PigLick on 26/3/2018 at 13:37
why the fuck do you USA guys need to own guns? can you tell me please
PigLick on 26/3/2018 at 13:37
oh no someone might come and do shit
PigLick on 26/3/2018 at 13:38
catbarf needs to shut the hell up
cant you see you are the problem here?
oh i am white and middle class i dont really need guns but hey they feel good
PigLick on 26/3/2018 at 13:41
but but the poncho
Trance on 26/3/2018 at 14:21
PigLick, why are you being such an asshole lately, man? Catbarf doesn't deserve that kind of disrespect.
jkcerda on 26/3/2018 at 14:31
Quote Posted by PigLick
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.
Tony_Tarantula on 26/3/2018 at 14:51
Quote Posted by Medlar
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.
catbarf on 26/3/2018 at 15:16
Quote Posted by Starker
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-firearms-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 Posted by PigLick
why the fuck do you USA guys need to own guns? can you tell me please
(
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/12/police-response-times) Hours-long police response times, (
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html) 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.
jkcerda on 26/3/2018 at 15:31
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 .
Starker on 26/3/2018 at 15:39
Quote Posted by catbarf
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 Posted by catbarf
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.
