# .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:** 4
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/61 "2005-01-26T18:45:06Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > 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.” No, there is a continuum, and you and I DID stretch our arguments to the absurd-probably both for the same purposes. > [@](#): > > 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. Of course it was flawed, it was hyperbolic, sarcastic, humorous, and very generalized. But it’s very true, and factual. Firearms may kill at a distance, but the particular firearm we’re discussing-the BMG .50-has never been implicated in a crime in California, and probably never in the U.S., either. OTOH, baseball bats, are implicated in crimes daily, across the nation, and while they take effort to hurt or kill, their damage is obviously more widespread than this particular weapon. Sam ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/62 "2005-01-26T18:48:22Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > 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. …and then they wait until it has done widespread damage to recall it or take it off the market after they gave the manufacturer the “fast track” to the market… ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/63 "2005-01-26T18:59:36Z")
I think the manufacturer (Barrett) is now refusing to sell the gun to any law enforcement/military units in California. Or to work on existing guns. Sorry, no link, and I can’t remember where I heard it. ---
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/64 "2005-01-26T22:18:13Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > …and then they wait until it has done widespread damage to recall it or take it off the market after they gave the manufacturer the “fast track” to the market… Did anyone actually die before they took Vioxx off the market a couple of months back? Or were there just studies that it _might_, under certain circumstances, kill someone? Note that I’m not comparing guns to medicine - it’s too rough an analogy. I’m just saying that authorities have a long history of removing products from the shelves _before_ they have the theoretical chance to do any damage. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/65 "2005-01-26T22:34:01Z")
How the hell am I gonna kill all them graboids now? Bert is gonna be furious about this. This sounds like another bullshit “feel good law”. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/66 "2005-01-26T22:44:37Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > 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. The self-destruct is 4.5 seconds for your average RPG7 warhead, which is ~900 meters. And elements of the US military are looking to transition to the 25mm rifle (XM109) because of the .50’s inablity to deal with the truly hard targets. (From our buddies at the finest of manufacturers, [Barrett](http://www.barrettrifles.com/military.htm)) > [@](#): > > 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. And I wouldn’t argue that Joe Civilian _needs_ a .50, but many _want_ them, and they are fun as hell to shoot. I had an Armalite AR-50 for a while; I ending up selling it finance another rifle, but it was rip-roaring fun to take that beast out shooting, even at a buck a round. The American shooter is goofy like that, you know 😉 > [@](#): > > [This](http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/sws/barrett/2.jpg) is what they’re for. Ya, but the authorities here frown on us scoping targets in a city, so your average (all of them, so far) .50 shooter will leave that to the military or law enforcement. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/67 "2005-01-26T22:45:53Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > I think the manufacturer (Barrett) is now refusing to sell the gun to any law enforcement/military units in California. Or to work on existing guns. > > Sorry, no link, and I can’t remember where I heard it. I heard that as well. And given the behavior of various LEOs during the build up to the ban, let me add a hearty: Hahahahah! ---
**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, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/68 "2005-01-26T22:50:30Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > 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? No, I asked for soccer riot related deaths, as that was what you brought up. ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/69 "2005-01-26T23:01:40Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > The self-destruct is 4.5 seconds for your average RPG7 warhead, which is ~900 meters. And elements of the US military are looking to transition to the 25mm rifle (XM109) because of the .50’s inablity to deal with the truly hard targets. (From our buddies at the finest of manufacturers, [Barrett](http://www.barrettrifles.com/military.htm)) Damn - I got max range confused with effective range. ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/70 "2005-01-26T23:05:03Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Did anyone actually die before they took Vioxx off the market a couple of months back? Or were there just studies that it _might_, under certain circumstances, kill someone? Rumor has it that vioxx-related deaths are in the tens of thousands. It will probably take many years to get a good number out of the reports. I think deaths triggered the studies which triggered the safety alerts, not the other way around. > [@](#): > > Note that I’m not comparing guns to medicine - it’s too rough an analogy. I’m just saying that authorities have a long history of removing products from the shelves _before_ they have the theoretical chance to do any damage. Comparing guns to medicine would be silly, you’re right. My point is that sometimes the authorities OK things that eventually kill many people, in opposition of your position that the government effectively pulls products/items that are potentially harmful to people. That’s not to say you’re completely wrong, however. In the case of weapons though, I really don’t think an effective analogy can be drawn between the wins of the FDA and other such regulatory agencies and banning a weapon like the Barrett in a state where they weren’t a threat and have no practical criminal application. Hell, they really don’t have much of a practical terrorist application, either, but terror fear is all the rage these days. Sam ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/71 "2005-01-26T23:10:57Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > Actually, no, that’s not what the BMG is for. The BMG is for competition shooting long-distance(think 2 miles). The BMG is huge, heavy and fires best when used with bags or a tripod, so hunting is out. > > Sam Not to mention the damn things weigh almost 30 pounds. I can’t see hiking around the backcountry with a 30 pound rifle and another 30 pounds of ammunition. ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/72 "2005-01-27T00:05:08Z")
I’m a pretty lefty person myself, and am fairly pro-gun-control, even though I own many firearms, but this seems over the top to me. At least those of us in CA who want one have until April, 2006 to buy one in Nevada, smuggle it in, and register it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Exgineer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a88e4f/32.png) [@Exgineer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exgineer)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/73 "2005-01-27T01:16:25Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Note that I’m not comparing guns to medicine - it’s too rough an analogy. I’m just saying that authorities have a long history of removing products from the shelves _before_ they have the theoretical chance to do any damage. Some of us just want the government to just fuck off and leave us alone. I don’t shoot targets at 1000 yards, so I don’t need a Barrett .50. See? I can make decisions for myself. I’m just afraid that next week they might decide that I don’t need a .233 Remington rifle because it’s the (crappy) current US miltary small arm load. When I need to grease a woodchuck in the cow pasture, I need to grease the woodchuck in the cow pasture. > [@Alessan](#): > > Damn - I got max range confused with effective range. That still doesn’t let you off the hook. RPG terminal effectiveness depends on the warhead; bullet effectiveness depends on terminal velocity. You clearly don’t have the first fucking clue what you’re talking about, and should probably bow out before you embarass yourself further. ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/74 "2005-01-27T01:25:10Z")
How many woodchucks would Exgineer grease, if Exgineer could grease woodchucks? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/75 "2005-01-27T01:29:32Z")
> [@](#): > > **Waverly** said: > I don’t work for the government. Am I allowed to ask the question? You can ask anything you want. However, the answer might be ‘I don’t have to justify the ways in which I spend my disposable income.’ I don’t feel under any obligation to have ‘need’ for a particular type of firearm, or to justify my desire for one to anyone, government or not. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/76 "2005-01-27T02:01:44Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > I think the manufacturer (Barrett) is now refusing to sell the gun to any law enforcement/military units in California. Or to work on existing guns. > > Sorry, no link, and I can’t remember where I heard it. Yup, that’s correct. To point out how pointless this law is, you can buy [gatling gun plans](http://www.gatlingguns.net/) fairly cheaply on the net, and any machinist worth his salt can use those to make a gun which can kill a larger number of people in a few minutes than one can possibly hope to kill with a Barrett. Of course, I’ve got access to the blueprints for Barrett’s guns, so if I _really_ wanted to, I could have myself a knock off BMG if I wanted to. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/77 "2005-01-27T02:19:11Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > No, I asked for soccer riot related deaths, as that was what you brought up. So, rather than discuss the original issue, you’re focusing on specific words, probably because you’ve been proven wrong? Let’s review, shall we? Una said: “Historically speaking, soccer matches lead to the deaths of far more people than civilian BMG owners ever have” You responded:“the soccer argument is outdated, irrelevant and incorrect.” I mentioned soccer riots, and your response was this request:“If we talking about bans on weapons in America, let’s restrict the grounds of “who’s been killed by what” to equivalent areas, ok?” So I then went out and found a cite that 22 people have been killed in soccer matches in the last 20 years. Since this blows your original argument into a cocked hat (remember? When comparing deaths from the sport shooting of Barrett .50 rifles(0) to the deaths from soccer(alleged to be more than 0), you flat out stated that that claim was “outdated, irrelevant and incorrect”, my cite showed that stating that soccer has caused more deaths in the US than sport shooting Barrett .50 riles is 100% accurate, thus making Una’s claim current, relevant and accurate). Rather than admitting that you were wrong, you focus on one single word “riot”, totally ignoring the substance of the discussion for a technicality. _shakes head_ C’mon Twisty, you’re better than that. Just admit you got carried away and move on. You’re not doing yourself any favors with such a stupid argument. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/78 "2005-01-27T02:20:31Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Of course, I’ve got access to the blueprints for Barrett’s guns, so if I _really_ wanted to, I could have myself a knock off BMG if I wanted to. But only if you wanted to, right? 😛 😃 ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/79 "2005-01-27T02:23:45Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > so if I _really_ wanted to, I could have myself a knock off BMG if I wanted to. /only half joking So how much for shipping to CA? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737/80 "2005-01-27T02:30:23Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > I’m a pretty lefty person myself, and am fairly pro-gun-control, even though I own many firearms, but this seems over the top to me. At least those of us in CA who want one have until April, 2006 to buy one in Nevada, smuggle it in, and register it. 🙂 That’s what gets me, too. Not only is it a (IMFO) needless law, it _wouldn’t even work right._ It doesn’t ban _owning_ .50 cal rifles, it doesn’t ban _using_ them, it doesn’t ban the _ammunition_, and it has no way to keep someone from getting one in another state where they are perfectly legal, and bringing it into the state to do illegal things with. And, as others have said, if someone made a _.499_ caliber rifle and ammunition, that would still be perfectly legal! The same with all the _other_ high-powered and large-caliber rifle cartridges that already exist. (Albeit that still ain’t a .50 BMG) Ergh. Just…_ergh._ Anyone up for a trebuchet ban, next? (Not counting mangonels, _traction_ trebuchets, and counterweight trebuchets that are already owned and registered, of course.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-rifles-now-banned-in-california/286737.md?page=5)