TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 16 of 26 FirstFirst ... 61112131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 642

Thread: The Gun Thread About Guns And Gun Related Gunnery

  1. #376
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by PigLick View Post
    why the fuck do you USA guys need to own guns? can you tell me please
    why the hell do you care ??? oh wait you don't you are just here to bitch.

  2. #377
    Quote Originally Posted by Medlar View Post
    Or maybe a Mad Max USA
    Yeah... Sure... However would we survive without a massively, standing, military complex?

    I guess that explains why Japan, Norway and Switzerland are post apocalyptic shit holes.


    Except they're not. Japan is completely pacifist, and both Norway and Switzerland rely on a militia style model with mandatory boot camp.

  3. #378
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Yeah, I know there are problems like that in America with law enforcement. I meant more whether there are gun licensing problems of that nature in the states where gun licences are issued by the local police.

    In Massachusetts, there's the district court and a separate review board for certain cases: https://www.mass.gov/how-to/appeal-a...license-denial

    A weapon like this could potentially be used to commit terror acts that could cause heavy casualties. Why should something meant for knocking out armored vehicles be in civilian hands?

    Also, did some googling and I found several instances where a .50 caliber sniper was either used or planned to be used in a crime, including in the Waco siege where the Davidians used them to shoot at FBI agents, so it's not as if they haven't been used in any crime. They've also been used to rob armored trucks and to kill police officers.

    Here are a few of these:
    Heywood laid out a little more about the issue with leaving it up to local law enforcement, I'll defer to him.

    Thanks for those links and I'll concede the point about .50 caliber rifles being used in crime. My objection is more that, for the purpose of killing people, they're not really capable of more than an ordinary .308 hunting rifle or whatever. If you get hit by one, you're dead either way. They don't fire explosive rounds and their military use isn't to make helicopters or trucks explode into giant fireballs; they disable engines with big inert bullets. I can see the application there for robbing armored cars but that seriously has to be an edge case. If someone wanted to kill a bunch of people, a gun that weighs 20-30lbs and can't be fired from any position but prone wouldn't be their first choice.

    Ordinary civilians buy them for exactly two reasons: Historicity, and having the largest caliber that isn't a Destructive Device (.50 is the limit). We could reduce that limitation to, say, .45, and then I'd give it about three months before someone comes out with a .45 caliber, longer, roughly equivalent round. How far away from the military caliber do we need to get before it's acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by PigLick View Post
    why the fuck do you USA guys need to own guns? can you tell me please
    Hours-long police response times, police having no obligation to protect the populace, rampant police brutality leading minorities to prefer taking measures into their own hands instead, a violent crime rate closer to a third-world country than to our European counterparts, an existing saturation of guns that results in every petty criminal already packing heat?

    No, I don't need guns. I can't definitively say the same for a female friend who has to walk to work through the slums of Buffalo, NY. Or my African-American co-worker who can't trust the cops not to shoot him if he calls them. Or my college roommate who was beaten and left bloodied in the street of Nashville, TN because he's gay. Or my friends in rural New Hampshire who have wolves threatening their livestock.

    If we could roll the clock back two hundred years and take a more restrictive approach to firearms from the outset we'd probably be in a much better place, but we can't close the gate after the horse has bolted. We have to address our current situation, and I think there'd be a much stronger case for banning or at least heavily restricting guns if the country weren't already so thoroughly fucked up when it comes to crime and policing.

  4. #379
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    is your gay friend a member of pink pistols? great group. not interested in any more restrictions, we have plenty here in Kommiefornia and we STILL got the San Bernardino shooters .

  5. #380
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    They don't fire explosive rounds and their military use isn't to make helicopters or trucks explode into giant fireballs; they disable engines with big inert bullets.
    Couldn't you, say, ignite a gas tank with incendiary ammunition, though? Is it available in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Ordinary civilians buy them for exactly two reasons: Historicity, and having the largest caliber that isn't a Destructive Device (.50 is the limit). We could reduce that limitation to, say, .45, and then I'd give it about three months before someone comes out with a .45 caliber, longer, roughly equivalent round. How far away from the military caliber do we need to get before it's acceptable?
    Yes, and of course extra leeway could be made for collectors and enthusiast clubs.

