# Does anyone believe that banning .50 caliber rifles will reduce crime? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2003, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514 "2003-06-13T06:09:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/81 "2003-06-14T03:32:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **You’re right that I have no interest in debating the merits of the .50 ban. It’s pointless, feel-good legislation that I do not support.** -But on the other hand, you necessarily won’t lift a finger to try and help _stop_ it either, will you? “First, they came for the Jews, but I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew…” ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/82 "2003-06-14T03:57:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > Check your local laws. There _are_ places where such things are illegal, but that’s also a lot of places where they’re not. This is often one of those “everyone knows they’re illegal” without having actually checked. Except, of course, that I **did** check. Tex. Pen. Code § 46.05. I invite you to check the laws of your own state, as opposed to just pulling further nonsense out of thin air. > [@](#): > > But on the other hand, you necessarily won’t lift a finger to try and help stop it either, will you? On the list of things to give a damn about, California’s .50 cal ban ranks somewhere below the price of tea in China. But hey, feel free to work yourself into a tizzy. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/83 "2003-06-14T04:28:05Z")
> [@](#): > > **I invite you to check the laws of your own state, as opposed to just pulling further nonsense out of thin air.** Thank you for remaining true to form and naturally assuming I haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/84 "2003-06-14T04:49:12Z")
gorsnak: > [@](#): > > While I think this ban, like most gun control laws, is stupid and futile, and would concede most of the points you made about your .50 handgun, calling .50’s excellent home defense rifles is kinda silly. While they would look extremely imposing, that’s about the only point in their favour. Being large and very heavy, they are poor close quarters weapons, and as nearly all are single shots, you give up a ton of flexibility in how you use it to chase off your burglar. Furthermore, they will damage your own property a heck of a lot more than most other firearms, and pose In terms of a scare the living shit out of somebody factor, it’s hard to beat a .50 caliber. It’s significantly louder than a shotgun, and has a ring to it that seems to signify the end of the world. Now, if I was going to get into a gunfight with somebody in an indoors situation at close quarters, a .50 caliber rifle would not be my weapon of choice. On the other hand, if my desire is to… how do you say?.. announce my presence with athority? Then it is hard to beat a .50 caliber. What I desire out of a home defense weapon is something that says “I am here. I am awake. I am aware of your presence. Leave now, because to do otherwise is suicide. You cannot hide anywhere. I can shoot through walls and floors If you continue to fuck with me you will surely die, so leave now and run!” A .50 caliber says those things better than anything else. It is like I told my wife when showing her how to use the pump shotgun. It is not really important that you hit something. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/85 "2003-06-14T05:05:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > Thank you for remaining true to form and naturally assuming I haven’t. Hmm, two possible responses here: 1. Pot/kettle/black. 2. And what jurisdiction might that be, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/86 "2003-06-14T05:19:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > What I desire out of a home defense weapon is something that says “I am here. I am awake. I am aware of your presence. Leave now, because to do otherwise is suicide. You cannot hide anywhere. I can shoot through walls and floors If you continue to fuck with me you will surely die, so leave now and run!” > > A .50 caliber says those things better than anything else. It is like I told my wife when showing her how to use the pump shotgun. It is not really important that you hit something. Well, you are of course free to adopt the intimidation approach to home defense. I, personally, believe that utilizing a firearm for home defense without having the intention of using it to put a hole through the intruder to be, well, foolish. See, the basic problem I have with firearms as personal defense is that they heighten the stakes. Now, true, an unarmed intruder is likely to just hightail it. However, if the intruder is himself armed, and you pull a gun on him, now his life is at risk, and he is apt to defend himself. So now instead of losing your tv, you’re being shot at. Speaking for myself, my tv doesn’t mean that much to me. However, if you pull the gun with the intention of using it, that’s another thing, because upon any hostile actions you’ll fire, and you (presumably) have the drop on him. This is why I would never pull the gun in the first place, even if I had one (barring circumstances where I thought lives were at stake, and not just property). I am not at all sure I could intentionally try to kill someone, and hence pulling the gun just makes me more likely to be shot myself. Pulling out a single shot .50 and firing a warning shot? Ack. I don’t like it. Besides the fact that you’ve unleashed a really nasty projectile that your neighbours’ walls won’t stop (shoot into the floor, I guess?), you now have to reload. Or if you don’t fire, but rely on visual intimidation, you have to be damn sure you don’t miss your first shot when he goes for his Glock, or you’re dogmeat. And hitting the guy as he dives behind the sofa with your 20lb rifle…no, I just don’t like it. While I certainly won’t deny that the .50 is a frightening gun, relying on that strikes me as being a bad move. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/87 "2003-06-14T06:26:16Z")
