# .50 Rifles now banned in California. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 26, 2005, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737 "2005-01-26T09:08:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Exgineer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a88e4f/32.png) [@Exgineer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exgineer)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/41 "2005-01-26T17:19:32Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > The bad guys will go to Oregon to get them, bad guys will always have big guns, blah, blah, blah. Leave the big defense weapons to the people that are actually DOING the defending, huh? This has nothing to do with self defence. Rifles of this type are worthless in the role. That said, we _are_ the people doing the defending. In the US the only person responsible for your defense is you. > [@TwisofFate](#): > > absolutely, but would a lower calibre rifle be completely inefficient in the event of a grizzly attack? I doubt your’d be worried about 1000 yard cross winds in that event Absolutely. That’s why I mentioned the .300 Win Mag. A .50 would be a rotten choice. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/42 "2005-01-26T17:24:47Z")
Waverly, Bats should be banned. They are a favorite among thieves and scumbags for incapacitating, maiming, robbing, killing and raping. If our legislature went out to classify all bats as weapons of murder and require registration as a deadly weapon by anyone owning, purchasing, or using them, what would be the call to arms? Hell, anyone can buy and swing a bat, what if an ex-felon or a wifebeater bought one? Should we perform background checks on those who intend on purchasing one? Maybe a cooling-off period just in case they intend harm with it? “Baseball is a national pastime”, they say! “You’re ruining the fabric of America!” they will cry! “Baseball is a sport, not a crime!” THen little kiddies at the urgency of their hopeful parents can make up stickers, and an entire clothing line like happened in the 80’s with Skateboarding…“Baseball is not a crime, Fight the power”. Anyhow, humor aside, if you can defend baseball accoutrements, ans baseball as a sport with what can be used as a weapon, surely you can defend other sports such as long-range shooting. Sam ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/43 "2005-01-26T17:25:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Terrorism. See, a terrorist could fire a .50 BMG round at an oil storage tank and blow it up while being far enough away to escape detection or danger to himself. Which is quite silly on the face of it. Merely punching a half-inch hole in an oil storage tank isn’t going to cause even a fire, let alone a damned _explosion_ - unless some kind of incendiary projectile is used - and probably not even then - unless you happened by chance to hit an empty tank. I used to have a video tape (remember those?) of some firearms experts shooting rounds of many sizes and types into old automobile tanks full of gasoline. And not a single one of them caught fire or exploded. Just a small hole and a stream of gasoline running out onto the ground. Ya gotta remember, it is the vapors that actually burn, not the liquid. Dumb laws are generally enacted with dumb justifications. This is just one more sample of the same. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/44 "2005-01-26T17:29:30Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > Well, trying to correct real problems before embarking on pointless crusades designed to whup up the domestic safety feeling sure is depeche mode in the US government for the last few years, isn’t it? And that’s wrong too. Never implied it wasn’t, in any thread on this Board. In fact I’ve been fairly vocal against some domestic security boondoggles. Your rebuttal has no target, pun intended. > [@](#): > > Oh, and Una, the soccer argument is outdated, irrelevant and incorrect. See Weirddave’s link. I don’t think many would consider that outdated, irrelevant, or incorrect. They are deaths due to a hobby - a sport - a pasttime. Technically speaking, deaths from the equipment of the sport. Like shooting. I don’t expect you to truly understand why “anyone” would want a 0.50 BMG, not because of any lacking or failure on your part, but because of your different cultural frame of reference. We shooters have a personal emotional stake in our sport, others have personal emotional stakes in theirs. ---
**Author:** ![Exgineer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a88e4f/32.png) [@Exgineer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exgineer)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/45 "2005-01-26T17:29:43Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > However, isn’t there _always_ something interesting you can do with a weapon? If the ability to target shoot at 2 miles is important enough to keep a weapon legal, why not the ability to knock down multiple targets in the shortest period time? Seems like something that would make an interesting competition, but I’m not so sure it in itself would justify civilians with assault weapons. You’re probably going to choke me for this, but we already have a sport called IPSC which grew out of law enforcement PPC training. It’s basically “knock down the targets as fast as you can with a pistol” in 10 or so different arrangements. There are also semi-auto rifle and shotgun events. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/46 "2005-01-26T17:38:18Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Well that is quite the hyperbole, now isn’t it? > > RPG-7: ~330mm steel. > > .50 BMG AP: ~20mm at 500 meters. > > Specialized and exotic rounds, of course, have much greater penetration, but the really good stuff is not available to us mere civilians. Just a little hyperbole, actually. I still consider it the same class of weapon, or at least - it can serve as the same class (the military uses Barrets both as long-range sniper weapons systems and as “pocket cannons” for harder targets). Incidentally, the RPG can’t penetrate anything at 500 meters, as the warheads self-destruct after 300 and something. Innacurate as hell, too. Look, I’m not going to argue whether you have a _right_ to shoot 0.50" rifles. You very well may have - your counrty, your debate. It just that a civilian using one of those things would seem kind of, well, silly. [This](http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/sws/barrett/2.jpg) is what they’re for. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/47 "2005-01-26T17:43:39Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > Because the anti-gun people will use any pretext to advance their agenda. Wanna know the pretext for this particular one? Are you sure? Cuz it’ll give you a headache. Yeah because nobody else uses terrorism to push their agenda. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/48 "2005-01-26T17:44:36Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > Waverly, > > Bats should be banned. They are a favorite among thieves and scumbags for incapacitating, maiming, robbing, killing and raping. If our legislature went out to classify all bats as weapons of murder and require registration as a deadly weapon by anyone owning, purchasing, or using them, what would be the call to arms? Hell, anyone can buy and swing a bat, what if an ex-felon or a wifebeater bought one? Should we perform background checks on those who intend on purchasing one? Maybe a cooling-off period just in case they intend harm with it? > > “Baseball is a national pastime”, they say! “You’re ruining the fabric of America!” they will cry! “Baseball is a sport, not a crime!” THen little kiddies at the urgency of their hopeful parents can make up stickers, and an entire clothing line like happened in the 80’s with Skateboarding…“Baseball is not a crime, Fight the power”. > > Anyhow, humor aside, if you can defend baseball accoutrements, ans baseball as a sport with what can be used as a weapon, surely you can defend other sports such as long-range shooting. > > Sam Funny you should mention this. I’ve heard that baseball bat sales are quite strong in England, though baseball sales are not, and the game isn’t commonly played. Most of these bats are bought as weapons. Here in Northern Virginia, we have a similar problem with machetes. Nobody goes hacking through the jungle here looking for Mayan artifacts, and you’ll not find many sugar cane fields either. But the machetes are sold, are perfectly legal, and are used by the Salvadoran street gangs pretty routinely. Now, is the solution here banning either of these implements? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/49 "2005-01-26T17:47:39Z")
Links about the machetes. [http://beta.news8.net/news/stories/0105/200739.html](http://beta.news8.net/news/stories/0105/200739.html) [http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0105/198357.html](http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0105/198357.html) ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/50 "2005-01-26T17:49:18Z")
Also, the main reason the gov’t wants them banned is not just oil refineries. See, a 0.50" can shoot through the best armored glass. The kind of glass they put in the windows of armored limousines. The kind of limousines they use in Presidental motorcades. See where I’m going with this? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/51 "2005-01-26T17:55:50Z")
> [@](#): > > **Waverly** said: > Being gun tolerant, but not an enthusiast, my first question when something like this comes up is, “.50? what’s that used for?” But there’s no requirement at all that I need to provide the government with a reason for wanting a particular firearm. Hell, I might not even ‘use’ it at all beyond having it in my safe for the collector value of the thing. It’s not like you have to justify having broadband in order to exercise your right to free speech when dialup would do the job, only slower. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/52 "2005-01-26T17:59:27Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Well, according to [this site](http://safeusa.org/sports/soccer.htm), 22 people have been killed playing soccer in the US in the last 20 years, mostly by goalposts. That’s 22 more than have ever been killed by BMG .50s (thanks for the correction GaWd, accuracy is important). Based strictly on the number of deaths, we should be demanding the banning of soccer goals! Now you’re moving the goalposts! I’ll take it you can’t find what I asked for. > [@](#): > > So, let me ask you Twisty, or anyone else who cares to answer: Can you think of a logical reason (not just a personal distaste for guns) for a law outlawing BMG .50 rifles? They’re tremendously expensive, essentially useless for anything except extreme range target shooting and have never killed anyone in the U.S. What is the point in banning them? Have I said in this thread they should be banned? ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/53 "2005-01-26T18:05:46Z")
