U.S. House kills gun proposal

[WildCat]

I am asking people here. When will the misuse of something for criminal activity outweigh the intended use of same thing, in order for you - as a citizen and a voter - to think it should be banned?

It's definitely higher than the 0% misuse over the last hundred years or so.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's definitely higher than the 0% misuse over the last hundred years or so.

Be precise: How high? How did you get to that number?

 

[WildCat]

Be precise: How high? How did you get to that number?

Do you have another number handy?

 

[Ranb]

I am asking people here. When will the misuse of something for criminal activity outweigh the intended use of same thing, in order for you - as a citizen and a voter - to think it should be banned?

I don't see any reason why civilians should have access to such a firearm at all. If this firearm is allowed, why not a bazooka? Why not a heat-seeking missile?

How much misuse that justifies banning a certain activity is hard to determine. For now I would have to say that the excellent track record of the 50 BMG speaks for itself. But if I had to put a number on it, I would say if 50 caliber rifles are traced to more than 1% of firearm violent crime, then they should be more strictly controlled.

Remember, this thread was about ALL 50 caliber rifles, not just the 50 BMG. Even the 50 BMG is considered to be a small arm here in the USA. It is not a crew served weapon like some alarmists would have you think. The rational used to ban 50 caliber rifles is easily applied to all other rifles available to civilians in the USA. When the dishonest members of Congress are trying to ban 50 caliber rifles because they are powerful enough to "knock aircraft out of the sky" they are including small rifles such as those that shoot the 50-70 cartridge, which is barely adequate for hunting large game.

CFLarsen, you ask lots of questions, I would really like to see your own answers to these questions.

1. How much misuse of any item should be grounds for strictly controlling it?
2. If small guns like 50 caliber rifles are banned, why should not all guns be banned?
3. Why do you compare a rifle that shoots bullets weighing less than 50 grams to a rocket?

Ranb

 

[CFLarsen]

How much misuse that justifies banning a certain activity is hard to determine. For now I would have to say that the excellent track record of the 50 BMG speaks for itself. But if I had to put a number on it, I would say if 50 caliber rifles are traced to more than 1% of firearm violent crime, then they should be more strictly controlled.

How did you get to that figure?

1. How much misuse of any item should be grounds for strictly controlling it?

Depends entirely on what item we are talking about.

2. If small guns like 50 caliber rifles are banned, why should not all guns be banned?

They should. Guns are only for the military, the police and hunters. The latter group's use should be heavily controlled of course.

3. Why do you compare a rifle that shoots bullets weighing less than 50 grams to a rocket?

Why not? Both are weapons, designed to kill. I am asking where people draw the line. So far, I have seen only arbitrary limits (as well as a curious reluctance by some to even address the issue).

 

[Ranb]

I choose 1% because it is high enough to be measurable and lower than most other firearm crime statistics.

Choose any dangerous item used primarily for recreation you think should be controlled.

Hunting is the only acceptable recreational use for firearms in your opinion? What about target shooters? Would you do away with Olympic shooting? All other shooting events? Knowing that recreational shooting is very safe, why the problem with it?

Small guns should not be compared to rockets because even the layman can easily learn how to safely handle firearms. Comparing the two like you do is rather silly in my opinion.

Ranb

 

[CFLarsen]

I choose 1% because it is high enough to be measurable and lower than most other firearm crime statistics.

Arbitrarily, then.

Choose any dangerous item used primarily for recreation you think should be controlled.

Heroin.

Hunting is the only acceptable recreational use for firearms in your opinion?

No. It is ridiculous to think of firearms as "recreational". Hunting should be done solely to control the population of wild game.

What about target shooters? Would you do away with Olympic shooting? All other shooting events? Knowing that recreational shooting is very safe, why the problem with it?

Because guns are built for, and meant for, killing.

Small guns should not be compared to rockets because even the layman can easily learn how to safely handle firearms. Comparing the two like you do is rather silly in my opinion.

Then, I would like for you to tell us where you draw the line. Small guns are OK, but rockets are not? Where is that line?

 

[Cleon]

No. It is ridiculous to think of firearms as "recreational".