Random note: Firing a .50 BMG indoors, in, say, a Barret m82a1, without hearing protection would result at the very least in severe hearing damage - and possibly loss of conciousness. I got caught next to one without hearing protection once (mostly my fault) and I literally had a headache for 3 days. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/88 "2003-06-14T06:48:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\*And a .50 caliber rifle is also a weapon for sneak attacks and not defense. \*\* That arguement would seem to apply to any rifle. > [@](#): > > \*\* > It’s too powerful to use as a hunting rifle, It’s completely useless for self defense; But it’s great for shooting through bulletproof glass at a distance… \*\* It is to powerful to hunt deer in Arkansas but maybe not to powerful for elk, bear, or moose in Alaska. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The pro-gun crowd may believe tha making holes in paper constitues a ‘legitimate civilan use’, but that doesn’t hold water with those of use not ruled by our reptilian brain. I’m guessing that the legislature is that sort of people. \*\* So we’re primitive lunkheads because we think there are legitimate civilian uses? (Hunting is a legitimate use for the .50 BMG) I don’t use a .50 calibre rifle and I can’t see myself purchasing it in the future. I don’t see any benefits to banning it and only a bad precedence for my side if it is banned. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/89 "2003-06-14T09:58:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*Airman: > > **Your** knife sounds pretty nice. You do realize it’s quite the exception, right? \*\* Scylla. Not to be snarky, but I’m not sure where you’re getting this. I formerly collected knives and I’ve never seen a SB that **didn’t** lock. I’ve got maybe a couple of dozen right now, European and Asian models and they all lock. If you want to say that most of them are junk, well, I’d have to agree with that. _S_ A regular lockblade will open about as fast, one handed, and is usually a MUCH better knife. All the best. Testy ---
**Author:** ![MSU\_1978](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac8455/32.png) [@MSU\_1978](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MSU_1978)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/90 "2003-06-14T12:39:16Z")
To my learned colleague Anthracite: > [@](#): > > And I stated earlier that there is no requirement of an actor personified as a “bogeyman” in the slippery slope argument. I also stated that it can be a natural evolution of society, and it does not have to be the result of malice or a conscious desire to achieve the ultimate Very Unacceptable End. Why are you focused on this side argument of wanting people to identify a specific actor or actors to be the cause? Did not HCI change their charter a while back to include working to ban all guns? I’m not sure; maybe you have a link to their corporate charter, since you were on their site earlier…quick web searches can find numerous organizations working to ban guns of all types and all modes of operation. It is often stated that banning particular weapons is part of some master plan to disarm the nation. I just want to know who is behind this master disarmament plan. And who are these numerous organizaztions working to ban guns of all types and all modes of operation? And do all these groups combined have 1% of the resources of the NRA? I don’t think so. > [@](#): > > How much research did you do, exactly? Did it involve an hour’s Googling? Seriously, with no malice intended, how much actual research did you do between your first post in this thread and your later one? Ah, yes. HCI’s site had an excellent article about the 50 caliber rifle, and that article had about 14 footnotes. I spent about an hour researching the footnotes, the best of those I linked to. The GAO undercover investigation was in my opinion the most convincing. The dealers told the agents that the weapon would be dandy for stopping armored limos and bringing down helicopters. (So the passenger jet scenario is NOT a strawman) The military’s own stats on how much penetration the ammo can achieve were also convincing on my part. > [@](#): > > And “reasonable use for self” seems, sadly, to be as subjective a statement as any in here. I’m a (or was, rather) a fair target shooter. I don’t see the point in a 50-caliber weapon for target shooting, but I acknowledge that they are very well suited for very long-distance target shooting. Unfortunately, I