  6. #381
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Couldn't you, say, ignite a gas tank with incendiary ammunition, though? Is it available in the US?
    A gas tank would be a tough shot even for trained snipers, and even incendiary ammo has a hard time igniting gasoline in a closed vessel. The military did a study on incendiary rounds igniting fuel in aircraft fuel tanks back in 1948, and found that the lack of oxygen inside a tank prevents it from igniting. That said, frankly, I'd be fine with incendiary ammo being taken off the market entirely- idiots shooting incendiary rounds in dry brush are a forest fire waiting to happen.

  7. #382
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    There's also no sense in permitting people to have just any gun as long as no crime has been committed with it.
    If you think that banning particular weapons could reduce gun deaths, surely it makes sense to start by looking at the weapons that kill the most people, not the ones that kill the least.

    As far as I'm concerned, a weapon designed to take out attack helicopters should not be in civilian hands in the first place. At the very least, it should be restricted to collectors and shooting ranges.
    We have a basic right to arms. It's like free speech. People don't need to justify what they say or what they shoot. These aren't unlimited rights. We place some limits on speech for public safety and to avoid undue harm to others. And we have some restrictions on firearms (i.e. NFA) for the same reasons. I think there is cause for some additional reasonable restrictions, but they have to be justified by a public safety argument. If we had a recurring problem with shit heads shooting down helicopters with .50 cal rifles, we'd have a reason to restrict them. But that problem doesn't exist today.

  8. #383
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    I still like the idea of restricting "heavy" (tbd) weaponry to "armory clubs," that is to specially licensed clubs with the weapons to remain on premises and controlled by licensed custodians. That way gun enthusiasts could fire whatever they wanted in a safe place without endangering other's lives. I would have no problem with tanks, anti-tank guns, cannon, howitzers, bazookas, whatever in such a compund. Then you could legitimately restrict hunters to just hunting guns, and self-protection folk to just handguns.

  9. #384
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    It seems reasonable to limit certain types of heavier arms to "armory clubs" or regulated civilian militia organizations on the basis that they require special training or facilities to operate safely. Where you lose me is suggesting that private citizens should be limited to hunting or self-protection and guns designed specifically for those purposes.

  10. #385
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    I still like the idea of restricting "heavy" (tbd) weaponry to "armory clubs," that is to specially licensed clubs with the weapons to remain on premises and controlled by licensed custodians. That way gun enthusiasts could fire whatever they wanted in a safe place without endangering other's lives. I would have no problem with tanks, anti-tank guns, cannon, howitzers, bazookas, whatever in such a compund. Then you could legitimately restrict hunters to just hunting guns, and self-protection folk to just handguns.
    you are seemingly implying people are firing in the streets and the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting .

  11. #386
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    It seems reasonable to limit certain types of heavier arms to "armory clubs" or regulated civilian militia organizations on the basis that they require special training or facilities to operate safely. Where you lose me is suggesting that private citizens should be limited to hunting or self-protection and guns designed specifically for those purposes.
    Not at all. You could own a tank if you wanted one. You would just have to store it at an armory club under the care of a specially licensed custodian, and it could not be taken from the armory club premises except for transport to another such armory. It would be your tank. The armory might also have weapons for rent and use on premises. The idea is that especially dangerous weapons would be properly managed and regular inspections would ensure that all is as it should be. If you wanted to keep a tank at your house, you could apply to get a license as an armory, and if you met all the requirements and became licensed as a custodian, you could do so. Regular hunting rifles / shotguns and self-defense handguns (tbd) could be licensed and sold as per usual.

