No, there is a continuum, and you and I DID stretch our arguments to the absurd-probably both for the same purposes.
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.
…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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To point out how pointless this law is, you can buy gatling gun plans 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.
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.
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.)
