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

The BBQ Pit
181

[QUOTE=Zeriel]
I’ll take a stab, too, as a drive-by:

I think the line should be individual arms, but not “ordnance”. In other words, jacketed rounds, bolt-action heavy arms, and I’d even allow registration and purchase of repeating/automatic arms in the 7.62/5.56/.223cal class, since I personally believe the 2nd amendment makes the most sense as providing for citizen-militiamen and minutemen who know their way around a gun but who aren’t necessarily putting on the uniform. Of course, I’m Jeffersonian enough to think such a thing is necessary to protect the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Anything Joe Average GI would have to specially request or have individually issued (including, as far as I’m informed: grenades, explosives, special-purpose ammo such as thermite or explosive, missiles, guided munitions, etc) is therefore not fair game. Actually, at this point, fully automatic weapons aren’t, either, only 3-round burstfire weapons without full auto.

XT makes the same point I would about it being much, much easier to find the responsible party when the crime is committed with a registered firearm, and I’d go so far as to make “failing to report theft/loss of a registered firearm within 24hrs” as an offense equal to accessory-to any crime committed with that weapon prior to the report of its loss.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for providing something of an answer. I do think you are the first to do so.

Duke of Rat, you still haven’t indicated where the line is, only where the weapon in question here would fall. Am I to provide case-by-case examples until we get to one that you would restrict, and then we can talk about why that is?

Zeriel, you have nevertheless provided no rationale for where you draw the line. Since you and xtisme do ID some types of rounds that should be prohibited. Since one of the decisions cited by xtisme is actual, existing harm, certainly he, at least, can be consistent by pointing to evidence of harm having arisen from the availability of these types of rounds to the general public.

182

[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
I’m curious if you’ve ever shot a rifle at something moving, like a duck. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]
Why a duck? :smiley:

(Thanks for what I assume was an intentional setup line. :))

Straight answer: no. But in the case of the cargo plane, ISTM that one can treat a large enough target as a target that is stationary, but will be in a predictable place for a predictable but brief moment in time. In which case you can aim the gun in advance, then pull the trigger at the proper moment.

If one needs to put a hole in a particular spot on the cargo plane, then it’s a completely different ballgame, of course. But I was only trying to refute the notion that shooting a plane with the gun at all was so improbable as to amount to fantasy.

183

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]

Duke of Rat, you still haven’t indicated where the line is, only where the weapon in question here would fall. Am I to provide case-by-case examples until we get to one that you would restrict, and then we can talk about why that is?

[/QUOTE]

Sorry I didn’t spell it out. By excluding everything not already covered under the NFA and jumping straight to the .50 cal, that was my implied answer.

Here is my opinion about where the line is and should be:

The line is fine right now IMHO, with the possible exception of regulating the .50 caliber as a Class III weapon as I mentioned before.

184

[QUOTE=Zeriel]
I only tagged that on there because King of Soup’s cites talked about SLAP rounds and Raufoss rounds, and frankly I think the idea of free civilian availability of those types or similar is asinine. And I’m as big a gun-rights advocate as anyone I personally know.
[/QUOTE]

And by and large I agree with you. I can’t THINK of any reason a civilian needs what are obviously military grade ordinance for this weapon…but my position on that would be to restrict access, not out and out ban. Just because I can’t think of a reason ordinary civilians don’t need something doesn’t mean that there is never a need by ANY citizen for them. Restrict access and register them is my way.

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Since you and xtisme do ID some types of rounds that should be prohibited. Since one of the decisions cited by xtisme is actual, existing harm, certainly he, at least, can be consistent by pointing to evidence of harm having arisen from the availability of these types of rounds to the general public.
[/QUOTE]

Nope, I can’t say that I can find a single instance that either terrorists or the general public has used HEAT, AP or the other rounds mentioned in such a way as to endanger public safety. I DO feel that these particular rounds are more oriented toward MILITARY use (solely), and so feel that its reasonable to RESTRICT their access, while also registering anyone who purchases them. I don’t think this is inconsistent with my stated position in this thread. If YOU feel there is some inconsistency though Hentor I’m willing to listen.