inadvertently omitted the word “defense”, so I meant “self defense”. The legitimate uses of guns are for hunting and self defense, neither of which this weapon seems well suited for. “Long distance target shooting” may be a fine use, but unfortunately this ability also lends itself to more nefarious uses. > [@](#): > > How about this: at what bullet weight, kinetic energy, or velocity does a weapon become “beyond a reasonable use for hunting or self”? Without being facetious at all, how are you defining this? You know what a steel-jacketed 7.62x39 will do? It will go through a fair bit of steel as well, and yet it’s in the middle range of hunting calibers. I’ve seen one go completely through a Master Lock - so are we banning all .30 caliber rifles now as well? Again, I omitted the word “defense” after “self”. Now, we’re talking. To me, 1 inch of steel at 2000 yards is a bit much. I can envision drug dealers duking it out with these things and the spray killing nearby children though the walls of their houses. How far away can the .30 caliber go through a Master Lock, certainly not at 2000 yards. But this is a nugget for discussion, exactly how much firepower is too much? Do you have a limit? What would it be? > [@](#): > > Or, to be more correct, what logical engineering process did you go through to determine that 1 inch of steel at 2000 yards was too much firepower? It sounds like it could be from a tabloid headline standpoint, but I thought we were supposed to be smarter than that here. How do you draw a boundary? I mean, if you can make judgement calls about that, surely you must have a clear defining point. > > So what shall it be? 400 grains? 200 grains? 3000 fpm? 10,000 ft-lbf? You can’t say that a weapon is “too powerful” and must be banned, without defining the reasons why exactly. Well, you can if you’re a California legislator - let me give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you aren’t that odd of a duck. Well, I took a lot of stock in what these gun dealers told the GAO undercover investigators. The transcripts in the GAO report are quite chilling. One dealer said, “this gun is just too powerful”. I believe there are sound performance measures that can be used to sort out what is legitimate for public use and what should be used only by the military. Unless you’re hunting some awfully well armed deer, this is too much firepower for hunting. Unless you anticipate your house being attacked by the Russian Army, this is too much firepower for self defense. > [@](#): > > The point behind this is I’m illustrating the difficulty of defining a limit on a weapon based on one person’s highly subjective and biased reading of a few hits from Google. How would you write legislation to ban these weapons, exactly? You can’t just say “50 caliber weapons”, because that includes black powder weapons, including handguns. Are you going to do it by bullet weight? By energy? How does one apply a metric to define what is acceptable and what is not? As stated earlier, the research was not lazy Googling, it was in researching the footnotes from a well written article. I would write legislation on the capabilities of the ammo and of the weapon. I assume a 50 caliber handgun would not have the armor piercing capability of the 50 caliber rifle. The test might be as simple as having a plate of steel of a certain thickness, and if the weapon can penetrate from a certain distance, ban it. Otherwise, OK. Scientific objective tests are easy enough once we figure out reasonable standards. > [@](#): > > PS: “Unprovoked”? Maybe a re-reading is in order. Didn’t you make that snide comment right after mine about the NRA’s myopic vision on the SA (which you still categorically refuse to acknowledge)? The real meaning of the SA has been debated by me and others for 3 years on this Board, and all possible aspects have been fully explained by numerous people on both sides of the fence. No one who has been involved in this debate for these years is subscribing to any “myopic” view. Some of us do, and did, actual research on the subject - on both sides of the issue. I’m not sure I follow that the debates on a message board make criticism of the NRA off limits. I’m sure you have debated the Second Amendment to great length. What about that makes the NRA any less irresponsible? The NRA’s position is that there is an absolute individual right to gun ownership. The courts have consistently disagreed. Carved on the NRA headquarters is one half of the Second Amendment. I believe that ignoring the first half or consistently misinterpreting it is indeed myopic. You said that I had “past poor behaviour”. Well, where? Now on to others, SenorBeef, thanks for the quotes. Do you have cites for the entire context in which they were said? That would be an interesting read. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/91 "2003-06-14T13:07:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MSU 1978 \* > **…The GAO undercover investigation was in my opinion the most convincing. The dealers told the agents that the weapon would be dandy for stopping armored limos and bringing down helicopters…** Pt.1 Bringing down helicopters? :rolleyes: Did the dealer in question just read _Unintended Consequences_? Far too ‘hollywood’ an answer from the dealer to be taken seriously. As for stopping armored limos, I can think of several _much_ easier ways to do say, none of which require me to lug 35lbs of rifle around. \*\* > [@](#): > > …The legitimate uses of guns are for hunting and self defense, neither of which this weapon seems well suited for. “Long distance target shooting” may be a fine use, but unfortunately this ability also lends itself to more nefarious uses.