50 calliber rifles
 

this issue was brought up some time ago on this forum, but i bring it up again since NY state is considering banning 50 caliber firearms.

interesting facts i found, tho. apparently, between 1992 and 1999, there were a grand total of.... 30 firearms traces involving 50 caliber rifles. only 18 of them were due to criminal investigation.

none of those 18 instances included the 50 caliber firearm actually being used in a crime. The weapons were just in the possession of a criminal or seized during a search.

here's the report: http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summar...ptno=OSI-99-15R

it sounds scary, but the fact of the matter is that 50 caliber rifles are NOT used in crime.

Anti-gun extremists like the Violence Policy Center like to tell us how they MIGHT be used. they had a press released saying that these weapons could be used to shoot down planes, attack helicopters, blow up armored limos and be used to blow up tanks of fuel. They also concocted scenarios where 50 caliber rifles were used to kill people at sporting events, assassinate people, and destroy infrastructure to the point where mass panic ensues.

of course, the VPC makes all this shit up. The reality is that 50 caliber rifles aren't used in crime, and only 20 instances over 7 years even came up with criminals in possession of these guns. The thousands of other owners of 50 caliber rifles are not even criminals, nor would they use their rifles in a crime. just like the other 65 million firearms owners. (which the VPC also wants to disarm)

It's a gun. It's a rifle in fact. Why the hell do you need a 50 caliber gun? For hunting? You don't NEED a 50 caliber for it. It helps, but it's not needed.

Personally, I think we need less guns. NOT TOTAL BANNING though. But I really doubt we should be allowed to have a full array of weaponry to choose from. We need these guns: 2 or 3 shotguns, 4 or 5 rifles, and 5 or 6 pistols. I hate walking by K-Mart and seeing 25 rifles on the wall and 20 diffrent pistols under the glass. Just too much.

Glad you brought this up again because my position on this issue has been a bit reformed. As opposed to my opinion on the last thread that no civilian should be allowed to own a weapon with the destructive force of the .50 cal sniper rifle in question, I've reverted to lumping .50 cal weapons with all other firearms available to the public, and my opinion on that is that anyone should be allowed to own firearms with the proper liscensing and training.
Although I feel that discussing hypothetical situations is imperative in preparing for all possibilities, extremists in any situation will attempt to get their point across using scare tactics like this, so I have a hard time seriously considering anything they have to say.
Meh. I enjoy browsing guns. I don't own any myself (yet) but I won't buy any until I have the necessary training (and money). I don't think we need less guns, I think that's kind of over-simplifying the issue. There are a lot of other factors involved in gun-related crimes.

shit. youre right.

while we're at it, lets ban all cars over 150 horse power. powerful cars make it far too easy to break the law and speed. not to mention that powerful cars can be used to run down pedestrians, out run cops (after running down pedestrians), can be used for drive by shootings, smuggling, and many other dastardly deeds.

and you knwo what? there's far too many TYPES of cars, too. How many choices of SUVs or Sedans do we needs, anyway? im sick of seeing 25 different kinds of sedans on the road. we only need 2 or 3 differnet versions.

:rolleyes:

well, we all need to transport ourselves to places, however, we do not all need to shoot things.

DarthZeth, Unfortunatly, I actaully agree with that sarcastic remark. well..er most of it. Not as literal as you said it. Ever wonder why were the fattest, laziest, stupidist and for the most part most stubborn people in the world? We have too much crap. We honestly need to focus more on what we need.

*sighs* yes I know that last sentence gives people PLENTY of ways to prove me wrong or put me down, but consider it, WHY do I need a car that goes 190? No way in hell am I going to Germany with it and driving on that damn autobon or whatever the hell it is. WHY do I need an SUV when that Toyota Eco acrross the street takes less gas? (CAUTION: THAT SENTENCE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE NEED FOR MORE ROOM, as that may be a damn good reason)

Corse now I'm making myself look like an ass, and I'm not doing a good job explaining myself and I'm making poor points. Honestly I really don't know how to explain whaT I'm trying to say...mabey I'll by tommorow to figure it out how to word it.

Just so you know, the Autobahn is busier than most of our highways, and the speeds there are generally limited to 80 kmph (50 mph). There are areas of the US that don't enforce speed limits (usually 80 mph legally), because there's nothing to kill if you're going 150 anyway. Alaska, Montana, New Mexico come to mind. Besides, if you could have one of two cars, the only difference being one going 150 and one going 100, would you purposefully choose the slower one on the assumption that you'd never need to go faster?

Cars need to go fast because other cars can go fast too. Sometimes it happens: you get into a long stretch with hundreds of other cars going 20+ over the speed limit, but it works fine due to the road layout. Everyone has to be able to proceed at the same speed, because lagging on an interstate is every bit as dangerous as speeding.

As for guns though, the price tag for the bullets should definitely limit these .50 monsters to just a few rich hands that enjoy shooting Goodyear blimps and resturaunt billboards.... and elephants. People would be too dangerous. The bullets would go right through, kill by aneurism, and wind up somewhere far away for police to find. With a limited number of people using the gun, it wouldn't be difficult pinning murders with them. I'm not too worried.

well patricico what you seem to be talking about is wanting the govt to be more totalitarian. you seem to avocate that people should not have the freedom to buy and own and consume what they want.

people dont need cars that go 190 mph. maybe, maybe not. They also dont need salt, or fatty foods. do we really need more junk food? or another brand of cheetos? people are getting fatter? your reasoning would have us believe its mcdonalds fault, its frito lays fault for making all this unhealthy junk food. its gun makers fault for making all these guns that consumers buy. they shouldnt make so many types of guns and foods even though people seem to want them. or if they dont stop making them, the govt should go in, use some tax dollars and start regulating the markets, like they way they did so to the airline business in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

funny thing is, your argument sounds almost exactly like a Soviet's argument of why their Communist command economy was better than our capitalist market driven economy.

Well, personally, I think Handguns should be banned, and this seems like a step in the right direction. The actual bannings of these guns alone isn't too bright just because, well, few people are ever killed by them. So, let's ban handguns!

The chances of banning handguns are slim to nil at the moment. I think this is trying to get there by making tiny steps, which I approve of.

Zeth, cars and guns? I really think that's a bad connection. Different kinds of cars? Aestetics.

yes, lets ban all hand guns, just like we did with certain drugs. that way, no one will have guns just like no one has drugs.

I personally dont like the govt taking away my freedoms, and choices.