Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!
not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: Draconium on August 12, 2009, 01:22:56 am
-
Yes, I am aware that this is old news.
I just want to see what everyone thinks about the .50 caliber weapons ban that have been enacted in CA and other states.
-
I think some weapons go beyond personal protection and have the potential to do a lot of collateral damage. It's the same reason they don't allow certain trucks with compressed gases to travel through cities. It has a greater potential to hurt a lot of innocent people if someone is dumb. Add on humans make a lot of dumb choices often and you get = NOT WANT! ;)
WhiteShepherd
-
Yeah, a .50 cal isn't exactly appropriate or practical for self defense.
But I don't think the ban is very useful. You can still bring .50 cals from out of state in California and the people who you don't want having these weapons probably have a way of getting them. I can sort of understand the reasoning behind it though, there's not much reasonable practical civilian use for a .50 caliber rifle, and most of them are anti-material.
-
No matter how hard these laws try, there will always be these outrageous guns. The black market can pull in anything your heart desires and puts it in your hands... for a price a course. In certain parts of my town, you can buy a gun off of any street corner for a couple hundred.
Instead of focusing on lawful gun owners, deal with the black market first.
BTW: I think having a .50 cal for self defense is insane, whats next? RPG's on the gun rack in the den!?
-
I love guns and pretty much any weapon of any type unless it's pointed at me. ;)
That being said I have to agree that .50 is a little extreme but I'd have one just in case the appocalypse comes. No sense worrying about what to do during it, prepare for the worst! But in actuallity, should you be hit by a natural disaster I think high powered weapons are a good choice to stave off any looters. Once folk get it into their heads they can do what they want without consequence they become animals and will do unspeakable things to satisfy their wants. And since CA is a place with many earthquakes I would keep a few strong weapons in case things go bad should 'the big one' hit.
But for everyday, average personal protection it is a bit much, but I learned in the boy scouts to 'always be prepared'. So while it is a bit over the top I'd still want one 'just in case'.
I suppose I'm against it even though I can see the logic in the arguments and agree with the statements you've made. Besides, the black market doesn't care about the law and can equip you with anything you like as long as you can pay so the ban just makes it a little more difficult.
-
Once folk get it into their heads they can do what they want without consequence they become animals and will do unspeakable things to satisfy their wants.
Unspeakable things like shooting people with high-powered weapons?
So everyone should have access to these guns so that when society breaks down we can all shoot each other with them?
-
As long as the gun was stripped down and unuseable, and only kept as a relic/souvenier, then I can probably say ok to keeping it. The only people that I think should have these types of guns is the military only. There's no need for an average civilian to have one. These types of guns are too dangerous. They'll make your average car look like a block of swiss cheese. :o
-
P.S. - Watch the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckklgMDZKJA
-
Another hoplophile here. As long as the weapon is not aimed at me; I love them.
Keep in mind that very few crimes has ever been committed with these rifles. The only one I can think of is the siege at Waco.
Also, the Barrett M107 semiautomatic rifle is 5 feet long and weighs about over 30 pounds. It is impractical to use in a street robbery.
Also, these rifles cost thousands of dollars. Terrorists will not spend thousands of dollars to on an expensive rifle when a cheap IED can do even more damage.
However, there are civilian uses for these rifles: long range target shooting and hunting. In fact, some people have these weapons for entertainment (target shooting again).
As for the argument "there is no practical use so it should be banned"... want to apply that to the guy who owns the $200,000+ Ferrari?
-------------------------------
Kobuk, automatic firearms are nearly impossible for civilians to obtain. I count a lot more than ten rounds in that belt he was loading into the MG.
And further note, car doors are thin sheet metal, most small arms will penetrate them.
-
BTW: I think having a .50 cal for self defense is insane, whats next? RPG's on the gun rack in the den!?
RPG's I think fall under the term "artillery". 2nd amendment only protects fire arms.
Once folk get it into their heads they can do what they want without consequence they become animals and will do unspeakable things to satisfy their wants.
Unspeakable things like shooting people with high-powered weapons?
So everyone should have access to these guns so that when society breaks down we can all shoot each other with them?
I think he was refering to the looters. Look to England, where guns are banned all around yet violent crimes are rampant. Criminals become a lot more bold when they know they don't have to risk coming face to face with a gun when robbing someone.
It's not the law abiding citizens that *LEGALLY* aquire guns you have to worry about. It's the ones getting them on the black market that is the problem. A distinction that is lost on a lot of anti-gun advocates. It's like the saying goes: Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. They don't care about the rule of law, it's only the law abiding would-be gun owners that plan to use it for self defence/target shooting/hunting that will obey it.