I linked you to soccer related deaths. Are you disputing these deaths as relevent because they didn’t come from riots, but rather from playing the game of soccer? ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/54 "2005-01-26T18:08:41Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Now, is the solution here banning either of these implements? I don’t think we should be banning anything. I think it is a lame attempt by do-gooder legislators to put paranoid people at ease. It’s not working. I simply wanted to illustrate how silly the argument becomes when discussing “sports” and their particular accoutrements and what may or may not be used as a weapon. If there was truly some emergent issue with any firearm in particular, there ought to be a good reason behind it besides “someone _could_ do X or Y with said weapon”-mainly because anyone _could_ do **something, anything,** with ANY X or Y situation. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for this besides outright paranoia and rights restriction. Sam ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/55 "2005-01-26T18:15:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Also, the main reason the gov’t wants them banned is not just oil refineries. See, a 0.50" can shoot through the best armored glass. The kind of glass they put in the windows of armored limousines. The kind of limousines they use in Presidental motorcades. See where I’m going with this? Not really - unless it’s off into fantasy land. Because “armored glass” is nothing more than layered sheets of Lexan and more accurately referred to as “bullet resistant.” It’s not “armored,” and it’s not even “bullet-proof.” Such “glass” is, and always has been, penetrable by a variety of firearm cartridges - both handgun and rifle. [http://www.lascointl.com/levels.htm](http://www.lascointl.com/levels.htm) ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/56 "2005-01-26T18:22:45Z")
I agree with UncaBeer, Alessan. This ban has absolutely nothing to do with Armored glass. It has everything to do with “Scary guns”, “Bad guys”, or perceived “bad guys”, and a smokescreen of anti-terrorism. There aren’t even any crimes on reconrd as being committed with the weapon for christ’s sake. Sam ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/57 "2005-01-26T18:35:06Z")
Well, I don’t know the technical details, but the armored Jeeps I used to ride in the Territories could definitely stop an AK-47 7.62mm round, and I’m pretty sure they could have stopped a 7.62X51, too. They were not protected against 0.50", a a couple of troops learned about a year and a half ago (God knows where the Plaestinians got that king of firepower; it definately wasn’t homemade). [These](http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/unarmored_vehicles/storm/Storm.html) are the vehicles I’m talking about (scroll down to “armored”). ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/58 "2005-01-26T18:37:49Z")
GaWd, Certainly not every sport or activity justifies the existence of any and all equipment used therein. We both stretched arguments to the absurd, but somewhere in the middle is more serious ground. Baseball and hunting may be nearer to one end of the spectrum, while hunting blue whales with depth charges or torpedoes is at the other. Where does long distance target shooting with a .50 sit on the continuum? Do you at least agree there is a continuum? I don’t accept for a moment that everything fits neatly into two bins, “as harmless as baseball” and “misc. absurd example.” By the way, your baseball example is a bit flawed. Firearms are among a small group of weapons that can a) kill at a distance, and b) yield big effect for small effort. Bat’s certainly don’t kill at a distance, and as effective as they are as a weapon, it isn’t exactly an effortless kill. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/59 "2005-01-26T18:40:07Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > I agree with UncaBeer, Alessan. This ban has absolutely nothing to do with Armored glass. It has everything to do with “Scary guns”, “Bad guys”, or perceived “bad guys”, and a smokescreen of anti-terrorism. There aren’t even any crimes on reconrd as being committed with the weapon for christ’s sake. > > Sam Mayb you’re right - I really don’t know. As I said, I’m kind of disconnected form this particular debate. The only place I see people debate gun rights is here on the SDMB. That said, something doesn’t have to have already caused damage for it to be regulated by the government. The FDA approves drugs _before_ they go on the market, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/60 "2005-01-26T18:44:38Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > But there’s no requirement at all that I need to provide the government with a reason for wanting a particular firearm. Hell, I might not even ‘use’ it at all beyond having it in my safe for the collector value of the thing. I don’t work for the government. Am _I_ allowed to ask the question? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737.md?page=4)