  12. #387
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    no thanks Larry, not one more inch.
    Last edited by jkcerda; 26th Mar 2018 at 13:13.

  13. #388
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    no thanks Larry, not one more inch.
    I'm sorry. I am unaware of any inches you have moved towards compromise. Please, where are you willing to move towards and from what prior position?

  14. #389
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    from 0 to BG checks for private and store purchases.

  15. #390
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    If you think that banning particular weapons could reduce gun deaths, surely it makes sense to start by looking at the weapons that kill the most people, not the ones that kill the least.

    We have a basic right to arms. It's like free speech. People don't need to justify what they say or what they shoot. These aren't unlimited rights. We place some limits on speech for public safety and to avoid undue harm to others. And we have some restrictions on firearms (i.e. NFA) for the same reasons. I think there is cause for some additional reasonable restrictions, but they have to be justified by a public safety argument. If we had a recurring problem with shit heads shooting down helicopters with .50 cal rifles, we'd have a reason to restrict them. But that problem doesn't exist today.
    So, the moment someone shoots down a helicopter with one, it's banning time, not before?

    No, limiting deaths would not be the reason to ban particular weapons like these. The reason would be that they are a way too dangerous and destructive to have in civilian circulation. Weapons like these have been confiscated from terrorist organisations and organised crime armories. It's the same reason you don't allow Stingers (I assume) to be in the civilian market just because only a few people die to them. And, at least in the US, there is no recurring problem of people shooting down helicopters with Stinger missiles either.

    On the other side of the coin, what would be the reason to allow them to be widespread? They are impractical for hunting or self-defence. And all the recreational shooting would be covered by them being restricted to collectors and gun clubs.

  16. #391
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    why the hell should I be in a gun club to own such a thing? clubs cost money. NOW if ANYONE can say they are a "collector" then Im ok with it

  17. #392
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Clubs cost money, but not as much as the weaponry they could potentially have there.

  18. #393
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Everything costs money. If you can't afford to kick into the kitty, don't play. You expect someone to subsidize your hobby?

  19. #394
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    If you think that banning particular weapons could reduce gun deaths, surely it makes sense to start by looking at the weapons that kill the most people, not the ones that kill the least.
    As someone pointed out it's not actually the caliber that helps kill the most. A .50 caliber might go through a car a cop is hiding behind but mostly it's the number of bullets fired without a reload in crowd settings where folks are running away. If we restricted all rifles to a five round mag and seriously confiscated with stiff fines anything more then we might save a few in these shooting gallery type settings like schools and nightclubs. It wouldn't save all but a few more might get away while the shooter reloaded and possibly dropped mags in his excitement maybe even jamming it. He might forget his bag of mags or fumble with them in his pockets. It wouldn't stop all death just some. Isn't that enough to implement it?

    I really don't want to get back into this discussion because the gun nuts never give an inch nor acknowledge any small degree of credibility if it means they can't play super commando Rambo with neato massive firepower though it isn't required if you are a decent shot. I wish folks could think of guns as a tool but to some they will always be a toy to play with. My rights! My guuuuuuuuuuns! Yeah yeah and your blood on your hands by not giving an inch. Get yourself a bump stock and .50 cal little boy who never got over playing combat hero. Then ignore the truth because you want to justify it.

    Just a drive by. I've seen all the arguments. No point even trying to get through any thick skulls. Gun nuts have the thickest ever. So fire away.

  20. #395
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    So, the moment someone shoots down a helicopter with one, it's banning time, not before?
    I'm guessing you've spent a lot of time at www.vpc.org before posting about this. Google says it seems to be the source for a lot of your .50 BMG talking points.