-XT

185

[QUOTE=Tuckerfan

Of course, if the terrorists really want to use firearms to kill people, the web offers all kinds of build your own plans from [submachine guns]
(The Home Gunsmith) to gatling guns, to my personal favorite: the howitzer. Mind you, while the plans show guns that are plenty lethal as is, it’s not really too difficult to increase their lethality. Any halfway decent machinist could do it.
[/QUOTE]

I looked the plans for the last weapon. Just how lethel is a potato howitzer? :wink:

I kid, I kid.

186

Weapons grade Idaho? Fuckin’ kill you, man! But dead!

187

If you want a real one…
Completely legal.

188

[QUOTE=user_hostile]
I looked the plans for the last weapon. Just how lethel is a potato howitzer? :wink:
[/QUOTE]

100%

To the potato.

189

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Nope, I can’t say that I can find a single instance that either terrorists or the general public has used HEAT, AP or the other rounds mentioned in such a way as to endanger public safety. I DO feel that these particular rounds are more oriented toward MILITARY use (solely), and so feel that its reasonable to RESTRICT their access, while also registering anyone who purchases them. I don’t think this is inconsistent with my stated position in this thread. If YOU feel there is some inconsistency though Hentor I’m willing to listen.

-XT
[/QUOTE]
Are you fucking kidding? You have repeatedly argued that the .50 caliber was perfectly acceptable without restriction because there has not been a documented case of it being used in a terrorist or criminal act. Now you are saying that certain rounds should be restricted even though you don’t know of any times that they have been used in a terrorist or criminal act. That is completely inconsistent.

And the .50 caliber is very much more oriented toward MILITARY use (solely), so it falls under your exclusionary criterion there as well.

Look, you guys have all been about how foolish and stupid this decision is, how driven by ignorance and sheer pussiness, yet it’s been very hard to get straight answers that demonstrate what an easy decision this is.

I appreciate the effort Duke of Rat, but as far as rationale, I still only see an appeal to what is currently prescribed, rather than your basis for what weapons should be acceptable.

If there were no current laws, and it were up to you, how would you decide which weapons should so clearly be available without restriction?

190

[QUOTE=Eolbo]
Given that the aircraft our hypothetical terrorists would be most interested in will be an Airbus or Boeing packed with several hundred people, to shoot at the aircraft is to shoot at people. Except with the added bonus that your target is several hundred times bigger, vastly easier to hit and full of aviation fuel, with the bonus chance of possibly destroying or disabling an aircraft costing a couple of hundred million dollars.
[/quote]

Except that shooting blind is not very effective. If you want to shoot someone, you shoot at them. If you want to disable a plane, numerous other methods are more effective and more dangerous.

How do I put it - the government doing something stupid is not an excuse for it to do something else which is stupid.
More to the point, you can’t make society safe. I can point out hundreds of ways to attack society which wuld cause more damage, more cost, and more fear. The sole difference is that this one has a big scary rifle behind it. Now, you can either try to cover everything in nice soft plastic covers and turn the entire nation into a nursery school (or a padded cell…) or accept that we cannot ever make it safe from random wackjobs. It’s not a matter of banning the right weapons - the only weapon is the mind. Everything else is jsut a handy tool. And this particular tool isn’t even the best one for the job. It’s conspicuous, for one. It’s not a mass killer for another.

Edit: fixed quote boxes

191

[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
Opinion:
Make the .50 caliber fall under the Class III (Title II) restrictions of the NFA. Not banned, but restricted to the point that criminals don’t persue them.

Justification:
That line has worked well for fully automatic weapons, their use in crime is virtually non-existance since the NFA was enacted. Ought to work well on .50 caliber weapons that have virtually (actually?) no history of criminal use already.
[/QUOTE]

Why would you enact a federal law in response to what two states are doing? I should think smoking bans should be done first, they’re more wide spread.

192

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
… It’s not a mass killer for another…
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, its good to have that personal touch.

193

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Are you fucking kidding? You have repeatedly argued that the .50 caliber was perfectly acceptable without restriction because there has not been a documented case of it being used in a terrorist or criminal act. Now you are saying that certain rounds should be restricted even though you don’t know of any times that they have been used in a terrorist or criminal act. That is completely inconsistent.
[/QUOTE]

Um…cite me saying that its perfectly acceptable WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS Hentor.