Why? Target shooting is fun. Hunting is fun (for some, anyway).

Hunting should be done solely to control the population of wild game.

Why? What's wrong with recreational hunting? I don't, myself, but I do fish.


Edited to add: Swords are/were primarily designed and built for killing, yet fencing is a popular (and yes, fun) sport as well as an Olympic event, and many Renaissance Festivals and other similar events frequently have shops that carry a wide variety of knives, daggers, throwing knives, and swords of all types.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why? Target shooting is fun. Hunting is fun (for some, anyway).

Heroin shooting is "fun", too.

Why? What's wrong with recreational hunting?

You don't kill game for fun, but to control the population.

Edited to add: Swords are/were primarily designed and built for killing, yet fencing is a popular (and yes, fun) sport as well as an Olympic event, and many Renaissance Festivals and other similar events frequently have shops that carry a wide variety of knives, daggers, throwing knives, and swords of all types.

Been there, buried that myth.

 

[Cleon]

Heroin shooting is "fun", too.

I actually favor drug legalization. But it's irrelevant, as hunting and target shooting is not as inherently self-destructive as shooting smack. Your analogy fails.

You don't kill game for fun, but to control the population.

Actually, many people I know kill game for fun or for food. You haven't explained what's wrong with that.

Been there, buried that myth.

Er, no, you haven't, as this has nothing to do with knives being as dangerous as guns. You say that guns shouldn't be considered recreational because they're primarily built for killing. Well, so are knives and swords, and there's no denying that fencing and other blade-related activity is a recreational activity.

So either fencing is illegitimate as a recreational activity, or you're wrong and guns can be recreational, too.

 

[Ed]

How much misuse that justifies banning a certain activity is hard to determine. For now I would have to say that the excellent track record of the 50 BMG speaks for itself. But if I had to put a number on it, I would say if 50 caliber rifles are traced to more than 1% of firearm violent crime, then they should be more strictly controlled.

The rate of crime using long guns of all descriptions is vanishingly small. If in the space of a couple of years a .50 set of firearms accounted for anything approaching say the ubiquitious .30-30 I would wonder what is going on. Frankly, I would expect the same rate as for any other exotic, zero.

 

[CFLarsen]

I actually favor drug legalization. But it's irrelevant, as hunting and target shooting is not as inherently self-destructive as shooting smack. Your analogy fails.

Nope. You do something harmful for "fun".

Actually, many people I know kill game for fun or for food. You haven't explained what's wrong with that.

Can they kill as many deer as they want?

Er, no, you haven't

Er, yes, I have. Read the thread.

 

[Ed]

Actually, many people I know kill game for fun or for food. You haven't explained what's wrong with that.

Actually "fun" is a human internal state and, hence, unknowable. Suffice it to say that hunting is generally done as a way of controlling animal populations. The "fun" or food aspects are always secondary.

 

[Cleon]

Nope. You do something harmful for "fun".

What's harmful about it shooting paper targets or deer?

Can they kill as many deer as they want?

No, but then, I can't catch as many fish as I want, either. The idea of limits has nothing to do with recreation--I ride a motorcycle for fun, I still have to follow the rules of the road. (Even if I want to pass that stupid SOB in the RV who can't go faster than 25.)

Er, yes, I have. Read the thread.

No, you haven't. Fencing is recreation, unless the maestro I studied under really was training me to kill people. (If so, he hid it well.) Hunting is recreation. Target shooting is recreation, and I believe also an Olympic sport.

And you either won't or can't say why they're not.

 

[Ranb]

I do not know what your definition of arbitrary is, but my figure of 1% was clearly related to the facts.

Hunting and shooting are lots of fun, except to a strange person such as yourself. People like you tend to take lots of fun out of this world.

Saying that guns are only built for killing is very prejudicial. They are actually built for shooting bullets fast and putting holes in things. In the USA, the holes are usually in paper.

Instead of heroin, maybe you would choose a recreational item that is not so dangerous to the person using it? Please do.

I draw the line somewhere between rifles and rockets; it is a fuzzy line, but still a line.