    The .50 BMG was a round designed towards the end of WWI for a belt fed machine gun (BMG=Browning Machine Gun) to be fired at a rate of about 400 rounds per minute. I believe that is still the method it is primarily used for in the military. It's an anti-armor round if deployed at a sufficient rate. As a sniper rifle it's an anti-personell weapon that has incredible penetrative power. It delivers an unbelievable amount of energy to the target at great ranges. A 250 grain .338 Lapua Magnum round at 500 yards has a energy of 2706 fl/lb, accrording to Hornandy. The 750 grain .50 BMG delivers 9,538 ft/lb at the same range. Either is lethal at mile+ ranges, if you're skilled enough to make such a shot. You are equally dead from both. That same .338 Lapua Mag has enough power to stop an engine, too. So does a 12 ga shotgun slug. So do many center-fire rifle cartridges. I'd wager that, between Vietnam and Afghanistan, the rather mundane 7.62x39mm round has taken down more helicopters than all other calibers combined. But shooting a moving helicopter out of the sky with a sniper rifle is pure Hollywood, and rather ridiculous. Youtube has videos of people shooting a stationary F-150 directly through the engine block multiple times without stopping it. It would take an incredible sniper to send a 1/2" round through the engine of a helicopter moving at 150 mph with enough accuracy to make it crash. A hovering helicopter, maybe. But, again, a hovering helicopter is probably vulnerable to most center-fire rifles.

    No, limiting deaths would not be the reason to ban particular weapons like these. The reason would be that they are a way too dangerous and destructive to have in civilian circulation. Weapons like these have been confiscated from terrorist organisations and organised crime armories.
    Handguns, shotguns, and rifles have been confiscated from terrorist organizations and organized crime armories, too. Does that mean they're too dangerous and destructive to have in civilian circulation?

    It's the same reason you don't allow Stingers (I assume) to be in the civilian market just because only a few people die to them. And, at least in the US, there is no recurring problem of people shooting down helicopters with Stinger missiles either.
    There's already a line drawn between rifles and destructive devices, as catbarf said. The line has to be somewhere, and I think it's appropriate where it is. For most practical purposes, there's very little difference between the effects of a .50 BMG and a lot of the big game cartridges that have been on the market since the late 19th to early 20th century. I have no doubt that cartridges designed to humanely take down an elephant or a cape buffalo could stop an engine just as effectively as a .50 BMG.

    On the other side of the coin, what would be the reason to allow them to be widespread? They are impractical for hunting or self-defence. And all the recreational shooting would be covered by them being restricted to collectors and gun clubs.
    That's not the way it works in free societies. If you had to prove the practicality of every item you owned that was capable of misuse and harm, then most people shouldn't own computers, or cars, or matches, or fertilizer, or anything sharper than a butter knife. Did you know that computers can be used to destroy people's lives, steal their money, and bully innocent people to the point of suicide? That Islamo-nutjob in Nice killed more people with a truck in 10 minutes than were ever killed by civilian owned .50 rifles.

    I think your approach to this is illustrative of why gun laws in this country are unlikely to change. Rifles are used in a tiny portion of crime in this country. Hi powered exotic rifles like the Barrett .50 BMG are never used for practical purposes. You came up with 5 cases in the past 34 years where a .50 was even tangentially involved, and no one was killed with one or even shot with one in those five cases. Yet you, and your VPC buddies, and your ideological mates, are focused on this weapon. If you're so intent on banning such an irrelevant weapon, why should any gun owner believe your willingness to compromise when it comes to much more commonly used and owned weapons like pistols?

  21. #396
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    As someone pointed out it's not actually the caliber that helps kill the most. A .50 caliber might go through a car a cop is hiding behind but mostly it's the number of bullets fired without a reload in crowd settings where folks are running away. If we restricted all rifles to a five round mag and seriously confiscated with stiff fines anything more then we might save a few in these shooting gallery type settings like schools and nightclubs. It wouldn't save all but a few more might get away while the shooter reloaded and possibly dropped mags in his excitement maybe even jamming it. He might forget his bag of mags or fumble with them in his pockets. It wouldn't stop all death just some. Isn't that enough to implement it?

