Ban on 50 Caliber Weapons

My opinion of gun control..... In picture form. ( they say a picture is worth a thousand words.... here is my essay then.)

Originally posted by Facefirst

Not that these criminals used .50 cal weapons, but I think this example makes a good case for control laws on automatic weapons. Do you remember this LA Bank Robbery? 16 Officers and civillians were wounded when two men went into a North Hollywood bank and literally out-gunned the LAPD.

A shotgun, rifle or pistol is perfectly capable of providing home defense or self protection. Why anyone outside of the military needs an assault rifle is beyond me.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by Facefirst]

Ah the famous North Hollywood. The guns used in that event were semiautomatic AK-47s and .308 HKs that were illegaly converted to full auto. The suspects had armored themselves to the point they were protected from their feet to their necks.

The cops weapons could not stop them with the armour they had on. The had to get AR-15 from a local guns store to use to shoot through those vest. Guess what If AR-15 were not for sale at that local gun store those cops would have been screwed. Thanks to the AR-15 as a legal weapon that the cops could get their hands on they were able to deal with those guys.

Now every LT in the LAPD carries a M-16 in his trunk now because of this.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


Ah the famous North Hollywood. The guns used in that event were semiautomatic AK-47s and .308 HKs that were illegaly converted to full auto. The suspects had armored themselves to the point they were protected from their feet to their necks.

The cops weapons could not stop them with the armour they had on. The had to get AR-15 from a local guns store to use to shoot through those vest. Guess what If AR-15 were not for sale at that local gun store those cops would have been screwed. Thanks to the AR-15 as a legal weapon that the cops could get their hands on they were able to deal with those guys.

Now every LT in the LAPD carries a M-16 in his trunk now because of this.

As I said earlier, why does anyone outside of law-enforcement as well as the military need an assault rifle?

Robotic attack bears? Rabid flocks of attack geese? Gun wielding deer?

I am not for absolute gun control at all. Having fired some of these weapons myself(under supervision of two US Army marksmen), I just don't see why the average citizen needs an AK of an AR-15. Again, a shotgun, pistol or hunting rifle is fully capable of providing home and self defense. As far as I know, a 30.06 would have taken those robbers out as well as an AR-15.



[edit on 14-9-2004 by Facefirst]

A assault rifle is a military rifle M-16 M-4 not a AR-15 the AR-15 is a popular target shooting rifle. So is target shooting not a acceptable sport? I am a target shooter why cant I use a civilian weapon to target shoot?

North Hollywood proves that criminals use body armour a shotgun or a handgun is not going to stop someone with body armour. But my AR-15 I own will stop a criminal wearing body armour.

the US military sniper rifles M24 and M40, along with many custom police rifles, were (and still are) built on Remington 700 actions, available for general public in many hunting and target rifles. Should we also ban those because the military uses a version of that weapon.

A bolt action rifle is useless for home defense. There a reason why swat teams dont storm a house with bolt action rifles. Perhaps what would be the best home defense weapon the MP-5 what most swat teams use is illegal to own.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A assault rifle is a military rifle M-16 M-4 not a AR-15 the AR-15 is a popular target shooting rifle. So is target shooting not a acceptable sport? I am a target shooter why cant I use a civilian weapon to target shoot?

North Hollywood proves that criminals use body armour a shotgun or a handgun is not going to stop someone with body armour. But my AR-15 I own will stop a criminal wearing body armour.

the US military sniper rifles M24 and M40, along with many custom police rifles, were (and still are) built on Remington 700 actions, available for general public in many hunting and target rifles. Should we also ban those because the military uses a version of that weapon.

A bolt action rifle is useless for home defense. There a reason why swat teams dont storm a house with bolt action rifles. Perhaps what would be the best home defense weapon the MP-5 what most swat teams use is illegal to own.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

As I said, I don't see why anyone outside of the military needs an assault rifle. Explain that to me please.

I really enjoy target shooting. But I can easily do it with any other non-assault rilfles. I feel no need to bring an AK-47 to the range. They are fun to shoot, but why would I NEED one.

An Mp5 for home defense? Personal protection? A pistol or 12 gauge will do just fine.

What are the chances that the criminal who is going to rob your house, while you are home is in top-notch body arrmor from head to toe? I would bet on winning the lottery over that.