Hunting should be done for the sole purpose of putting meat on the table. Why can't I have fun hunting?

I think you should stop fencing with us and just answer the questions directly.

Ranb

 

[CFLarsen]

What's harmful about it shooting paper targets or deer?

...

No

There you go. You are not shooting deer for fun. You can have fun doing it (people can even think having root canal work done is fun, too), but that doesn't mean the primary purpose is fun.

, but then, I can't catch as many fish as I want, either. The idea of limits has nothing to do with recreation--I ride a motorcycle for fun, I still have to follow the rules of the road. (Even if I want to pass that stupid SOB in the RV who can't go faster than 25.)

But nobody is stopping you from driving as much as you want.

No, you haven't. Fencing is recreation, unless the maestro I studied under really was training me to kill people. (If so, he hid it well.) Hunting is recreation. Target shooting is recreation, and I believe also an Olympic sport.

And you either won't or can't say why they're not.

Of course I can - and have. Anything can be considered recreation, but that can't be the overruling factor, when we consider the danger. If people think shooting other people is recreational, should we allow it? Of course not.

You think shooting paper targets is recreational. Do you also think that people should be allowed to have bazookas to shoot paper targets?

 

[CFLarsen]

I do not know what your definition of arbitrary is, but my figure of 1% was clearly related to the facts.

But you arbitrarily chose that percentage.

Hunting and shooting are lots of fun, except to a strange person such as yourself. People like you tend to take lots of fun out of this world.

Saying that guns are only built for killing is very prejudicial.

I am saying that they are built for killing someone - or something - at a distance. That's the whole idea of a gun. It isn't "prejudicial" to say so, it is the truth.

Instead of heroin, maybe you would choose a recreational item that is not so dangerous to the person using it? Please do.

I was asked for an example, and I gave it. Please deal with the example I gave.

I draw the line somewhere between rifles and rockets; it is a fuzzy line, but still a line.

Where, exactly? A fuzzy line is no line at all.

Hunting should be done for the sole purpose of putting meat on the table. Why can't I have fun hunting?

You can. But you don't hunt to have fun. You hunt to control the wild game population. If you have fun doing that, fine with me.

I think you should stop fencing with us and just answer the questions directly.

I have. I just don't think that when I do - e.g., giving heroin as an example - you shouldn't dismiss it and then claim that I haven't answered the questions directly.

Where, exactly, is the line drawn between rifles and rockets?

 

[shecky]

Why would the NRA care about restricting exports of a weapon? The measure, as reported in that link, would have done nothing to restrict possession or sale within the US. Does the American gun lobby really want foreigners to enjoy the same quality and quantity of guns as Americans? Why?

I'd still like to hear the answer to this. Anyone got details?

 

[Mycroft]

There you go. You are not shooting deer for fun. You can have fun doing it (people can even think having root canal work done is fun, too), but that doesn't mean the primary purpose is fun.

This makes no sense.

Look, I'm not a gun person. I've never owned one, I don't really want to. I have, however, on several occasions gone shooting with friends.

Know what?

It was fun.

That was the primary purpose. I didn't do it for any other reason.

It's fun to take a pistol to a shooting range and see how close you can get to the center of the target. It's fun to take a shot gun into the woods and shoot the crap out of some moss covered logs.

It's loads of fun. You should try it sometime.

I've never been deer hunting, but the people I know who have do it for fun. They may be interested in keeping the deer population low, but that's secondary to the fun. I guarantee they don't need the meat bad enough to get it that way, it's pretty cheap in the store and a lot less effort.

It's fun to hunt. Some people like hiking and camping, others like to bring a gun along and bag some game while they're at it.

Trying to claim it's not fun, or that people don't do this for fun...that's just silly. There are lots of anti-gun arguments you can make without being stupid.

 

[Mycroft]

I'd still like to hear the answer to this. Anyone got details?

Sure.

If the gun companies can't export a specific model, then it may not be profitable enough to keep in production. If they cease production of that specific model, then that restrics access by Americans to that kind of gun.

I just made that up, btw. It may or may not be true, I have no idea.