Or, IOW…you are making shit up. I NEVER said that. Feel free to show me where I did of course. Conversely, you could actually read what I wrote…if its not too much trouble for you of course.

Out of curiosity…you DO know the difference between ‘restrict’ and ‘ban’…right? In addition…you DO realize (I assume) that there is a diffrence between the weapon and the ammo. Don’t you? While I think the WEAPON should be left at its current level of restricted access, certain AMMO that the weapon COULD use should be at a higher level of restriction, as its mainly for military use. Seriously…this is not a hard concept to grasp.

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Look, you guys have all been about how foolish and stupid this decision is, how driven by ignorance and sheer pussiness, yet it’s been very hard to get straight answers that demonstrate what an easy decision this is.
[/QUOTE]

Thats because you seem to have reading comprehension issues…at least WRT what I wrote. I can’t vouch for what others have written of course.

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
If there were no current laws, and it were up to you, how would you decide which weapons should so clearly be available without restriction?
[/QUOTE]

Did you not like the answer I already gave to this…or did you not read it?

-XT

194

[QUOTE=silenus]
If you want a real one…
Completely legal.
[/QUOTE]

Wow! I suppose that this is what Tuckerfan was originally ascribing to. But did you get a look at the deceased deer at the bottom? Looks like it was taking down by Idaho grape shot to me. :stuck_out_tongue:

195

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Thanks for providing something of an answer. I do think you are the first to do so.

Duke of Rat, you still haven’t indicated where the line is, only where the weapon in question here would fall. Am I to provide case-by-case examples until we get to one that you would restrict, and then we can talk about why that is?

Zeriel, you have nevertheless provided no rationale for where you draw the line. Since you and xtisme do ID some types of rounds that should be prohibited. Since one of the decisions cited by xtisme is actual, existing harm, certainly he, at least, can be consistent by pointing to evidence of harm having arisen from the availability of these types of rounds to the general public.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry about the late reply, but I had to run MrsZer to the hospital yesterday. Anyway,

My rationale is implied in the passage

Namely, I think that the “well-ordered militia” clause means that the unofficial militia of everyone should have access to whatever the current conception of a proper infantry weapon is, at minimum. Since, at present, this is a rather large variety of weapons, I don’t particularly want to go into details beyond what I already have–that is, limit the types of rounds and calibers to what a normal GI may be carrying on a daily basis, which includes automatic rifles and sniper weaponry but not explosives (which are typically (as I understand it) assigned on a per-mission basis and therefore should be considered special) or heavy weaponry and machine guns (both of which require specialist training, at least to an extent, and are carried by designated specialists as I understand it). Because I see the value in having the ability to have sporting arms, I’d also allow other, similar grades of firearms and ammunition such as shotguns and jacketed hollow-point rounds for the purposes of safely and effectively hunting.

While I do not offer it as a justification, I do believe this policy of allowing certain classes of automatic weapons, combined with having full registration of all firearms and serial numbers, will not increase gun crime. Add in my proposal that anyone who doesn’t rapidly report a stolen firearm is guilty of being an accessory to any crime committed with that stolen weapon, and we have a much tighter system than at present. Add in the final requirement of a licensing exam (similar to that for cars, perhaps) and skills test before any gun license is granted (with classes for long rifles, shotguns, and handguns) covering range safety, target identification, shoot/no shoot tests, and firearms safety, and that’s where i am.

196

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Yeah, its good to have that personal touch.
[/QUOTE]

:stuck_out_tongue:

Reach out and decapitate someone.

197

[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Namely, I think that the “well-ordered militia” clause means that the unofficial militia of everyone should have access to whatever the current conception of a proper infantry weapon is, at minimum. Since, at present, this is a rather large variety of weapons, I don’t particularly want to go into details beyond what I already have–that is, limit the types of rounds and calibers to what a normal GI may be carrying on a daily basis, which includes automatic rifles and sniper weaponry but not explosives (which are typically (as I understand it) assigned on a per-mission basis and therefore should be considered special) or heavy weaponry and machine guns (both of which require specialist training, at least to an extent, and are carried by designated specialists as I understand it). Because I see the value in having the ability to have sporting arms, I’d also allow other, similar grades of firearms and ammunition such as shotguns and jacketed hollow-point rounds for the purposes of safely and effectively hunting.

[/QUOTE]

Total agreement here, and my stance, as stated above. Except I would add “Or officer, or policeman” after GI, and also “or past” before ‘conception of a proper infantry weapon’. Just because it’s outdated doesn’t mean it’s not good.

198

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Um…cite me saying that its perfectly acceptable WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS Hentor.

Or, IOW…you are making shit up. I NEVER said that. Feel free to show me where I did of course. Conversely, you could actually read what I wrote…if its not too much trouble for you of course.
[/quote]
I have read what you’ve written, dickhead. You’ve been less than clear if you meant to suggest otherwise. Perhaps if you focused more on being clear about that than about what incredible pussies of people on the other side of the debate are, you might make your point clearer. All I’ve gotten from you is that you are opposed to the idea laid out in the OP because there is no evidence that these weapons have caused harm. You are a hypocrite then on the matter of the rounds previously discussed.

Why don’t you explain it to me, since you have repeatedly asserted that this story was about banning a .50 caliber weapon, and I was assuming that it was merely about restricting it. Do go on, oh wise one.

Yes I do. But I don’t want to stop you in your incredible sense of manly superiority. It is amusing because it seems to be getting in the way of your ability to think and express yourself well. Not that that is ever a strength of yours, but at least you are tolerably able to converse at an adult level on other topics.

Why should the rationale for the restriction differ? Surely that is not a hard concept to grasp. Think hard… If you feel that a particular WEAPON should be acceptable based on the criterion that it has not been used in a criminal act, why wouldn’t the same apply to a type of AMMO?

You’re funny! What an amusing little guy!

I know it must have been hard, since I didn’t spell it out perfectly clearly for someone PRONE to USING all-CAPS!!!, but I was talking to Duke of Rat there, which is why I said Duke of Rat and even put it in bold. Maybe I should have said DUKE OF RAT. Would THAT help, oh TOUGH yet WISE weapons SHERPA?

199

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
No doubt that’s why that fact-obsessed wimp Eolbo is being so widely ignored.

Nontheless the facts seem to be that the .50-calibre rifle is indeed uniquely suited to blowing up oil refineries and chemical plants, is, in contradiction to our self-appointed SDMB security analysts, not that shabby at shooting aircraft at takeoff and landing, is neither exotic and rare nor unobtainable, and – quel suprise! – really is a weapon chosen by terrorists, from the IRA to this obscure group called Al-something…
[/QUOTE]

Okay, there you go. Sufficient reason to argue for the outlawing of the gun style in question. I don’t know whether it should be, but following some of those links, it seems that there actually is a pretty solid argument for it after all.

My issue was that for the first few pages it seemed like all the arguments for it were based more on anti-gun principle and/or mischaracterizing Airman Doors, USAF as some wide-eyed crazy gun-nut.

I humbly admit defeat, and thus bow-out of this thread.

PS. ExTank, okay, so what’s your point? That more people are killed by civilian-use weapons on a day-to-day basis? Yes, I know that. But there’s also a large contingent of people who use such guns for perfectly legitimate applications (target-shooting and plinking at the least). The argument for gun-control gets a lot stronger when you limit the guns in question to highly specialized military-use weaponry, ie, the kinds that are way too powerful for home defense, not very good for hunting or marksmanship tests, etc. My point was to show that distinctions about kinds of weapons can be drawn, and that if a strong enough argument can be presented for a particular weapon type, then I’m willing to consider that government intervention may be appropriate. But please, continue to pick apart everything I post to find the one thing you can twist around to try and defeat my argument. Y’know, since I’m argueing that strong evidence needs to be presented for either side; such an unreasonable statement, right?

200

There’s a slight difference between shooting a fighter jet and a jumbo jet. One is much larger and more redundant. For example, shooting a parked fighter jet in the nosecone will shatter the radar. Shooting it in the missiles may do bad things. Shooting it in the single engine will probably shatter it. Shooting it in the cockpit will render it unusable.

Shooting a jumbo jet? Four engines. Cockpit big enough for a crew with multiple control sets. Yes, you can damage a jumbo with it… but so what? It’s repairable. Shooting jumbos doesn’t destroy them. Shooting a fighter will render it useless for an extended time… during which you can perform operations of your own. Jumbos? There’s no opposing military there.