[edit on 14-9-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by Facefirst

As I said, I don't see why anyone outside of the military needs an assault rifle. Explain that to me please.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by Facefirst]

There are many answers to that question. It�s kind of like asking a car enthusiast why they would ever want to own a 425 horsepower 1968 Corvette Stingray. There are many reasons, some objective, some emotional. All of them legitimate, at least to the driver.

In many ways, military style rifles are the �sports cars� of the gun world. They are noisy, fast, fun and they are �attention getters.�

So, let�s look at a few reasons that people own military style rifles.

First of all, military rifles are easy to operate. They are ergonomically designed so that people of every shape and size can use them. Military rifles are generally lightweight, so they are easy to carry and hold. They are also designed so that an individual can become proficient with them after a minimal amount of instruction. The military style rifles that can be purchased by the public incorporate these same design features.

By the nature of their original purpose, military rifles are designed to be reliable. They have to be able to function in virtually every type of environment, whether it is snow, rain, mud, or sand. Civilian versions of these weapons feature similar reliability because they are built to the same manufacturing specifications.

Military style rifles are fun to shoot. They don�t have much recoil, so they don�t hurt your shoulder the way some other rifles do. (Shotguns come to mind!) Military style rifles shoot ammunition that is used by many countries. The military rifles of the United States typically use cartridges that have been adopted by all of our NATO allies and are manufactured around the world. The AK family of military style rifles uses cartridges that are manufactured in China or the former Soviet Union. The result of this is that ammunition for military style rifles is readily available, and relatively inexpensive. Therefore you can shoot military style rifles quite a bit without �breaking the bank.�

Another feature for many enthusiasts is the availability of �after market� accessories for military style rifles. From flashlight attachments, to specialized optics, there are a tremendous number of products and gadgets available to customize or improve the operation of a military style rifle.

From a practical standpoint, military rifles arevery accurate. This fact makes them useful to certain groups ofhunters and competive shooters alike. Specialized competitions designed for military style rifles are increasing in popularity. These �practical� competitions are timed events that require the shooter to fire at multiple targets at a variety of distances and locations. Full capacity magazines, (also banned by the 1994 act) are a requirement for this type of competition since every re-load costs a couple of seconds.

Let�s not ignore the value of these rifles for personal defense. With the right type of ammunition, military style rifles can be a very effective defensive weapon. Many police agencies have recognized their value and have adopted their use in close quarter tactical operations. In these post 9/11 days, prudent Americans recognize that we are all vulnerable and should be prepared to defend ourselves, our families, our communities, and our country from threats that can strike us anytime and anyplace. A well-trained person, armed with a military style rifle can provide a deterrent and, if necessary, an effective defense. Full capacity magazines, whether for rifles or pistols, are also very important in this role, particularly in a situation where a homeowner finds him/herself facing multiple attackers.

Military style rifles are well designed and very reliable. They are fun and economical to shoot. They can be easily �customized.� They are accurate and they can also provide an effective defense for yourself and your loved ones.
The real question should be: Why wouldn't you want to own one?

I think thats sums it up pretty good. Much better then I could have articulated in a post.

www.awbansunset.com...

[edit on 14-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

The term "military Style Rifles" is a little vague to me. That could entail an M1, Mauser, etc as well.

I am being very specific of assault rifles. Most of which can be made fully auto fairly easily.

I have fired AK-47s, HKs, etc and seen the damage they can do. I come from a military/police family as well and I don't feel a person outside of the military or law enforcement really has a strong case for needing an assault rifle. (IMO)

The article mentioned uses for some hunting. What creature would someone need an AK to hunt with? Where is the sport?

Originally posted by Facefirst
The term "military Style Rifles" is a little vague to me. That could entail an M1, Mauser, etc as well.

I am being very specific of assault rifles. Most of which can be made fully auto fairly easily.

I have fired AK-47s, HKs, etc and seen the damage they can do. I come from a military/police family as well and I don't feel a person outside of the military or law enforcement really has a strong case for needing an assault rifle. (IMO)

The article mentioned uses for some hunting. What creature would someone need an AK to hunt with? Where is the sport?