In terms of a .50 cal, I'm not a big gun nut and don't know much about these specifically. But I'm usually a supporter of gun rights. There are some regulations I can understand the point of (i.e. city ordinances because if you miss, you just blew a hole through 5 different apartments due to thin walls), even though I don't really think they should exist. Gun owners in general have to jump through a lot of hoops just to purchase a gun as it is. No one is going to want to go through a federal background check and waiting period just to use a gun in a robbery.
No gun is good or bad. It's the person pulling the trigger. Sit the gun on a table and it wont do a thing. It's not gonna come after you, load itself or pull the trigger on it's own, so I never understand why some people call guns evil. It's an inanimate object.
-
As Alice Cooper said on his radio show once, (paraphrasing), "You wouldn't be likely to see someone pull a gun at an airport if everyone else at the airport could equally pull a gun on him.
Gun control is usually silly because it makes the assumption that criminals will somehow change their ways if they have to buy a gun illegally. I can understand the argument about the second amendment however because it is vague on whether or not it is simply stating a militia should have access to guns, but I think that the ability for law abiding citizens to have access to self defensive weaponry or hunting equipment is an important right regardless.
The only thing that I think should be done is that all people should be required to take a basic firearms safety course before being allowed to buy a gun.
Besides, how will we handle the zombie uprising if we can't get guns?!
-
LOL This also reminds me of a Tim Wilson comedy bit as well. Will paraphrase as best I can:
The second amendment was put in place in case our own government rose up against us. If they came at us with muskets and cannons, we'd have muskets and cannons. Only now if they turn against us, they have Apache helicopters and tomahawk missles. And we have....muskets and cannons!
-
Getting back to .50 cal. debate..........
I still don't see the need to have this sort of large weapon......or any other similar very large weapon. If you want to keep it as a collectible, relic, souvenier, then take some parts out and make it unuseable. Otherwise, the only reason or people that need a .50 cal. is the military, or maybe civilians who were into those military re-enactment festivals and they wanted to show off the weapon and demonstrate it's capabilities.
Saying you need it for home defense or that the gov't is coming after you is crap/overkill IMO. :P There's no apocolypse. There's no gov't conspiracy. And you sure as heck don't need something that large and destructive for hunting. What the heck are you going to shoot at? Elephants? :P
-
I'm fine with .50 caliber weapons (and "assault weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)") available to civilians, as long as they're tightly regulated than long guns or pistols for self defense or hunting.
Also, the Barrett M107 semiautomatic rifle is 5 feet long and weighs about over 30 pounds. It is impractical to use in a street robbery
No one's going to use a Barret in a robbery, most likely they'll use it for anti-material use, but I don't think the ban is going to stop much terrorism either.
-
I tend to think that gun legislation should be handled by city and county governments rather than state and federal. We don't necessarily need the same gun laws in small towns as we do in big cities. I tend to take a Libertarian stance when it comes to gun legislation, but that is not to say that some regulation isn't needed.
-
I don't see why anyone needs a gun, 50.cal or not.
My Country keeps crime rates (especially gun crime) down very well by keeping all guns illegal, even the police don't carry guns as standard.
-
However, there are civilian uses for these rifles: long range target shooting and hunting. In fact, some people have these weapons for entertainment (target shooting again).
As for the argument "there is no practical use so it should be banned"... want to apply that to the guy who owns the $200,000+ Ferrari?
You can use quite a selection of smaller arms for hunting and target shooting. In fact, why would you go out of your way to spend thousands of dollars on one for those purposes? I'm sorry, but I just don't see why anyone would need a weapon that powerful, and yes, it does concern me. I'd say the same thing to someone who wants to keep a missile launcher for home protection, or automatic rifle for hunting (although I am aware some people do this, the practice seems silly and unsportsmanlike).
Also, weapons != cars. If there is no civilian use for a surprisingly destructive weapon, yes, it should be banned.
-
I don't see why anyone needs a gun, 50.cal or not.
Hunting is one reason but the main reason is for defensive purposes. Criminals will obtain a gun legally or illegally and if they want to use it, they will use it. Also, just handing over your valuables may not work as some criminals may decide to assault you for fun after you surrender your stuff to them. And some home invaders may break into your house intent on sexual assault or even murder. If something were to happen, I am sure that the homeowner prefer to have a firearm instead of an improvised weapon or a knife to protect themselves and their family.
You can use quite a selection of smaller arms for hunting and target shooting. In fact, why would you go out of your way to spend thousands of dollars on one for those purposes? I'm sorry, but I just don't see why anyone would need a weapon that powerful, and yes, it does concern me. I'd say the same thing to someone who wants to keep a missile launcher for home protection, or automatic rifle for hunting (although I am aware some people do this, the practice seems silly and unsportsmanlike).
And when I said target shooting, I meant shooting at 2000+ yards NOT shooting at 100-600 yards. The world record rifle shot was a wartime shot (2,430 meters). This was done with the .50 caliber rifle despite the fact that the M24 (comes in 2 calibers: .338 caliber and 7.62x51mm) is the standard sniper rifle.