    I really don't want to get back into this discussion because the gun nuts never give an inch nor acknowledge any small degree of credibility if it means they can't play super commando Rambo with neato massive firepower though it isn't required if you are a decent shot. I wish folks could think of guns as a tool but to some they will always be a toy to play with. My rights! My guuuuuuuuuuns! Yeah yeah and your blood on your hands by not giving an inch. Get yourself a bump stock and .50 cal little boy who never got over playing combat hero. Then ignore the truth because you want to justify it.

    Just a drive by. I've seen all the arguments. No point even trying to get through any thick skulls. Gun nuts have the thickest ever. So fire away.
    California banned all magazines over 10 rounds, and has strict fines and confiscation if you're caught with them. According to a pro gun control person on NPR the other day, there has been practically zero compliance with the law. There's an estimated 7 million high capacity magazines in California. That horse is out of the barn, for good. I inherited a good deal of my uncle's guns and gun stuff, and have literal stacks of high capacity magazines for AR-15's and AK's.

  22. #397
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    Everything costs money. If you can't afford to kick into the kitty, don't play. You expect someone to subsidize your hobby?
    My rights should not be taxed based on your feelings

  23. #398
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    That's not the way it works in free societies. If you had to prove the practicality of every item you owned that was capable of misuse and harm, then most people shouldn't own computers, or cars, or matches, or fertilizer, or anything sharper than a butter knife. Did you know that computers can be used to destroy people's lives, steal their money, and bully innocent people to the point of suicide? That Islamo-nutjob in Nice killed more people with a truck in 10 minutes than were ever killed by civilian owned .50 rifles.
    The point is not to ban anything that could possibly be dangerous, the point is to limit access to weapons that are undoubtedly extremely dangerous. Especially if they don't have any utility outside of war.

    Yes, a lot of people have been killed by cars, but a whole lot of people have been killed by guns too. Why compound the problem?

    Also, people all over the world do seek to prevent deaths caused by cars. Cars are heavily regulated and in most (if not all) countries you have to have a licence and pass a test before you're allowed to drive a car. And you can't drive around in monster trucks either outside of limited places. You are not allowed to put spikes on your car or drive a car that's in some other way an unnecessary danger to other road users.
    Last edited by Starker; 27th Mar 2018 at 02:21.

  24. #399
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Statistically, civilian owned .50 cal rifles aren't dangerous. They've been around for over 30 years and are practically never used in crime, because they're impractical weapons. There's a sporting goods store near me that sells the rifles. They're crazy expensive. And the cartridges are $7 each. They just aren't criminal weapons any way you cut it.

    I mean, if you're a criminal willing to spend an inordinate amount of money on a rifle that can do crazy damage, you don't mess with the .50. That's for pussies, and won't get you any street cred. You buy one of these. The muzzle energy of a .50 BMG is about 13,000 ft-lbs. The muzzle energy of this bad boy is almost 40,000. A .50 BMG fires a 750 grain bullet--this fires a 3,600 grain bullet. That's over 1/2 lb bullet, moving at 1800 mph. It is legal for civilian purchase, as the manufacturer received a destructive device exemption for their manufacture and sale. Cartridges are about $40 each. Should it be banned, also?

  25. #400
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Iacon
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Yes, a lot of people have been killed by cars, but a whole lot of people have been killed by guns too. Why compound the problem?

    Also, people all over the world do seek to prevent deaths caused by cars. Cars are heavily regulated and in most (if not all) countries you have to have a licence and pass a test before you're allowed to drive a car. And you can't drive around in monster trucks either outside of limited places. You are not allowed to put spikes on your car or drive a car that's in some other way an unnecessary danger to other road users.
    Not to mention, cars and trucks are (perhaps regrettably) an essential component of our modern way of life. This is generally not true of guns.
    Last edited by Chimpy Chompy; 27th Mar 2018 at 10:03.

Page 16 of 26 FirstFirst ... 61112131415161718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •