Oh, and in the sake of honesty, I believe you got the statistics mixed up, ExTank.
There are around 26,000 gun deaths per year here, roughly 60% of which are suicides, putting other gun related deaths at around 10,000.
Of course, most of the countries had lower murder rates to begin with…but hey, nothing like a little bit of simplistic analysis devoid of context or background information to improve your side of the argument, huh?
Of course, the entertaining part is that a lot of people who want to ban guns want to legalize drugs, claiming that having them illegal just creates a large black market prone to violence. Of course, making guns illegal is completely different.
msu:
So why should this .50 target rifle be banned?
For what it’s worth, the KKK should be free to spew their ignorance to their hearts’ content, that only makes the rest of us less likely to join their unworthy cause.
Pray tell, who are these well-funded groups dedicated to the confiscation of all firearms? Do any of them have a fraction of the resources that the NRA does?
I realize that the ‘slippery slope’ issue has been dealt with ad nauseum on this board, but I thought I’d throw a couple thoughts in.
After a new gun control measure is passed, and crime doesn’t go down, its proponents never seem to say ‘ok sorry our law didn’t work, let’s repeal it.’ Instead, they call for even stricter laws.
It doesn’t take a genius to see the end result of this process.
Are you implying that the Brady Campaign is not well funded?
Exactly.
However, I dont believe for one minute that those who want weapons outlawed, want them outlawed to reduce crime.
They dont ask for repeal, because ending, or reducing crime was never their real intention, it was only a pretense.
Furthermore, I dont believe very many anti-second amendment people are even fooled by the weak pretense. Most people realize that criminals will still get weapons, will still commit crimes, etc. regardless of any new law.
If proponents of gun control were sincere and honest, and if they were passing such laws witht he purpose of preventing or eliminating crime, then they would have long ago repealed most of the gun laws in the United States as soon as they found them to be ineffective.
Fool me once, your fault.
Fool me twice, my fault.
Anyone who believes that banning 50 caliber weapons will reduce crime, is choosing to be an idiot.
Hate to sound cliche, but by defination, isn’t a criminal someone who doesn’t obey the law? So a ban will get you…:dubious:
Airman, what makes you believe the aim of the Brady group is the confiscation of all guns?
Scylla- I have not advocated the ban of the 50 caliber gun.
The slippery slope requires a bogeyman. Where is he?
Except of course, that those nations aren’t the USA. Besides- who cares about “Gun murder rates”- does it really matter if someone is killed with a “saturday night special” as opposed to a samurai sword? Dead is dead.
However, let us look at a another nation with “sane gun control”- Switzerland, which not only has lower “GUN murder rates”, but lower murder rates, violent crime rates- and even crime rates. And they have a very different idea of what “sane gun control” is- every able-bodied man is required to own a fully-automatic assualt rifle , and keep it at his home or business. Where would you rather be out at Midnite- Central Park or Geneva?
Personally, I’m rather neutral on this whole idea of gun control, and I’d be happy to trade away my “second admendment rights” (whatever they may be) for a MUCH reduced violent crime rate. However, gun laws- whether they be “right to carry” or “complete ban” seem to have no significant measurable long term effect on violent crime rates. Some studies show some improvement either way (with generally the bulk of studies seeming to show “more guns= less crime”), but again, nothing significant or long term.
Over & over again, gun control laws have failed to do as promised- reduce violent crime. They are expensive to pass & enforce, and sometimes put “non-criminals” in jail (I define “non-criminal” here as someone whose only crime is a violation of that gun law). Since they do nothing, and cost a lot, we should not pass them.
It’s just not a gun-control thread without a strawman from minty green.
That’s the problem - People likely to carry around skill weapons to attack people with are likely to develop some skill. people carrying swords for self defense may not, or may be less willing to use them right. “Samuel Colt made them equal.”
The NRA’s myopic view? Who said anything about the NRA? Is it at all possible for you to discuss without a strawman? Judging from your past bad behaviour in GD, and present I see, I guess not.
Are you going to present me with some contemporary cites of the time of the writing of the SA that support your reading of it? Search on the discussions between me and minty and me and Elvis and you’ll find mine supporting my view.