Also, there are hunting calibers with similar destructive power and size (mostly the elephant rounds).
-
So many misconceptions surround the .50caliber rifle. LOL.
They cannot be used to shoot down jet aircraft from the ground. The bullets simply do not move fast enough, or far enough to do that.
Im unaware of one ever being used in a crime in the US, yet thousands of people own them. They are expensive to own, expensive to shoot, and only certain rifle ranges will even allow them because of the noise and blast that they make when fired.
No rifle is more "deadly" than another. You cannot kill something deader than dead, any any rifle in the hands of a trained user is just as deadly as another.
My Country keeps crime rates (especially gun crime) down very well by keeping all guns illegal, even the police don't carry guns as standard.
Might I suggest taking another look at your countries crime statistics? The UK has a pretty high crime rate, assaults and burlaries are at an all time high. And saddest of all, if somone breaks into your home in the UK, and you try to forcefully stop them, you're a criminal too. Isnt your life worth protecting?
Also, weapons != cars. If there is no civilian use for a surprisingly destructive weapon, yes, it should be banned.
The civilian use for 50MG is simple. Its called "shooting for fun" and thats all the reason anyone needs. It is the same reason that some folks own a Ferrari. They can afford it, they enjoy it, so they buy it. A ferari is more dangerous to innocent bystanders than a rifle anyway. Look at the number of people killed by cars each year, and then look at the number of people killed by guns each year. Now keep in mind, in America, guns far outnumber cars. We could save so many more lives by banning cars, could we not?
Besides, its not a very smart thing to ban a weapon that to my knowledge has never been used in a crime in the US. To do so, shows that we are making choices based on fear and emotion, and not on logic, data, and facts. Any reasonable person can see that this is a poor choice to make.
-
Now keep in mind, in America, guns far outnumber cars.
I don't know what the actual figures are, but even if this is technically true, it's seems a bit misleading how you are using it. Though it may be true, it's likely from those that own guns tending to own many of them, whereas car owners usually only have one or two cars at most. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with the point you were making, but it's really the number of people using these things that would be relevant to that point, not the number of them existing. And I highly doubt there are more gun owners then car owners in the U.S. In fact, I'm pretty sure that car owners far outnumber the gun owners.
-
Now keep in mind, in America, guns far outnumber cars.
I don't know what the actual figures are, but even if this is technically true, it's seems a bit misleading how you are using it. Though it may be true, it's likely from those that own guns tending to own many of them, whereas car owners usually only have one or two cars at most. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with the point you were making, but it's really the number of people using these things that would be relevant to that point, not the number of them existing. And I highly doubt there are more gun owners then car owners in the U.S. In fact, I'm pretty sure that car owners far outnumber the gun owners.
Car owners to tend to outnumber gun owners. Statistics I've found that about 70% of Americans own a car, while aproximately 50% own a gun. The average car owning household in America has two cars, while the average gun owning household has 4 guns.
-
I tend to think that gun legislation should be handled by city and county governments rather than state and federal. We don't necessarily need the same gun laws in small towns as we do in big cities. I tend to take a Libertarian stance when it comes to gun legislation, but that is not to say that some regulation isn't needed.
Yes! I'm glad someone else agrees with me on this, because it's not a view I've heard expressed too often.
I tend to think we shouldn't have a Second Amendment at all-- not because I support gun control, but because I support the decentralization of gun laws. Philosophically, I'm all for the right to bear arms. But you have to keep in mind that the concept of a "gun" is very, very different depending on what part of the country you're in. To someone from a rural area, guns mean sustenance and sport. To a city dweller, guns mean robberies and drug deals and murders on your street corner. These two perspectives are almost irreconcilable. How does it make sense to impose the same gun-control laws on both sets of people?
Ideally, I'd like to see as little federal interference in the process as possible. If Idaho wants to give every man, woman, and child a .50 caliber rifle, then good for them. On the other hand, if the Washington D.C. city council wants to ban the ownership of handguns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) in order to lower their astronomical murder rate, then the federal government should not tie their hands.
-
On the other hand, if the Washington D.C. city council wants to ban the ownership of handguns in order to lower their astronomical murder rate, then the federal government should not tie their hands.
Handguns are banned in DC, yet their murder rate is one of the highest in the country. Banning handguns has had no effect on gun crime in DC, because criminals do not buy their handguns at sporting goods stores. They buy them from the same folks they buy their illegal drugs from.
Somone who is willing to break the law to commit murder isnt going to think twice about breaking a gun law to get a handgun. Banning any gun only keeps them out of the hands of honest, law abiding citizens.
If laws were enough to stop crime, then simply making murder a crime would have stopped murder.
