When in doubt, ban something, even if it's a totally unrelated gun.

The BBQ Pit
1

New Jersey Moves on .50-Caliber Rifle Ban

This statement typifies the abject ignorance of, well, people who propose gun bans. Sure, it’s a big gun. About 30 pounds and three feet long, that’s how big. The rounds are not too terribly expensive, either, only about a dollar a shot at the minimum. The recoil is pretty tremendous, so rapid fire out of your $10,000 weapon is pretty much out of the question as well unless you’re a real man. Did I mention that these guns have never been used in a crime? No? Well, I just thought I’d mention that in passing, as if it made any difference.

But, you know, California banned them, because they had the capability to shoot down airliners among other things. As we all know, shooting down something a mile away that’s moving at 150-200 miles per hour with a bolt action rifle is so easy, hell, anybody can do it. Yeah, that’s it.

What’s really unbelievable is that the guy is going after the WRONG GUNS! Not that he could go after full-auto AK-47s or M-16s, those are already tightly controlled. So hey, let’s use something totally unrelated to try to ban a gun that would be singularly useless for the purpose of attacking a military installation. In doing so, though, don’t let anybody know the truth, even if you know what it is, which is doubtful. Fear has no regard for the truth.

For those of you in New Jersey who want a .50 caliber weapon, I have some good news for you. Even if they ban the .50 BMG, there is an alternative! Yes, you can obtain a weapon chambered in .510 DTC EUROP, also known as the .50 DTC. It has pretty much the same ballistics, it uses the same round, it’s still hideously expensive but it is available, and best of all it circumvents the ridiculous ban in California and the proposed one in New Jersey.

Gun control people called the tune, we’re dancing to it. To the letter. And laughing at them while we’re doing it.

2

I am relieved to learn that I can defend my family from attack by a tyrannosaurus rex.

3

Here’s something the FOX news source you cited had just enough honesty to include in their report:

I can’t think of too many similarities between California and New Jersey, but one just seems to jump out at anybody who ever looked at an encyclopedia or even played Game Of The States: lots more refineries than practically anybody else has. Oh there’s one more: airports where the planes take off almost universally on the most direct path to the ocean, not a concern in redder or stupider states.

Laugh at the gun control people all you want, and help your coreligionists load their .50-caliber rifles on the luggage cart next time you’re at the airport seeing your mother off (She’s going to be perfectly safe). And by all means, spend your money on a weapon that circumvents other states’ laws, and encourage others to do the same, because we’re all in this only for ourselves, right? And by “ourselves” I don’t mean us, I mean us. People who might want guns, like sportsmen and potential victims and – oh, shit, who else is it that might want a high-powered gun near a refinery or an airport? Benedictine Nuns, that’s who I must have been thinking of. Well, that’s okay, then.

4

Who does? Tell me, who? That’s right, NOBODY. Unless you can demonstrate that people buy large, expensive, unwieldy weapons that are guaranteed to get them caught for the eventuality that they might have the opportunity to shoot down a plane or shoot at a refinery. Of course you can do that. I’ll expect a list of all people who have done so in the 25+ years that this weapon has been on the market. Anytime you’re ready.

And circumventing laws? Ha! The law is complied with to. The. Letter. The .50 DTC is not the same weapon.

5

A freakishly expensive non-auto rifle that could, in theory, be used to shoot a stationary object? Gadzooks! What will they think of next?!

While critics may contend that it could “penetrate an airliner”, the odds against it doing so to a moving plane are astronomical, and the odds against hitting a vital part on that plane? I couldn’t even begin to guess.

But wait! Although it’s apparently never been used in a crime, it could be! That’s right, if a group of terrorists were to wise up and stop trying to get wimpy little M16’s and AK74’s and would focus instead on huge, heavy, expensive, slow-firing, unwieldy .50 cals, imagine the carnage!

Fucking idiots. Next they’re going to read the warning on a box of .22’s, see “lethal up to 1.5 miles” and fear for all chemical plants. We should maybe make a 1.5 mile “Gun Free Zone” around all building and vehicles, that’ll foil the non-existent .50 cal terrorists.

6

How many planes and/or refineries have ever even been shot at with such weapons?

7

Just wait until the “you don’t really need one” and “you can’t own a howitzer, bazooka, or Abrams tank, either” crowd show up.

8

The. word. “circumvents.” was. in. your. OP. Oh. Wise. One. To. The. Letter. The .510 DTC EUROP is. the. weapon. you. were. suggesting. to. any. reader. of. this. to. circumvent. a. proposed. New. Jersey. Law. banning. .50-caliber. assault. rifles. So. quit. hitting. the. period. key. You. Moron.

Now then, respected disputant. Your assertion that a weapon such as the one at issue is too expensive, unweildy and too guaranteed to get its user caught to be a threat seems to be based on – to put it kindly – your own assessment of your expertise, which in turn seems to be based on your self-chosen user name, and not much else. This bubble of self-regard is impressive enough that I’m tempted to leave you alone – and you are – in it, but since I entered the thread I feel obligated to not only point out again the fact that airport security begins only inside the airport (and is none too good there) but that obvious security flaws in your local oil refineries, recently described as “sitting ducks,”, should make sane people pause. The whole purpose of such a weapon, after all, is to have enough range to use it far away from where you might get caught. However, you can take comfort in knowing that nobody, NOBODY, has a list of the people who has these weapons. Not me, not the government, not the investigators who will wonder who caused the next big disaster.