And what definition are you using of “slippery slope” which requires a “bogeyman”? Your own personal one? The definitions of the slippery slope “fallacy” do not require a “bogeyman”. It only requires that increasingly unacceptable events happen which are thought (incorrectly, by its definition) to lead to a final, very unacceptable event. There does not have to be an intelligent dedicated single driver towards it - it can be the result of societal pressure, societal evolution, or a mistaken or misguided group or individual act as well, too - there need not be any evil, so to speak, behind it.
The fallacy of the slippery slope “fallacy” is that it ignores all ongoing evidence from which someone can draw a reasonable conclusion. It’s a logical fallacy only in that one cannot say with logical certainty that one follows the other. But Real Life of scoeity does not operate on logical certainty.
An example: Business is bad at a company (external, over-riding driver). The company reorganizes one division at a time, then lays off a quarter of the staff after re-organization. They do this in succession for 4 times in a row, each time laying off a significant portion of the remaining staff - an “increasingly unacceptable event”. Then a reorganization happens a 6th time. What is the proper attitude to take:
-
There is no way to show that the effect of another layoff absolutely depends on the reorganization, therefore I will assume that all is well, and that there is no intention to have any more layoffs.
-
Put out your resume.
Gun control legislation, for the vast, vast majority of its part, goes only one way. How ironic you bring up the UK in a side-track strawman, since the recent events in the UK only emphasize further the steady, single-direction progression of gun control legislation.
You also say you don’t advocate banning the 50-caliber rifles. Yet you describe two other countries which do ban them as having “sane gun control”. Care to tell us how those two positions are consistant?
minty, in answer to your question: Yes.
What exactly makes a “switchblade” as it is known so incredibly, awe-inspiringly deadly and dangerous that it must be banned outright? It’s ironic that in States that allow concealed carry of handguns, concealed carry of a switchblade is nonetheless illegal.
What makes “brass knuckles” more deadly than a baseball bat? Or a roll of quarters?
Items like these, although of little redeeming social value, were banned as “feel good” legislation to fight “gangs”. In the same manner that our government now tightens restrictions on all aspects of our lives to fight “terrorism”.
It seems inconsistent to me to say the least.
I’m sure minty will be pleased to know that I can carry a switchblade, as one is issued to me for performance of my duties.
Let’s ignore Anthracite’s unprovoked verbal assualt for a moment and concentrate on this weapon for a moment.
According to the US Army the 50 caliber ball can penetrate 1 inch of concrete, 6 inches of sand, or 21 inches of clay at 1,500 meters.
According to the Marines it can penetrate 1 inch of steel at 2000 yards.
In 1999, GAO undercover Investigatorswere told by a dealer, “You’d better buy one soon. It’s only a matter of time before someone lets a round go on a range that travels so far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will definitely ban .50 calibers. The gun is just too powerful.”
This isn’t for hunting deer. Undercover agents for the GAO were told they could take out armored limos and helicopters with it. This is not a weapon for hunting or self protection. It is just too powerful. We are safer without it.
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.
As far as slippery slopes go, I don’t even care about that argument. Maybe it’s true, but I think it’s irrelevant because even the explicitly stated aims of the people trying to ban .50 cals don’t hold water. Who needs to go to that deeper level when even the stuff on the surface falls apart so quickly with even a momentary glance?
Generally I’ve tended to find that the arguments given for banning .50 cal rifles fall into categories: “public safety/crime” and “lack of need.” I would hope that the assertion that .50 cals threaten public safety is seen as false on its face. 3 uses in crime in 50 years. One death! No matter how potentially dangerous these things may be, for whatever reason criminals choose not to use them. So I find it hard to imagine how someone can reasonably say they’re a threat to public safety. The whole historical record argues overwhelmingly against it.
As for “lack of need,” I like to trot out the car analogy on this one. Nobody NEEDS a Corvette. It is, after all, capable of exceeding any speed limit - even Montana’s “any safe and reasonable speed for current conditions” speed limit is quickly shredded by a modern Corvette. And I think it’s reasonable to assume that there have been at least a dozen innocent people killed by morons driving drunk or otherwise unsafely in their Corvettes. But we don’t ban Corvettes. Why?
