heywood on 27/3/2018 at 13:46
Quote Posted by Starker
No, limiting deaths would not be the reason to ban particular weapons like these.
The only reason to have any restrictions at all is to keep people from hurting or killing each other. There isn't any other justification worth talking about.
Quote:
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.
But they aren't particularly dangerous or destructive. A .50 cal rifle is a poor choice of gun for criminals, terrorists, mass murderers, and people committing suicide. That's why they are rarely used to kill people. They are primarily used in long range competition shooting. If they are legal to own and rarely used to hurt anybody, they aren't that dangerous, no matter what your perception of them might be.
The most dangerous guns are small, inexpensive handguns. Probably the most infamous ones are .38 Special revolvers, aka the Saturday Night Special aka the Suicide Special. They are cheap to purchase, cheap to shoot, easy to conceal, and easy to smuggle. They are used in the vast majority of suicides and homicides. While Americans go about our daily lives, we have about zero chance of being picked off by a sniper with a .50 cal rifle from hundreds of meters away. But Americans have a real chance of being shot with a small handgun if they're gang members, or involved in certain criminal activities, or have a suicidal relative, or are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's why for most of my life, except recently, handguns have been the focus of most gun regulation.
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.
The main reason to keep shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles out of civilian armories is that there's no safe place to fire them outside of military test ranges. All you need to safely fire a .50 cal rifle is a backstop and/or a whole lot of open land. Firing an anti-aircraft missile requires airspace, and we don't currently recognize private ownership of airspace. There is a possibility that might change in the future due to increasing drone ownership. If we did allow citizens to own airspace, or if we decided to allow a civilian arms club (as Larry proposed) to control an area of FAA regulated navigable airspace, then there wouldn't be any fundamental reason not to allow such a club to own and fire Stinger missiles.
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.
The only justification for requiring weapons to be kept at a gun club or armory is when they can't be safely stored at home. Small arms can be safely stored at home. A .50 cal rifle can be easily secured in a common gun safe.
Besides that, a free society doesn't "allow" people to have things and to do things. A free society starts from the premise that people are by nature free to do as they please. When people misuse their freedom to harm or mistreat others, or deny others their freedom, or don't treat other people fairly and equitably - that's when we consider making laws that limit certain liberties. If you want to restrict or ban a gun, you first have to demonstrate the harm it's causing and then make a logical case for how your proposed legislation is going to reduce the harm.
jkcerda on 27/3/2018 at 14:17
the 2nd is part of the constitution, driving is a privilege.
heywood on 27/3/2018 at 16:01
Driving is so fundamental to many people's livelihoods that it really should be considered a right, subject to restrictions of course. I hate it when the revocation of a driver's license is used as a punishment for offenses that have nothing to do with driving. That is deeply unjust IMO, and can ruin people's lives. I'll give you three real examples from people I know. First was a poor single mom who couldn't pay a fine and court fee for a very minor violation of a restraining order, and so a judge revoked her license, and then she couldn't get to work and lost her job. A relative had to step in and take the kids for a year while she got back on her feet. All for a lowest class misdemeanor resulting from a poorly coordinated child pickup. My younger brother was caught with marijuana in his pocket in a public park in New York and ended up having his license suspended, which caused him to lose his job and spiral downhill for quite a while. I also have a friend who couldn't quite keep up with child support payments after a divorce, even while holding a full time plus part time job and living cheap in a tiny apartment. The judge took away his license. He elected to drive without a license for a while so he could keep his jobs, and fortunately he wasn't caught.
Setting aside the immigration debate, I think most people recognize that freedom of movement is a basic human right, at least within one's national borders. For most people in the US, freedom of movement is exercised by traveling on public ways. If you live in a major city, you can get around on public transport + taxis/Uber/Lyft + walking. And for short trips you can always ride a bicycle. But if you want to travel further, or you don't live in a major city, most of the time you need to drive or fly. So I don't think we should be taking away driver's licenses except for safety reasons (DUI, reckless driving, excessive number of moving violations). Similarly, I don't think anybody should be denied air travel without a conviction or other court finding that indicates that it's dangerous to let them on a plane.
Starker on 27/3/2018 at 17:02
Quote Posted by heywood
The only reason to have any restrictions at all is to keep people from hurting or killing each other. There isn't any other justification worth talking about.
But they aren't particularly dangerous or destructive...
That is not the only reason, though? With all the talk about how .50 caliber sniper rifles aren't really dangerous or destructive, they
are meant to punch though armour. This means that body armour or even armoured vehicles are not enough when there's a standoff with someone who has this weapon.
Quote Posted by heywood
Besides that, a free society doesn't "allow" people to have things and to do things. A free society starts from the premise that people are by nature free to do as they please. When people misuse their freedom to harm or mistreat others, or deny others their freedom, or don't treat other people fairly and equitably - that's when we consider making laws that limit certain liberties. If you want to restrict or ban a gun, you first have to demonstrate the harm it's causing and then make a logical case for how your proposed legislation is going to reduce the harm.
Exactly, and guns are undoubtedly causing harm.
In addition to that, though, it makes good sense restrict things that have the potential to be a danger, especially if they have very limited utility otherwise. Like guns that can easily punch through the body armour of law enforcement.