\*\* Is not mere target shooting a ‘legitimate use’ of firearms? \*\* > [@](#): > > …I can envision drug dealers duking it out with these things and the spray killing nearby children though the walls of their houses…\*\* You are in Lansing (judging from the name)? I go shooting near Alma sometimes. Feel free to come along, and ‘spray’ some hapless paper with my AR-50. After the first shot, I virtually guarantee that you will change your opinion. I won’t even charge you for the ammo, even though the 750gr Hornady V-Max bullets that I load with are ~$1.25 per bullet, not counting primers, powder, and brass. It is laughable to think that Joe Drugdealer, to who the concept of ‘aiming’ is foreign, will range the target, figure out the drop, figure for windage, adjust the optics, and fire. Short of drug dealers getting M2 machine guns, there is _zero_ practical cause for concern regarding criminals and the .50 cal. \*\* > [@](#): > > Well, I took a lot of stock in what these gun dealers told the GAO undercover investigators. The transcripts in the GAO report are quite chilling. One dealer said, “this gun is just too powerful”.\*\* Pt.2 Do you think that the dealer knew what he was talking about? Becoming a dealer isn’t that hard. Takes time and plenty of paperwork to the BATF, but little to none actual firearm knowledge. As any ‘Firearm Enthusiast’ will tell you, there are many dealers who are just plain full of shit. This dealer was probably trying to sell something he had in stock to the undercover agent. Or was just full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/92 "2003-06-14T13:29:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > \*\*We’re just as safe with it as without it as no one has used one to murder anybody in quite a while with one, apparently. \*\* [/tangent] I bet dollars to donuts that that people killed with .50 cal rifles have been black powder rifles. Not BMG’s. Had one happen here a couple of years ago. There are probably 5,000 .50 cal black powder rifles for every BMG. Are they next? [/tangent] ---
**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:** [June 14, 2003, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/93 "2003-06-14T14:22:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MSU 1978 \* > **It is often stated that banning particular weapons is part of some master plan to disarm the nation. I just want to know who is behind this master disarmament plan. And who are these numerous organizaztions working to ban guns of all types and all modes of operation? And do all these groups combined have 1% of the resources of the NRA?** There are very few people who openly state in the political environment that they wish to ban all guns. I don’t think we can agree further on any part of this, however. > [@](#): > > **The dealers told the agents that the weapon would be dandy for stopping armored limos and bringing down helicopters. (So the passenger jet scenario is NOT a strawman) The military’s own stats on how much penetration the ammo can achieve were also convincing on my part.** _A gun dealer is by no means any expert on firearms_, and they can be a complete idiot. If you want to compare quotes from dealers as evidence, **I was a licensed Federal Firearms Dealer** more than a decade ago, so you would have to give equal weight to my opinions as some random unnamed dealer(s) quoted on a website. Can a 50-caliber weapon bring down a helicopter? I have no doubt about it, provided you shoot it enough times and are able to hit it. Can a .30-06 hunting rifle, .308, or 7.62x39 bring down a helicopter? Again, I have no doubt of it. Like I said, I’ve had personal experience with the effects of a relatively small and reletively low-powered 7.62 rifle, which could shoot completely through both doors of a passenger car, and still shatter a fireplace on the other side of it. But does this have any bearing? Helicopters are fragile things to begin with, as are passenger planes. If the goal is now to ban guns that can bring down a helicopter or passenger plane, IMEO one has now banned about 75% of all rifles. > [@](#): > > **Unfortunately, I inadvertently omitted the word “defense”, so I meant “self defense”. The legitimate uses of guns are for hunting and self defense, neither of which this weapon seems well suited for. “Long distance target shooting” may be a fine use, but unfortunately this ability also lends itself to more nefarious uses.** In rebuttal, the IOC, as well as numerous other old, established organizations, believe that target shooting is a very legitimate use. I guess that depends on whether or not we are going to put range limits on weapons as well. Once again, how does one define a limit? > [@](#): > > **I can envision drug dealers duking it out with these things and the spray killing nearby children though the walls of their houses. How far away can the .30 caliber go through a Master Lock, certainly not at 2000 yards. But this is a nugget for discussion, exactly how much firepower is too much? Do you have a limit? What would it be?