal stacks of high capacity magazines for AR-15's and AK's.
jkcerda on 27/3/2018 at 05:00
Quote Posted by LarryG
Everything costs money. If you can't afford to kick into the kitty, don't play. You expect someone to subsidize your hobby?
My rights should not be taxed based on your feelings
Starker on 27/3/2018 at 05:02
Quote Posted by Draxil
That's not the way it works in free societies. If you had to prove the practicality of every item you owned that was capable of misuse and harm, then most people shouldn't own computers, or cars, or matches, or fertilizer, or anything sharper than a butter knife. Did you know that computers can be used to destroy people's lives, steal their money, and bully innocent people to the point of suicide? That Islamo-nutjob in Nice killed more people with a truck in 10 minutes than were ever killed by civilian owned .50 rifles.
The point is not to ban anything that could possibly be dangerous, the point is to limit access to weapons that are undoubtedly extremely dangerous. Especially if they don't have any utility outside of war.
Yes, a lot of people have been killed by cars, but a whole lot of people have been killed by guns too. Why compound the problem?
Also, people all over the world do seek to prevent deaths caused by cars. Cars are heavily regulated and in most (if not all) countries you have to have a licence and pass a test before you're allowed to drive a car. And you can't drive around in monster trucks either outside of limited places. You are not allowed to put spikes on your car or drive a car that's in some other way an unnecessary danger to other road users.
Draxil on 27/3/2018 at 10:30
Statistically, civilian owned .50 cal rifles aren't dangerous. They've been around for over 30 years and are practically never used in crime, because they're impractical weapons. There's a sporting goods store near me that sells the rifles. They're crazy expensive. And the cartridges are $7 each. They just aren't criminal weapons any way you cut it.
I mean, if you're a criminal willing to spend an inordinate amount of money on a rifle that can do crazy damage, you don't mess with the .50. That's for pussies, and won't get you any street cred. You buy one of (
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/72/401/ssk-industries-950-jdj-gun-number-one-single-shot) these. The muzzle energy of a .50 BMG is about 13,000 ft-lbs. The muzzle energy of this bad boy is almost 40,000. A .50 BMG fires a 750 grain bullet--this fires a 3,600 grain bullet. That's over 1/2 lb bullet, moving at 1800 mph. It is legal for civilian purchase, as the manufacturer received a destructive device exemption for their manufacture and sale. Cartridges are about $40 each. Should it be banned, also?
Chimpy Chompy on 27/3/2018 at 13:18
Quote Posted by Starker
Yes, a lot of people have been killed by cars, but a whole lot of people have been killed by guns too. Why compound the problem?
Also, people all over the world do seek to prevent deaths caused by cars. Cars are heavily regulated and in most (if not all) countries you have to have a licence and pass a test before you're allowed to drive a car. And you can't drive around in monster trucks either outside of limited places. You are not allowed to put spikes on your car or drive a car that's in some other way an unnecessary danger to other road users.
Not to mention, cars and trucks are (perhaps regrettably) an essential component of our modern way of life. This is generally not true of guns.