LarryG on 27/3/2018 at 17:35
It is interesting that both automobile and gun related deaths are about 12 per 100,000 persons in the USA. And there are about the same number of guns as cars too (270K for guns and 280K for cars). But the distribution of guns across the population of the US is very different from that of cars. Only 9 percent or so households are without a car, while a whopping 70 percent of households don't have a gun. This means that just about everyone in the US is equally culpable for every automobile death, but only 30 percent of the population are causing all of the gun related deaths. If you look at the death numbers from a per household point of view, there are 31 automobile related deaths per 100,000 car owning households, and 87 per 100,000 gun owning households. Gun owners are nearly three times as likely to be responsible for a death as an automobile owner simply because all the guns in the USA are concentrated in a much smaller section of the total population.
The automotive industry contributes about 3 - 3.5 percent to the overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the US. That's about $600 billion dollars worth The industry directly employs over 1.7 million people engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing, and supplying parts and components to assemble, sell and service new motor vehicles. The firearms and ammunition industry claims about $51.3 billion in total economic activity in the country. It certainly seems that the impact on the economy for reducing gun related deaths would be way less than the impact for reducing automobile related deaths. And yet we legislate and spend so much more on research to reduce automobile deaths than we do on guns. Why is that? Guns would appear to the low hanging fruit.
Draxil on 27/3/2018 at 18:36
Quote Posted by Starker
That is not the only reason, though? With all the talk about how .50 caliber sniper rifles aren't really dangerous or destructive, they
are meant to punch though armour. This means that body armour or even armoured vehicles are not enough when there's a standoff with someone who has this weapon.
Exactly, and guns are undoubtedly causing harm.
In addition to that, though, it makes good sense restrict things that have the potential to be a danger, especially if they have very limited utility otherwise. Like guns that can easily punch through the body armour of law enforcement.
Level IV body armor is designed to stop armor piercing .30 caliber rounds. Anything with more punch than a 30.06 would probably penetrate it. That includes a whole lot of commonly used competition and hunting rounds. So after banning the .50 are you going after every other powerful round that can pierce armor?
heywood on 27/3/2018 at 18:45
Quote Posted by Starker
That is not the only reason, though? With all the talk about how .50 caliber sniper rifles aren't really dangerous or destructive, they
are meant to punch though armour. This means that body armour or even armoured vehicles are not enough when there's a standoff with someone who has this weapon.
In addition to that, though, it makes good sense restrict things that have the potential to be a danger, especially if they have very limited utility otherwise. Like guns that can easily punch through the body armour of law enforcement.
I'll repeat it again, the ONLY reason to have restrictions is to keep people from hurting or killing each other. I don't know why this point needs to be argued because it should be self evident.
The fact is that .50 rifles are NOT being used to punch through the body armor of law enforcement. They're not used in drive-by shootings, gang killings, mafia hits, suicides, domestic violence and murder-suicides of family members and ex-lovers, armed robberies, or mass shootings. By the numbers, the threat posed by .50 rifles is non-existent.
Long range sniper rifles are a pretty specialized weapon. They are too expensive for most people to own and shoot. They have special range requirements, so there are very few places where you can shoot them (none in my state, for example). It takes a lot of skill and training to use them effectively at the long ranges they were designed for. The size of the rifles and rounds make them unsuitable and impractical for criminal activity. And the size & weight of the rounds, limited magazine capacity, and firing rate make even the semi-auto models a poor choice for terrorists who are trying to kill a lot of people quickly. The design elements that make these rifles and rounds effective for long range sniper use also make them pretty useless for gun violence.
So I think all you're offering here is a "scary gun" argument.
Starker on 27/3/2018 at 18:51
Quote Posted by Draxil
Level IV body armor is designed to stop armor piercing .30 caliber rounds. Anything with more punch than a 30.06 would probably penetrate it. That includes a whole lot of commonly used competition and hunting rounds. So after banning the .50 are you going after every other powerful round that can pierce armor?
Er... yes? Why allow armour-piercing ammo in the first place? Especially for handguns. I'm sure exceptions can be made for competitions and certain hunting rifles.
Quote Posted by heywood
Long range sniper rifles are a pretty specialized weapon. They are too expensive for most people to own and shoot. They have special range requirements, so there are very few places where you can shoot them (none in my state, for example). It takes a lot of skill and training to use them effectively at the long ranges they were designed for. The size of the rifles and rounds make them unsuitable and impractical for criminal activity. And the size & weight of the rounds, limited magazine capacity, and firing rate make even the semi-auto models a poor choice for terrorists who are trying to kill a lot of people quickly.
How about those terrorists who are not trying to kill a lot of people quickly, but who are going after specific targets, though? I remember there was a guy arrested who was threatening to go after Obama with a .50 caliber sniper rifle, for example.
Quote Posted by heywood
All you're offering is a "scary gun" argument.
Not a scary gun argument. Dangerous gun argument. A dangerous gun that has limited use otherwise. Er.. outside of the military, that is.
Pyrian on 27/3/2018 at 19:15
Nukes killed zero people last year. By the numbers, we should start selling them directly to ISIS.
...Or, y'know, we could not wait until people start using dangerous weapons for their specifically built purpose.
I would be more impressed with "by the numbers" arguments if you were arguing for doing something about those rather than against doing something about anything else.
heywood on 27/3/2018 at 19:39
A single strategic nuclear warhead could kill a million people or more. A low yield portable nuke could kill hundreds of thousands.
A single .50 round can kill a person, or maybe a couple of people in some fragmentation scenarios. Most .50 rifles are bolt action, but even the semi-auto rifles have a max capacity of 10 rounds. A 9mm semi-auto pistol can kill more people more quickly than a .50 rifle.
So it's a non-sensical analogy.