** Is this not a strawman? There have been no cases of “drug dealers duking it out with these things and the spray killing nearby children though the walls of their houses”? No one has demonstrated any actual punitive need to remove these weapons from society. Merely, there has only been demonstration of “potential misuse”, which as usual can be a scary way to write legislation in a country. To use an unfair strawman, it’s like banning cameras because someone might use them for child pornography. Now, in honesty, I don’t know what a limit is, and within the current bounds of the definitions of the NFA act, I don’t know how to apply one, nor do I believe their must be one. I feel that the engineering limits of the weapons and materials available provide their own limits for now. > [@](#): > > **Well, I took a lot of stock in what these gun dealers told the GAO undercover investigators. The transcripts in the GAO report are quite chilling. One dealer said, “this gun is just too powerful”.** Well, as mentioned, I was a Federal Firearms Dealers license holder, and I have two engineering degrees. How much stock do you put in my quote here that “these guns can _not_ be called ‘too powerful’”? What I’m getting at is that is very highly subjective research. Obviously you should not take my word for this on this subject, not any more than anonymous unnamed alleged dealers on a website. > [@](#): > > **The test might be as simple as having a plate of steel of a certain thickness, and if the weapon can penetrate from a certain distance, ban it. Otherwise, OK. Scientific objective tests are easy enough once we figure out reasonable standards.** This is the first non-subjective measure you’ve used, and I think it might be one of the only ways to do it properly. However, one would have to do multiple tests, as kinetic energy and impact area have a decent amount of variance, and one would have to be very, very careful about the ammunition used. I’m quite certain that one side of the issue would insist on steel-jacketed armor-piercing ammunition as the test, and the other soft-nosed lead hollowpoints as the test. > [@](#): > > **What about that makes the NRA any less irresponsible? The NRA’s position is that there is an absolute individual right to gun ownership. The courts have consistently disagreed. Carved on the NRA headquarters is one half of the Second Amendment. I believe that ignoring the first half or consistently misinterpreting it is indeed myopic.** Except that you were the one to bring up the NRA’s myopic vision immediately in response to my post about the SA. I did not, nor is their “vision” relevent to my research on the actual meaning of the SA. I resent having my researched opinion being lumped in by reference with anyone’s “myopic vision”. I also don’t care what the current courts, and the courts through time have ruled. I know and understand what they have ruled, but unfortunately even the USC has reversed itself numerous times through history as the result of political pressure and the changing of society, and no doubt can and will do so again. The writings of the Federalists, Hamilton, the first and other drafts of the SA are clear and unambiguous as to their meaning, and so is the use of the word “the people”, which those such as the ACLU believe they can define as they see fit. Whether or not it is _right_ or _applicable in today’s society_ is another issue entirely, which I have always been open-minded about. ---
**Author:** ![MSU\_1978](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac8455/32.png) [@MSU\_1978](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MSU_1978)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/94 "2003-06-14T14:47:40Z")
First Brutus, thank you for your kind offer to fire a 50 caliber weapon. I’m afraid that my doing so would pose immediate danger to anyone within 2000 yards, however. You’re correct that I’m near Lansing, I don’t get to Alma that often anyway. Anthracite, I think we’re edging a bit closer to harmony here. Yes, gun dealers probably exaggerate their claims to make a sale. And they don’t all know whet they’re talking about. But the GAO report did talk to several dealers. Perhaps there were others not quoted as well, but the ones that were quoted gave what I thought was quite sobering testimony. Now as to testing how much is too much, I believe there is a point where there is too much for non-military applications. Certainly the ammo makes all the difference in the world. No matter how you read the Second Amendment, surely you realize that Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, et al had no notion of armor-piercing weaponry or rapid fire guns. Perhaps if they were aware of 21st century weapons technology, they would have been somewhat more clear in drafting the Second Amendment. Now I come to the NRA issue- if you take umbrage that I brought up the NRA immediately after your post, then I apologise. I did not mean to imply that you were an NRA member nor do I necessarily believe that you personally subscribe to all of their views. I suspect we may disagree as to the merits of most NRA positions, but please know that I would like to disagree with you without being disagreeable. As to the history of poor behaviour that you referred to, I’m still wondering about that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Harrison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@John\_Harrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Harrison)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/95 "2003-06-14T18:31:23Z")
> [@](#): > > No matter how you read the Second Amendment, surely you realize that Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, et al had no notion of armor-piercing weaponry or rapid fire guns. Perhaps if they were aware of 21st century weapons technology, they would have been somewhat more clear in drafting the Second Amendment. Surely you realize they couldn’t anticipate radio, television and computers with regards to the 1st Amendment? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Kitfox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f6c823/32.png) [@Kitfox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kitfox)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/96 "2003-06-15T01:41:25Z")
Chasing the hijack… Brass Knuckles and switchblades aren’t as illegal as people seem to think. Both can be fairly easily obtained at gun shows and pawn shops or through mail order. Brass and Polymer Knuckles are typically labled as “Paper Weights” (complete with quotes). It seems the laws banning these items are about as limited and well though out as gun laws, since something as simplistic as an obviously fake re-naming seems to negate it completely. It the late nineties, switchblades were cheap and readily availible. Not so much these days. This isn’t so much from a change in laws, but a change in demand. Quality one handed folding knives can be had for the same price as a cheap, fragile switchblade without the stigma. The simple truth about these laws is that they are often notorious easy to beat. Wanna ban .50 BMG in California? Fine, but expect to see a lot rifles for sale in 12.7mm Nato. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/97 "2003-06-15T02:26:01Z")
You know, at that point in time you could buy artillery for your very own. Where do you think those courthouse cannons came from? Heck, you could pay for, arm, and provision your very own regiment. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/98 "2003-06-15T04:59:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MSU 1978 \* > \*\*To my learned colleague Anthracite: > > It is often stated that banning particular weapons is part of some master plan to disarm the nation. I just want to know who is behind this master disarmament plan. And who are these numerous organizaztions working to ban guns of all types and all modes of operation? And do all these groups combined have 1% of the resources of the NRA? I don’t think so. \*\* Well, assuming that many, well known, well funded organizations DO plan to use an incremental strategy for the total ban of legal guns, they’re not going to publically state it, or it would hurt their goal. Handgun Control Inc. and the Violence Policy Center are both fairly big and well funded, and I personally have little doubt they never plan to stop in their quest for gun control. Of course, that’s a judgement call on my part, and it would be absolutely stupid of them to say “Ok, well, everything we do is done with the ultimate goal of total disarmarment”, and then try to pass incremental legislation by saying “Oh, we don’t want to ban all guns, we just want to ban [evil set of the month]”. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Ah, yes. HCI’s site had an excellent article about the 50 caliber rifle, and that article had about 14 footnotes. I spent about an hour researching the footnotes, the best of those I linked to. The GAO undercover investigation was in my opinion the most convincing. The dealers told the agents that the weapon would be dandy for stopping armored limos and bringing down helicopters. (So the passenger jet scenario is NOT a strawman) The military’s own stats on how much penetration the ammo can achieve were also convincing on my part. \*\* Half of the gun dealers I’ve met are totally full of shit. They want to sell a $3000+ rifle, and they want to sound as “hardcore” as they can to people to convince them that this rifle is special and worth the enourmous cost. To use a sales pitch as a cite of a gun’s effectiveness is kind of silly. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I can envision drug dealers duking it out with these things and the spray killing nearby children though the walls of their houses. \*\* Oh, please. You’ve been fairly reasonable, don’t start with this. We’ve already gone over why a 35 pound, 6 foot rifle isn’t a practical weapon for drug dealers - there’s no need to try to induce an emotional response by saying “but drug dealers might shoot CHILDREN!”. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The test might be as simple as having a plate of steel of a certain thickness, and if the weapon can penetrate from a certain distance, ban it. Otherwise, OK. Scientific objective tests are easy enough once we figure out reasonable standards. \*\* So, in concrete terms, how much steel, at what angle, from what distance, with what type of round is too much? If .0001% of ammo for a certain round is specialty/novelty armor piercing ammo, does the whole caliber get banned if that infintesimal amount can do it? That’s not an unreasonable thing to think about - for example, certain types of .223 - primarily chinese stuff - can’t be imported because all of.223 falls under certain pistol ammo restrictions. .223 is a rifle round. There have been a handful of specialized target pistols that use the .223 round, perhaps .000001% of all .223 weapons, and because of that, all .223 falls under restrictive legislation. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Now on to others, SenorBeef, thanks for the quotes. Do you have cites for the entire context in which they were said? That would be an interesting read. \*\* No, sorry. I have a quotes text file that I keep - dealing with things other than guns also - where I put a memorable quote when I come across one (so long as the site and cite are legitimate). You could try entering the quotes into google and seeing what you come up with. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/99 "2003-06-15T05:38:47Z")
> [@](#): > > As for stopping armored limos, I can think of several much easier ways to do say, none of which require me to lug 35lbs of rifle around. Traditionally, they box the car in and hose it down with regular bullets. Bullet’proof’ glass can only withstand so much. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514/100 "2003-06-15T07:29:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MSU 1978 \* > **Oh, the dreaded slippery slope. If we take away bazookas today, then tomorrow we go after the duck hunting shotgun.** From what I’ve gathered in previous SDMB gun threads, you could buy bazookas prior to 1969. The majority of gun legislation has been after that. Not quite as directly related, but an amusing thought… As for your fears of bringing down a passenger jet… No. The only time you’d have to hit it would be on takeoff and landing, which means hitting a small area of a target traveling at about 150-200 MPH. I say small area, because you will have to hit something vital to even cause enough damage that they stop the plane. You’d have to get damn lucky to hit the pilot (In which case, the copilot takes over), or maybe disable a single engine. You’re not taking down a 747 with a .50. You’d have better luck with a 7.62 machinegun. In fact, to even cause “serious” damage (Enough to make them want to land the plane), you’d have to either hit the pilot, a vital part of the engine (Which would only reduce power to the aircraft), or a vital piece of avionics… And the majority of these targets would be invisible from the outside. Even if you did, none of those are critical enough that the plane would crash. Maybe on a blind-luck shot, but otherwise, no. It’d be like shooting a running car with a .22 and expecting it to blow up or crash. And once it’s in flight, more than a few hundred feet off the ground, it’s untouchable. A helicoptor is about the same, though traveling slightly slower. It’s a much smaller aircraft, so a single good hit will cause more damage, but “bringing down” in this case would be, most likely, forcing it to land, not blowing it up. You’d have to be an expert marksman with a good deal of luck to crash a chopper with a single shot (And face it, that’s probably all you’re going to get on a 100MPH+ aircraft). Even the armored car would be easier to do with a few (dirt-cheap) illegal AKs than a single (High skill required) shot from a multi-thousand-dollar rifle… I think the gun dealer didn’t know what he was talking about, and was simply wanting to impress a potential buyer. As for your comments about the founding fathers not anticipating “armor-piercing weapons or rapid-fire guns,” I have a further objection. First off, the contest of firearms versus personal armor has been one ongoing ever since the first firearm, and was recognized enough that guns designed to penetrate armor had been in circulation for centuries (This was part of the reason for the downfall of the armored knight, and the end of full heavy metal armor). There were no personal armors that could give even passingly-decent protection against the guns of that day. Further, while they might not have anticipated rapid-fire guns in the form of automatics, they had no problem letting the people own other “dangerous” weapons, such as grenades, cannons, and full-armed battleships. There were rapid-fire guns in the form of multiple-barrel pieces where the barrels were fired rapidly in sequence, and they had no problem with these (Despite these weapons usually being cannon-type weapons…). So I don’t think your founding-fathers appeal quite helps as much as you’d think. While a .50 may travel 2000 meters, you’d have to be a complete dumb-ass to fire it at such an angle that it escapes the range entirely (Every range I’ve been at, you’d pretty much have to do it _deliberately_). And most bullets will travel that far, and still be dangerous. Even a .22 can travel 1.2-1.5 miles and kill someone. Hollywood and video games aside, a .50BMG rifle is not the prefered rifle for all situations. Even the military rarely uses them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-that-banning-50-caliber-rifles-will-reduce-crime/181514.md?page=6)