-
Handguns are banned in DC, yet their murder rate is one of the highest in the country. Banning handguns has had no effect on gun crime in DC, because criminals do not buy their handguns at sporting goods stores. They buy them from the same folks they buy their illegal drugs from.
Somone who is willing to break the law to commit murder isnt going to think twice about breaking a gun law to get a handgun. Banning any gun only keeps them out of the hands of honest, law abiding citizens.
If laws were enough to stop crime, then simply making murder a crime would have stopped murder.
Solid arguments from a rural perspective (though urban dwellers who actually have to live with gun crime might disagree with you), but I'm unclear how it relates to what I was saying. Are you saying that because of this, DC shouldn't be allowed to pass its own gun control laws? I don't see much value in allowing the federal government to dictate what happens on the city level, especially with such an intensely localized issue.
Edit: WOO POST 5000 :P
-
If you think about it, the rural perspective would likely work in an urban area too. I tend to think that if urban criminals had to be worried about home owners protecting their property with a gun of their own, they'd be more inclined to second guess things. At least, that's my opinion on it. That being said, if we had a system like you're talking about, Arbutus, then I think we should use places like DC as an example for other areas on how gun laws really affect the population. And I'm sure such debates would crop up around the country.
-
Handguns are banned in DC, yet their murder rate is one of the highest in the country. Banning handguns has had no effect on gun crime in DC, because criminals do not buy their handguns at sporting goods stores. They buy them from the same folks they buy their illegal drugs from.
Somone who is willing to break the law to commit murder isnt going to think twice about breaking a gun law to get a handgun. Banning any gun only keeps them out of the hands of honest, law abiding citizens.
If laws were enough to stop crime, then simply making murder a crime would have stopped murder.
Solid arguments from a rural perspective (though urban dwellers who actually have to live with gun crime might disagree with you), but I'm unclear how it relates to what I was saying. Are you saying that because of this, DC shouldn't be allowed to pass its own gun control laws? I don't see much value in allowing the federal government to dictate what happens on the city level, especially with such an intensely localized issue.
Edit: WOO POST 5000 :P
What I'm saying is that gun control laws simply do not work, regardless if its Federal, State, or City ordiances that are written. Urban dwellers may disagree, but the facts are facts. Banning legal ownership of firearms in any city has has no affect on gun crime. Several cities have these unconstutional laws, and since passing them, the level of gun crime has only risen.
-
Handguns are banned in DC, yet their murder rate is one of the highest in the country. Banning handguns has had no effect on gun crime in DC, because criminals do not buy their handguns at sporting goods stores. They buy them from the same folks they buy their illegal drugs from.
Somone who is willing to break the law to commit murder isnt going to think twice about breaking a gun law to get a handgun. Banning any gun only keeps them out of the hands of honest, law abiding citizens.
If laws were enough to stop crime, then simply making murder a crime would have stopped murder.
Solid arguments from a rural perspective (though urban dwellers who actually have to live with gun crime might disagree with you), but I'm unclear how it relates to what I was saying. Are you saying that because of this, DC shouldn't be allowed to pass its own gun control laws? I don't see much value in allowing the federal government to dictate what happens on the city level, especially with such an intensely localized issue.
Edit: WOO POST 5000 :P
What I'm saying is that gun control laws simply do not work, regardless if its Federal, State, or City ordiances that are written. Urban dwellers may disagree, but the facts are facts. Banning legal ownership of firearms in any city has has no affect on gun crime. Several cities have these unconstutional laws, and since passing them, the level of gun crime has only risen.
My theory regarding this is that the ban is not so much to prevent people from acquiring weapons, but to allow police to charge a person with possession of an unlicensed firearm in addition to other crimes when they commit a crime with it, such as armed robbery.
As to the need to posses a firearm, while I seldom feel a need to own one, as I live in a very safe city with good police presence, I imagine someone who lives in the more rural areas of the county where a police response could take upwards of 15 minutes might feel a need to be able to protect his or her home and family.
-
I can make a lot of arguments against gun control, but since this thread is limited to the .50 (and I'm assuming the OP means .50 rifle and not handgun) I will keep my arguments to that.
If your government became a tyranny, and was going door to door taking people from their homes to be tortured to death in camps, which would you rather have to fight back with: a kitchen knife, dad's hunting rifle, or a big, nasty, loaded machine gun? Civilians DO have a need for a weapon as big as a .50. Not everyone needs to be armed with a machine gun in their garage, but people should have the means to stand up to their government if they need to. What if the police started to arrest people for unjust laws, or rounding "undesirables" up, could you stop them with a kitchen knife? Maybe I'm paranoid, but I think it's a bad idea to blindly and completely trust an armed group of people for your personal protection.
EDIT: In my hurry I forgot to add my main point :p What about defense of your country? Should that not fall on the civilian inhabitants as well at the established military? Yes, the military is better funded and equipped to deal with war, but there is a reason no one wants to mess with Switzerland.