The term Military style weapons is used to describe weapons like the AR-15 and Civilian version of the AK. The Term Assault rifle defines military weapons such as the M-16 M-4 the real military AK-47. Guns covered in the AWB are military style weapon not assault rifles the two should not be confused

I know people that use a civilian version of the AK to hunt not the Miitary version. They just slap a 5 shot clip in it the 7.62x39mm round is a very common and good hunting round. There is rules in hunting that you cant go around with a 30 shot clip but thats why they make 5 shot clips for the gun. The 7.62 round is great for hunting

Hunting AK






The Russian VEPR is a hunting rifle designed after the AK Rifle and built upon a RPK receiver. The rifle also comes in four different calibers .308, 7.62x39, .223 and 5.45x39. The VEPR rifle has the same reliability as an AK allowing it to work at temperatures of -50 to +50 C and in any conditions. However the rifle also has accuracy, allowing it to obtain scores of 92
points out of 100 at 200 yards.


Give it a bigger clip and change some comsetic features and you have a so called "Assault rifle"

Now you have a military style weapon



www.ak-47.us...

guns dont kill people,people with guns kill people.the more guns that are out there,the more people who are going to kill people will be able to kill people and so on and so on.sorry but unless you have a house with a 400m\yd hallway you do not need a military style rifle for home defense.i doubt you will have to be very accurate beyond 12 feet.flashlights and night scopes.isnt jacking deer illegal. 30\06 and a spotlight will do the trick. yes a 50 cal round would have good stopping power for elk or moose but i wouldnt want to drag the thing the extra 900yds. how rugged does a weapon for home defense have to be unless you have to use it as a club because you cant load and cock it before the intruder reaches you.

Forget the 50 caliber...I want one of the new 25mm.

www.gizmodo.com...

Respects,

ARs are ideal for varmint and coyote control as well as hunting boar.

Why do I need an AR? I don�t. I also don�t need two cars, a computer, the internet, a college education, three pairs of shoes or a radio. Just because something doesn�t serve a rudimentary purpose or fit into everyone�s view of �practical� does not mean we need to make it illegal.

Nobody needs 500 horse power in a car lets ban the Dodge Viper. Lets ban all cars over 60 hp nobody needs more then that. Cars with that much horsepower are dangerous and kill way more people then guns do In America.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Nobody needs 500 horse power in a car lets ban the Dodge Viper. Lets ban all cars over 60 hp nobody needs more then that. Cars with that much horsepower are dangerous and kill way more people then guns do In America.

Sp where do we set the weapons limit? .50 Barrett? Grenade launcher? Light cannon? This is the part that confuses me the most.

Some things like The "Brady Bill" seem to make sense to me.

But I think comparing owning three pairs of shoes to owning an assault rifle is a little off. (IMO)


[edit on 14-9-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
First of all, military rifles are easy to operate. They are ergonomically designed so that people of every shape and size can use them. Military rifles are generally lightweight, so they are easy to carry and hold. They are also designed so that an individual can become proficient with them after a minimal amount of instruction. The military style rifles that can be purchased by the public incorporate these same design features.

This sounds like a very good reason. The rest of those reasons are fluff and do not address need. Except for maybe the "more accurate". But then, weapons are only as accurate as the person doing the shooting. This usually defaults back to comfort. If a person is not comfortable firing a weapon, they will not be as accurate.

Last time I purchased a weapon, the important questions for determining need were:
1. Range?
2. Target?
3. Comfort?

Many varieties of weapons fits the first two criteria. The third is something only the shooter can decide.

If ownership of a weapon is based on need, I wonder how anyone can decide what the needs of the shooter is other than the shooter?

So, my question is "Why would you need to ban Assault rifle look-a-likes and .50 BMG?"


As a note:
I no longer own a weapon. But I do not believe the second amendment concerns the right to wear short sleeve shirts. I also do not believe weapons should be purchased outside of need. If I can talk a person out of buying a "gun that's fun" and into buying a weapon that fits their needs, I will. If they have no legitimate need, I will try to talk them out of purchasing the weapon.




[edit on 14-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Nobody needs 500 horse power in a car lets ban the Dodge Viper. Lets ban all cars over 60 hp nobody needs more then that. Cars with that much horsepower are dangerous and kill way more people then guns do In America.

Sp where do we set the weapons limit? .50 Barrett? Grenade launcher? Light cannon? This is the part that confuses me the most.

Some things like The "Brady Bill" seem to make sense to me.

But I think comparing owning three pairs of shoes to owning an assault rifle is a little off. (IMO)


[edit on 14-9-2004 by Facefirst]

The people behind the brady bill are some of the biggest anti-gun people out there. They want all guns taken away. They think the second amendment does not apply to the people. Check out their site.

