Cali leads the way once again

[-Carnifex-]

I can attack a taxiing airplane with a million differant guns...

Are you joking? A 50 Caliber bullet will do a hell of a lot more damage than most others.

[-Carnifex-]

And do what? Kill a person or two? Or, they could take a car and drive into a crowded intersection, killing lots of people at the same time. Shooting at an airplane on the ground isnt much of a threat.

Funny thing about guns, they actually have the ability to shoot more than one round.

[Buff]

Funny thing about guns, they actually have the ability to shoot more than one round.

Most affordable .50 cals are bolt action, and most mags are 5 rounders......not to mention that the ammo is expensive............better "sniper" guns are around.............

Nice knee-jerk reaction btw

My comment "dumb liberals" was not meant towards you, as you had already previously stated you were against the ban........more towards the female california senator(forget the name) who is anti gun but has a CCW.........dont tell me they think they are trying to help if they themselves dont believe it.........

[CoolHand]

OK, I've got a question for all the gun ban proponents out there:

If the person in question is going to use said banninated gun to kill people and break things (which is illegal BTW), what makes you think that they are going to care if the gun they kill people and break things with is also illegal?

I have never understood this.

By definition, the only people a gun ban (of any sort) disarms are the law abiding citizens (AKA - The folks who wouldn't be killing people and breaking things).

If terrorists can come up with missles to shoot down airliners with, and ANFO or similar explosives to blow up buildings with, what makes you all so sure that they won't be able to get a hold of a .50 BMG, simply because its illegal. Silencers are illegal too, but they turn up every so often. Guess who has them. Right. The criminals (AKA - The folks who don't care if what they do is illegal).

I just think its a little naive to set back and say "See? We banned it. It can't hurt us now."

Unless, of course, taking them from the criminals is not the real motivation here . . . . . . .

[nastymag]

well it was signed into law by our republican Governor


same reason why i dont support this ban is the same reason i dont support Anti Gay Marriage amendment. both open the doors to a slippery slope

[HoppysMag]

You've got your measurements mixed up. The shot made by the Canadian was 2430 meters (~2600 yds), while Hathcock's shot was 2250 meters (2500 yards).

Well, I guess the next question is "what's next?". They've already declared that the .50 BMG cannot possibly be useful to law-abiding citizens and can be used by terrorists, so what's to keep them from saying a .30-06 cannot be useful, for example?

thanks for clarifying

[drg]

If the person in question is going to use said banninated gun to kill people and break things (which is illegal BTW), what makes you think that they are going to care if the gun they kill people and break things with is also illegal?

I have never understood this.

Although I am not a very strong ban proponent, I can answer this. The idea behind banning the sale of certain weapons in certain jurisdictions is to reduce their supply in the population in general. This is forward-looking fix. In the short term, the supply will be the same as the day the ban went into effect. But in the long term, with no new weapons entering the supply chain and older ones going out of service for various reasons, the supply does indeed reduce.

I will make no comment on what effects this has, I have seen statistics supporting just about any position.

[Steelrat]

Although I am not a very strong ban proponent, I can answer this. The idea behind banning the sale of certain weapons in certain jurisdictions is to reduce their supply in the population in general. This is forward-looking fix. In the short term, the supply will be the same as the day the ban went into effect. But in the long term, with no new weapons entering the supply chain and older ones going out of service for various reasons, the supply does indeed reduce.

I will make no comment on what effects this has, I have seen statistics supporting just about any position.

You should see the statistics on how many handguns and MP5s the FBI has "lost." Maybe we should take away their guns?

[oldsoldier]

$200 gets you a Stinger missile in Fallujah...liberals seriously outdo themselves sometimes...wonder how long they contemplated this one?

[drg]

$200 gets you a Stinger missile in Fallujah...liberals seriously outdo themselves sometimes...wonder how long they contemplated this one?

How do you propose someone 1) go to Fallujah and 2) return to the US with a Stinger missile?

[oldsoldier]

Its called sarcasm. Sorry, next time I'll post that.

[drg]

Except it made no sense.

[Buff]

Although I am not a very strong ban proponent, I can answer this. The idea behind banning the sale of certain weapons in certain jurisdictions is to reduce their supply in the population in general. This is forward-looking fix. In the short term, the supply will be the same as the day the ban went into effect. But in the long term, with no new weapons entering the supply chain and older ones going out of service for various reasons, the supply does indeed reduce.

uhm........so what if the supply is reduced? They can still be bought in the rest of the country.
The thing is, they are to expensive for criminals, and the demand for them in criminal activity is, guess what? ZILCH!
a .50 cal has never been used in crime!

[Blennidae]

It might not be as easy to bring down an airliner as it seems. I remember hearing about a cargo plane hit by a shoulder launched SAM and surviving. I did a quick google search and found the story.

http://www.talkingproud.us/International051504.html

If a sam fired by a trained user can score a hit and not bring one down, it might not be as easy to do the same with a .50bmg rifle. Can we all agree its easier to hit a moving plane with a guided missile as opposed to a scoped rifle?

[xXHavokXx]

It might not be as easy to bring down an airliner as it seems. I remember hearing about a cargo plane hit by a shoulder launched SAM and surviving. I did a quick google search and found the story.

http://www.talkingproud.us/International051504.html

If a sam fired by a trained user can score a hit and not bring one down, it might not be as easy to do the same with a .50bmg rifle. Can we all agree its easier to hit a moving plane with a guided missile as opposed to a scoped rifle?

Depends on relative motion. If it is coming towards you then it might be easier than say if it's flying over you or going away.

Still, you would need several very very well placed shots to have a slight chance at crippling a plane.

As far as lowering supply goes, I know plenty of illegal things that seem to be readily availible. If someone really wants something I'm sure they can get it.