If the bear is far enough away to take out with a rifle, then we’re not talking about self-defense, we’re talking about hunting. I think banning the .50 is silly, but I also think the idea of defending yourself against a grizzly attack with one is even sillier.
If I’m going to carry a weapon in the backcountry to defend myself, it’ll be a .45 in a holster on my hip, where I can get at it quickly when the bear is charging me at close range.
Good luck with that against a grizzley.
So, how many people here have been killed by a grizzly because they haven’t had the right gun with them? In order to put this in perspective, I’ll also need a show of hands from those who have been killed by a grizzly despite having the right gun. Thanks! W.
I have not had to defend againt a bear attack. But I did shoot a man in Reno once, just to watch him die. I shot him from the ridgeline above Lake Tahoe, with a .50 BMG.
OK, that makes a little more sense. I think that the problem here is the word “fault”. A better way to state it might be this: 22 people are dead from hitting their heads on goalposts that exist because of the sport of soccer, but nobody has died from a .50 BMG that exists for the sport of long distance target shooting. Is that better?
10 feet is “far enough”. Touching the muzzle is “far enough”. I saw a story about a kid out elk hunting who got mauled by a bear. He managed to shoot it off of himself, but got pretty mangled in the process. Those things are fast, and you’ve got no guarantee you’ll encounter tham at anything like a safe distance.
All a .45 ACP is going to do is piss off the bear.
Great reply. One question though, are we talking about the dead guys having the right gun, or the grizzly having the right gun? The right to arm bears and all that. 
Sure- firing and owning a BMG .50 is “pointless fun”. But it is fun, and so far it hasn’t hurt anyone. No one in America needs a BMG .50, sure. But no one needs a car that can go over 90MPH- and yet they make and sell them legally- and those cars have been involved in many, many, many more crimes and deaths than any gun- let alone the poor BMG .50. So let’s ban cars that can go faster than 80MPH. Ban the import of all foriegn Sports cars- after all “they have no known commuting use”. Require all cars in the USA be fitted with engine governors to prevent speeds over 90mph. Make it a felony to own a car that isn’t so restricted. After all- you don’t NEED a car that can go that fast, do you? :dubious: :rolleyes:
Question: Do you think private citizens should be legally allowed to own:
-Artillery pieces with live ammo
-Flamethrowers
-Anti-aircraft missiles
-Tanks with live ammo
?
What about private citizens who have registered said items and demonstrated a legitimate purpose for owning them, and the ability to handle them safely?
Assuming that you don’t think that joe shmoe should be able to plop down $15,000 cash at a gun show with no ID and walk away with an anti-aircraft missile, where do you draw the line? What’s the distinction?
(I’m honestly curious, in that it seems to me that there’s a definite difference between a pistol and a tank, but I’m not really certain where the line is.)
Also, what’s your objection to registering guns? After all, we don’t let people use, say, bulldozers without training, registration, oversight, etc. (Or do we?) But if someone really just wants to own a bulldozer in their very large back yard and knock shit over with it, that’s OK.
You know what, you are right. Although they are machines designed primarily for transportation, cars are potentially dangerous. I suggest we license both the user and vehicle, institute regular safety inspections, and insist that a set of basic traffic laws be obeyed. Good idea! You are a fucking genius!
Except, of course, we should leave that up to the states. That way they can have a dizzying array of different rules and regulations. Heck, let’s even allow states to dispense with inspections if they so want. That way, when we go out of state, do something foolish behind the wheel of a car, we can shrug it off by saying, “I’m a tourist.”
MaxTheVool, depending upon the construction company, the bulldozer operator may or may not be licensed. It all depends if they feel like obeying the law or not. What’s really fun is when they allow the unlicensed guys to play with high explosives on the job site.
No, “we” are implying that there was no good reason for the BMG ban whatsoever.
Sam
Yes, I think private citizens should be allowed to own those things.
I wasn’t aware the government oversaw the licensing of bulldozer operators. (I don’t think this is true, but I could be wrong.) Anyway, to answer your question: the government works for me, not the other way around. I am the master; the government is the servant. Have you ever heard of a servant forcing restrictions on his master? Me neither. FYI, I will never register nor give up any of my weapons, regardless of any “law” that is passed.
I wasn’t aware that there was a Constitutionally protected right to bear bulldozers.
Ahh, Sagebrush Rebels…
You only need a license to drive your car on public highways. Not to keep on in your garage or drive it on private property. You only need to register your car to drive your car on public highways- if it sits in your garage or in a museum, it needs not be registered (YMMV). And, I have haven’t had a government mandated safety inspection is over 20 years.
And indeed- here in CA at least- in order to go hunting on Public land you need a License, which requires a Hunter safety course and a gun safety course.and indeed, there are basic hunter safety laws that must be obeyed. Thus, in order to use your BMG .50 to hunt a bear, you’d need that license. But NOT just to own one… well… until now.
Then- I’d certainly *consider *such a ban. For example if dudes were using the BMG .50 in a way that the unique power of the weapon was making it unusually deadly- then yes, I’d consider giving up some rights for a SIGNIFICANT increase in Public Safety. I have no problem with a ban on civilians owning WMD for instance.
Such is not the case, however. My- and the Public’s- safety is not increased in any way by this silly ban.
I need nothing but a VISA card to rent a D4H CAT (20,000 lbs).
Delivered to my house for me to run.
They left it at the bottom of my driveway. Just like the track hoes and back hoes I’ve rented.
Been there. Done that. No problem.
This is probably beating a dead horse, but I don’t think BMG .50s are even used for hunting/defending against bears—as I remember, other large caliber ammunition, like the 470 Nitro Express, and other rifle ammunition in the .50 caliber size are used. (They’re still powerful enough to effect bears, but they don’t need quite as expensive or hefty weapons as the .50 BMG rifles. And they’re still completely legal.)
And, on an almost related note, according to a search of the news, at least one person has already died in a trebuchet related death in the last two years. And such a weapon might be more practical for terrorist purposes than a .50 BMG rifle—one could propel an explosive, incendiary, or chemical warhead hundreds of meters, and be constructed with materials from a Home Depot! :eek: :rolleyes:
Hmmmm… what about:
-Plastic explosives
-Stealth fighters
and, what the heck
-Nuclear weapons?
The government isn’t your servant or your master, imho. The government is (ideally) the society you live in and all the people therein. When you agree to live in a society and abide by its laws, you give up some amount of freedom in exchange for some amount of protection, services, and guarantees. It’s certainly not preposterous to think that a group of people could decide to live together in a society in which they forbade private ownership of nuclear weapons, and as long as that was truly the will of the group, I don’t see that as being a sign of impending facism. Generally, I don’t think the government should restrict what people do in the privacy of their own homes, but if I’m (for instance) attempting to make plastic explosives in my kitchen, despite the fact that I’m currently inside my home, I’m taking actions which, if I mess up, will very quickly result in consequences outside my home. Thus, I see the government/society as having a reasonable argument for regulation/intrustion.
My opinion about the overall gun-control issue is that the pro-gun-rights people are stuck defending some slightly indefensible positions (for instance, opposing background checks, waiting periods, limits about what can be sold at gun shows, etc.), not because they truly think that position is right and/or constitutional, but because they have a don’t-give-an-inch-or-we’ll-end-up-with-no-guns-ever mentality. Of course, maybe this is just a case where I assume that, because I think a position is clearly wrong, everyone must agree with me
It does seem like an issue where it’s hard to occupy a middle ground without some people saying you’re Coming To Take Their Guns Away and other people saying you like seeing babies get murdered.