9

Eh.

They’re taking away our right to free speech. They’re taking away our freedom to travel. They’re taking away the ability to order some kinds of chemicals* through the mail. They’re extending the tours of our servicepeople unconscionably. They’ve already taken away our image as the good guys who would never resort to torture and the dungeon.

*I tried to buy potassium permanganate for aquarium use. It turns out it’s used in detonators and rocket fuel.

All these things are being done in the name of fear of terrorism. All these things have been taken from me and mine.

If they’re also taking away one of your guns for that same (ostensible) reason, I find it pretty hard to get worked up about it at this point.

I’ll cut a deal with you: get the Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act overturned and I’ll come lobby for your gun rights.

Sailboat

10

This is the sad part, sailboat. It’s much easier for them to take our rights away when we are individual groups. I agree with you - the pro-gun lobby has not been sufficiently vocal against other rights being removed. But also too many people concerned with defending other rights have ignored the right to gun ownership.

What I want to see is defense of the whole of the Bill of Rights. We haven’t got the luxury any more of piecemeal defense.

11

California has a list. They made one when they banned it. And with regard to my username, I claim no expertise except in the job that I do. What you choose to ascribe to it is your problem.

Incidentally, there’s nothing insane about owning a gun.

Do you happen to know how many of these weapons exist? Not many. Were they to be used in a crime (which they have not been) the BATF and the police would be on the shooter like white on rice about 5 seconds after the muzzle flash and before the echo subsides.

By all means, though, continue to spread fear. It’s your only weapon.

12

I’m just glad you’re not defending me. :smiley:

13

If the guns are so easy to get and so easy to use against airplanes, and with tens of millions of flights taking off and landing over the years, why has not one been successfully used yet against an airplane in the US? Is there any evidence that a gun like this (that is, functionally similar in action and caliber) has ever been successfully used against an airplane, anywhere? I confess I am unable to find anything, but then all I used was Google.

FWI that article you link is talking about the potential for accidents, not terrorists shooting or actually damaging in any way the facilities. The whole focus of the article is about accidental releases. Just clarifying that the article was not about acts of terror or deliberate vandalism specifically.

Not that the same principle doesn’t apply - if an accidental release of hydrofluoric acid is bad, then a deliberate release is of course just as bad. However, for those who have never worked at an oil refinery, power plant, or chemical/fertilizer plant, it might be good if I tell everyone that these plants are not set up like ticking time bombs just waiting for a stray bullet to cause an explosion or serious leak. While accidents happen, fail-safes fail, things fuck up, and shit happens, for the most part these plants and systems are designed to be somewhat tolerant to just such an incident. Ammonia tanks at a power plant I visited two months ago were deliberately specified to be of a strength such that a 50-calibre round could not penetrate their casing. Many lines and pipes have segregated chambers and leak-sensitive valves. Steam lines rarely do more than rupture locally unless they are already in really bad shape. Oil tanks leak, they don’t tend to explode. Some other tanks of more volatile chemicals have automatic foam/inerting devices.

And people do shoot these things. It’s very common for me to see bullet dimples in outdoor storage tanks, especially when you’re out in the country. One chlorine tank I saw had about 100 dimples in it, none of them causing too much damage.

There’s always a risk, but it’s small, and engineers who design and work at these facilities are not dumb - there is some thought given into just how much punishment parts can take from vandalism. But still, we get back to the question I asked about airplanes - if these weapons can be bought so easily, with no records, and used so easily against the innumerable chemical storage depots around the US - some of which I can attest can be unmanned for days at a time - then why isn’t it happening? It’s not rocket science, and I’ll bet even the most dimwitted terrorist could figure it out.

IMO this is yet another “ugly gun ban” that does nothing but make those in favor of it look silly and ignorant.

14

I think we should ban Star Trek. The voters/legislature watch it, then think that rattling a factory, turning off the power, sticking a knife in something, etc causes a terrible explosion. We don’t need no stinking failsafes.

15

–and with New Jersey disarmed and helpless, Pennsylvania immediately rose up and drove them into the sea.

Seriously, New Jersey? You’re doomed. Your legendary .50-caliber arsenal is the only reason the rest of the Northeast puts up with your crap. Once that’s out of the way, I suggest you start learning how to breathe water.

16

It’s worse than that. My g’g’g’g’…g’pa’s Brown Bess that he stole off a Lobster would be criminalized by this law. Seriously. That ain’t right.

17

Law would ban high caliber firearms, what you got there is a very loud cudgel.

18

I am not pro gun, but this looks like a silly law proposal. Especially as the reintroduction is being inspired by some domestic terrorists that were trying to use a completely different weapon. I love Jersey, but we do seem to be the state of frivolous laws and regulations way to often.

Sailboat, I loved your post.
Villa, nice point
Terrifel, Hey, what did we ever do to you?

Jim

19

More likely we would take advantage of their defenseless state by forcing them to annex Philadelphia.

20

It’ll work that way, too. But until the 1930s, it was fired every Thanksgiving.