Why does everyone bring up grenades and cannons nobody wants to legalize those for everyone. But people dont like when they attack a gun that is not used in crimes. Which the 50 cal is. Pro-gun people dont want guns in the hands of criminals any less then anti-gun people. But we support the right for legal gun ownership. Gun laws only take guns away for lawful people not criminals they get them if there is a law or not. Pro-gun people support tougher laws on people that use guns in crimes something that really has a effect on criminals.

I never said anything about shoes Im comparing it to cars. Look how many cars with over 60 hp kill people each year. It dwarfs the number of people killed with guns. We have a speed limit of 55 why should anyone have a car that can go faster then that. If we banned all cars over 60 hp it would saves lives many more then banning guns It would be better for the enviroment we would need less oil. But nobody lobbies to take away sport cars why is that?

[edit on 14-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

I think the shoe quote was referring to me. You can fill in the blanks with whatever you want, but the point I was trying to get across is that there is very little we actually need in life. Every single person who is reading this right now has more than they need.

There are an infinite number of things sick people can use to kill each other and commit crimes. It would be impossible to outlaw every single one of them. We would have more success reducing crime if we focus on the person behind the gun instead of the gun itself. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will not reduce the crime rate, because they are not the ones committing the crimes. Criminals will have access to these weapons whether they are legal or not.

EDIT some -> shoe

[edit on 9/15/04 by para]

The short answere to this is that people fear what they do not understand. 50 cal weapons are completely impractical for most situations a "bad guy" would use one for.

50 cal handguns are VERY large, can't carry as many shots, and are much harder to handle then say a 9mm, 40, or 45.

As far as rifels go, sniping is the only situation a 50 is good for (unless you have it mounted to the back of a pickup or something and convert to fully auto, but we all know how likely this is) and to be honest a 308 would do the job just as well in any realistic situation.

This is just a bunch of liberals taking guns away from law abiding people as usual. They will slowly take away weapons, first "assault weapons" (which are illegal any way the definition of an assualt weapon is FULLY auto - not semi) then automatic shotguns, then high caliber rifles, then pistols.

On a diferent note, I hade the distinct honor of firing a 50 cal barret semi auto on a thousand yard range. Boy is that a big mother #er!!!! The first time I shot it I got a good bit of scope bite

Anyway this is her in all of her glory:




At one point we set up big pieces of rock to shoot at and just obliterated them. They would literally just fly apart in hundreds of pieces. It was sooooo much fun

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Why does everyone bring up grenades and cannons nobody wants to legalize those for everyone. But people dont like when they attack a gun that is not used in crimes. Which the 50 cal is.

I never said anything about shoes Im comparing it to cars. Look how many cars with over 60 hp kill people each year. It dwarfs the number of people killed with guns. We have a speed limit of 55 why should anyone have a car that can go faster then that. If we banned all cars over 60 hp it would saves lives many more then banning guns It would be better for the enviroment we would need less oil. But nobody lobbies to take away sport cars why is that?

[edit on 14-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

The grenade/cannon example are for debating effect. But it does make sense. Where does one draw the line?

Shouldn't there be mandatory safety courses and certification for owning a deadly weapon? Just as driving a car requires certification, IMO a gun should as well.

I should have said some of the things in the Brady Bill make sense to me, not all of it. I am not for banning all weapons by any means.

When that famous ammendment of ours was written, guns were a basic need for survival. Be it for hunting or defense. I just think the the laws needs some re-examining within the context of our times.

There is no need for cars over 60hp. We don't have an Autobahn. kidding!

It is a tricky subject, but one definitely one well worth discussing.

And yes, I should have been more clear on the shoes comment.










[edit on 14-9-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by Facefirst
Shouldn't there be mandatory safety courses and certification for owning a deadly weapon? Just as driving a car requires certification, IMO a gun should as well.

There is a diference - driving a car is a previlage, owning a gun is a RIGHT.

When that famous ammendment of ours was written, guns were a basic need for survival. Be it for hunting or defense. I just think the the laws needs some re-examining within the context of our times.

If you read the works of Jefferson and the founding fathers you will understand that the real reason for the 2nd amendment was to protect it's citizens from the government. They wanted the people to be able to forcefully remove the government if needed. Read my sig.