-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…”
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.
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.
Thank you for remaining true to form and naturally assuming I haven’t.
gorsnak:
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.
Hmm, two possible responses here:
-
Pot/kettle/black.
-
And what jurisdiction might that be, anyway?
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.
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.
**
That arguement would seem to apply to any rifle.
**
It is to powerful to hunt deer in Arkansas but maybe not to powerful for elk, bear, or moose in Alaska.
**
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
**
Is not mere target shooting a ‘legitimate use’ of firearms?
**
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.
**
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.
[/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]
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.
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.
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?
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Surely you realize they couldn’t anticipate radio, television and computers with regards to the 1st Amendment? :eek:
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.
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.
**
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]”.
**
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.
**
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!”.
**
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.
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.
Traditionally, they box the car in and hose it down with regular bullets. Bullet’proof’ glass can only withstand so much.
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.