Well, first of all, we correctly blame the operator of the machine, not the machine. It doesn’t steer itself or press down its own gas pedal. The other argument given is that a Corvette has other uses besides killing people. There may be some truth to this, as at least theoretically a Corvette can be practical transportation. This is stretching the theory a bit thin, but it’s at least within the realm of possibility. However, one can fairly readily point out the things like the Ferrari and Lamborghini (or for that matter, the Dodge Viper) which seem to have been expressely designed to exceed speed limits, swill gasoline like a powerboat, and generally just be dangerous as hell. And they remain quite street legal. As do 180+ MPH motorcycles.
But most of all, I think this argument is silly because I do not believe that “lack of need” is ever a valid reason to make a law prohibiting something. This country was founded upon (among others) the following principle: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Note that there is nothing about need in that sentence. We don’t (well, we should not) outlaw things that aren’t hurting anyone just because people don’t need them. That would be silly, and lead to outlawing things like chocolate sundaes (too many causes obesity, diabetes, etc) and viagra (even one pill can trigger a heart attack!).
Some other more specific points…
mintygreen
I assume the resident gun fans equally outraged over state prohibitions on switchblades and brass knuckles, right?
As Demise pointed out, that’s not particularly relevant. I don’t have stats in hand, but I expect that brass knuckles and switchblades were very often used in crime, and that was what lead to their being banned. If they were not actually used frequently in crime, then they too were banned for simply “looking mean” and I would say, lift the ban and let them be legal again as they were before.
C’mon minty, I’ve seen you make FAR better arguments than this…
Back to the OP: If .50 cal rifles are essentially never used in crime, then aren’t the people who wish to ban them simply incorrect when they argue that .50 cals are a danger to the public?
DrDeth
However, let us look at a another nation with “sane gun control”- Switzerland, which not only has lower “GUN murder rates”, but lower murder rates, violent crime rates- and even crime rates. And they have a very different idea of what “sane gun control” is- every able-bodied man is required to own a fully- automatic assualt rifle , and keep it at his home or business. Where would you rather be out at Midnite- Central Park or Geneva?
I dunno, the whole Swiss argument has struck me as a little inaccurate for a while now. The deeper you look into it the less simple it gets, until you start to wonder if you can draw any conclusions at all from the example of the Swiss.
Here’s an exerpt from
an article on the website of the quite pro-gun-rights American Shooting Academy:
If Handgun Control should stop its rhetoric about Switzerland, what should pro-gun Americans do? They can talk about Switzerland, but they cannot expect to win the American gun argument with the Swiss example. Analysis of Switzerland does demolish the simplistic notion “more guns, more gun crime.” More important than the number of guns is their cultural context. In Switzerland, guns are an important element of a cohesive social structure that keeps crime low. While Switzerland is clear proof that guns are not in themselves “daemons” (as one Denver priest recently claimed), Switzerland does not by itself prove the ease against gun control in America. Indeed, author Clinard argues that strict gun controls are necessary in the U.S. Clinard’s argument cannot be dismissed out of hand. After all, few readers of this magazine would want America to adopt the lenient criminal sentencing practices of Switzerland. Opponents of lenient sentencing would argue, correctly, that America does not have the stable, integrated community structures of Switzerland. Thus, the American government must take a more coercive, authoritarian role in controlling prisoners, to make up for the lack of community controls. The same point might be made about guns. Although guns are more available to the Swiss, Swiss gun culture is more authoritarian than America’s. Gun ownership is a mandatory community duty, not a matter of individual free choice. In Switzerland, defense of the nation is not a job for professional soldiers or for people who join the army to learn technical skills for civilian jobs. Defense of the nation is the responsibility of every male citizen. Thus, American gun owners must win the gun control argument based on conditions in America, not conditions in Switzerland.
*
In my opinion, what makes Switzerland have such a low rate of gun crime and fatality is the huge amount of mandatory training that every Swiss male must go through. I do believe very strongly that education correlates with safety. It’s simplistic to say that gun safety education inevitably leads to fewer gun crimes and fatalities, but I think it’s also true, for the most part.
This has to do with the OP only tangentially, so no “back to the OP” paragraph here.
Tezmac
*
Hate to sound cliche, but by defination, isn’t a criminal someone who doesn’t obey the law? So a ban (on handguns) will get you…
*
True in theory. Criminals will certanly not obey laws - that is why they are criminals. However, I think economics would play a part here. If we make it very, very difficult and expensive for anyone, law abiding or not, to get a handgun, I think fewer criminals will go to the trouble of getting them. I don’t support a ban on handguns - I don’t believe in banning a machine based on the actions of its operator. But as far as practical considerations go, I do think that an outright ban on handguns WOULD take them out of the hands of some criminals just due to sheer economics. How many criminals I don’t know. It would be somewhere between a few and most. Where inbetween would probably depend on local conditions.
But back to the OP - again, .50 cal rifles are not used in crime. Well, okay, 3 times in the last 50 years. So even from a purely practical standpoint, without even considering the 2nd amendment, there would seem to be no point in banning them.
MSU 1978
*
Oh, the dreaded slippery slope. If we take away bazookas today, then tomorrow we go after the duck hunting shotgun. Yep, you’ve got us figured out all right. Makes about as much sense as reading one half of the Second Amendment.
*
I dunno… do I hear an echo of the “it looks evil, so even if it hasn’t done any harm, ban it!” argument in there? I mean, suppose for a minute that millions of people across America owned bazookas, and there had been, like, 3 uses in crime and one death in the last 50 years from them.
You may think this is a fairy tale, but remember - this is literally the case for the .50 cal rifles that California appears to want to ban!
I would more willing to take the “but they’re SO DANGEROUS!!” argument seriously if the facts of the matter didn’t so flatly contradict it. .50 cal rifles just don’t seem to be dangerous, despite some people’s rather amusing and irrational fear of large, black-colored guns.
Honestly, I support the NFA, which made it illegal to own a machine gun without being de facto registered and paying a $500 tax fee. I don’t want to see hand grenades or bazookas in the hands of most civilians in a completely unregulated manner.
Back to the OP: Since it just doesn’t seem, based on 50 years of historical face, that .50 cal rifles are in the same class as grenades and bazookas, why ban them?
I mean if you want to make an argument about handguns or something, sure maybe there’s some logic there. I would probably disagree with you, but I would at least conceed that you might have a valid point and some decent supporting evidence. But I can’t see a single damn thing that’s logical, rational or reasonable about this proposed .50 cal ban. It just makes no sense whatsoever.
Even if people were to like, argue based on dogma or something. You know, “I just have this deep-seated belief that guns are bad, and so banning any gun is a good thing, so I support this ban on .50 cals”, I would at least give them points for honesty. But I haven’t even seen that argument presented!
So, I’m still hoping someone can come along and make an at least slightly coherent argument why .50 cal rifles should be banned. Anyone??
-Ben
I hope you are correct, Neurotik. However, I fear this is just the thing to bring down a passenger jet. I believe reasonable minds can prevail and determine what amount of firepower should be in the hands of the populace.
I think you will find that the vast majority of .50 Cal guns are used for shootin…pieces of paper. They have a little too much oommph for game.
And as MikeRochenelle pointed out, there are plenty of things that are dangerous that are not banned. Just to ban something because you don’t see a need for it.
Add private aircraft to the list. They pass the MSU 1978 litmus test. They kill more than one person over the last 50 years and can bring down a passenger jet. They can be crashed into a bus of kids, a presidential limo, all sorts of nasty things.
They are not needed. You can drive a Corvette or a crotch rocket and get there. Nobody has to own one.
Now if I said ban personal aircraft do you think I might get a bunch of people’s panties in a wad. Damn straight.
But I would have just as a legitimate case as banning .50 Cal guns.
So think that one over just a wee bit.
Uh-huh. If I really want to bring down a passenger jet, a ban on .50 rifles isn’t going to stop me. I’ll just go hit the black market and buy one.
Reasonable minds can prevail, I just don’t think reasonable minds would look at a weapon that hasn’t been used to kill anyone in a long time and decide it’s a threat.