Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Morrigi]

One example of that are certain individuals who like to throw a fit over rifles chambered in .50 BMG, despite weapons of that caliber having been used in fewer than three homicides, ever. There's no real point in using a $9,000, 30 pound rifle for anything except having fun on the range (at several dollars per shot), extreme-range sniping, or as an anti-materiel rifle, applications that criminals tend not to have a use for.

Same could be said about owning a tank. Or a surface-to-air missile. Pretty much sure nobody's ever been killed by a SAM outside of a conflict zone. Doesn't mean that civilians should have the ability to own them.

Funny, people are allowed to own tanks. Live ammunition, on the other hand, is difficult. Also, SAMs have the potential to cause a lot more death and destruction at once than a tank or rifle, so lumping them together doesn't make much sense. Case in point: MH17

Also, what is the issue with .50 BMG specifically? If there isn't one, then there's no reason it should be banned.

[RedKing]

One example of that are certain individuals who like to throw a fit over rifles chambered in .50 BMG, despite weapons of that caliber having been used in fewer than three homicides, ever. There's no real point in using a $9,000, 30 pound rifle for anything except having fun on the range (at several dollars per shot), extreme-range sniping, or as an anti-materiel rifle, applications that criminals tend not to have a use for.

Same could be said about owning a tank. Or a surface-to-air missile. Pretty much sure nobody's ever been killed by a SAM outside of a conflict zone. Doesn't mean that civilians should have the ability to own them.

Funny, people are allowed to own tanks. Live ammunition, on the other hand, is difficult. Also, SAMs have the potential to cause a lot more death and destruction at once than a tank or rifle, so lumping them together doesn't make much sense. Case in point: MH17

Also, what is the issue with .50 BMG specifically? If there isn't one, then there's no reason it should be banned.

MH17 was in a conflict zone. By your criteria, shooting down airliners isn't something criminals would be doing, and they're very expensive so where's the harm?

[Morrigi]

One example of that are certain individuals who like to throw a fit over rifles chambered in .50 BMG, despite weapons of that caliber having been used in fewer than three homicides, ever. There's no real point in using a $9,000, 30 pound rifle for anything except having fun on the range (at several dollars per shot), extreme-range sniping, or as an anti-materiel rifle, applications that criminals tend not to have a use for.

Same could be said about owning a tank. Or a surface-to-air missile. Pretty much sure nobody's ever been killed by a SAM outside of a conflict zone. Doesn't mean that civilians should have the ability to own them.

Funny, people are allowed to own tanks. Live ammunition, on the other hand, is difficult. Also, SAMs have the potential to cause a lot more death and destruction at once than a tank or rifle, so lumping them together doesn't make much sense. Case in point: MH17

Also, what is the issue with .50 BMG specifically? If there isn't one, then there's no reason it should be banned.

MH17 was in a conflict zone. By your criteria, shooting down airliners isn't something criminals would be doing, and they're very expensive so where's the harm?

Do I really have to spell out the difference between a rifle and a surface-to-air missile?

[~Neri]

Well if they lose most of their offshore firepower to the Navy, and end up with groundtroops and vehicles primarily, they will lose a huge amount of soldiers and vehicles to civilians.

Artillery. Artillery is a god of war. Guns cannot save you from getting blown up.

But are they going to waste a several hundred+ dollar (equivalent) shell on a single civilian hiding in a building?

[Frumple]

If doing it a few (dozen, hundred, etc.) times stops civilians from hiding in buildings... sure. Israel seems to think that's a good idea. Alternately, if that single civilian is capable of doing more than that cost in damage, sure. Alternately alternately, if it's reached the point something has actually sunk the money into a land invasion of the USA, I don't think they'd particularly be giving a damn about excess military spending.

[Rolepgeek]

I was reading that some of the guns that they restricted back in 1986 shot up in value, to the point that they were worth about $10000 each on the black market, and that was even at a time that other guns were seeing reduced restrictions.

If you're looking for dampening effects on gun crime, look right there. That's a price where it's more profitable to sell the gun than to commit most crimes with it, which risks losing the gun if you're caught. That's something not often taken into consideration in gun control debates: changes in availability are definitely going to have big impact on market prices, hence the viability of a lot of crime.

One example of that are certain individuals who like to throw a fit over rifles chambered in .50 BMG, despite weapons of that caliber having been used in fewer than three homicides, ever. There's no real point in using a $9,000, 30 pound rifle for anything except having fun on the range (at several dollars per shot), extreme-range sniping, or as an anti-materiel rifle, applications that criminals tend not to have a use for.

I'm all for people being allowed to own these guns if they keep them on the range, personally. Doesn't mean they should be a piece of cake to buy without background checks or registration, though.

[RedKing]

One example of that are certain individuals who like to throw a fit over rifles chambered in .50 BMG, despite weapons of that caliber having been used in fewer than three homicides, ever. There's no real point in using a $9,000, 30 pound rifle for anything except having fun on the range (at several dollars per shot), extreme-range sniping, or as an anti-materiel rifle, applications that criminals tend not to have a use for.

Same could be said about owning a tank. Or a surface-to-air missile. Pretty much sure nobody's ever been killed by a SAM outside of a conflict zone. Doesn't mean that civilians should have the ability to own them.

Funny, people are allowed to own tanks. Live ammunition, on the other hand, is difficult. Also, SAMs have the potential to cause a lot more death and destruction at once than a tank or rifle, so lumping them together doesn't make much sense. Case in point: MH17

Also, what is the issue with .50 BMG specifically? If there isn't one, then there's no reason it should be banned.

MH17 was in a conflict zone. By your criteria, shooting down airliners isn't something criminals would be doing, and they're very expensive so where's the harm?

Do I really have to spell out the difference between a rifle and a surface-to-air missile?

I dunno, do I have to spell out the difference between a .22 hunting rifle (or even a .303 or .308 hunting rifle) and a fucking .50cal anti-tank rifle with a 1.5-mile range that can punch through a vehicle?

[Loud Whispers]

I dunno, do I have to spell out the difference between a .22 hunting rifle (or even a .303 or .308 hunting rifle) and a fucking .50cal anti-tank rifle with a 1.5-mile range that can punch through a vehicle?

The former can be bought for $60 and the latter have a price range from $6k - $30k. The latter also sounds sexier.

[RedKing]

The latter also sounds sexier.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. We're back to shiny steel phallus worship.

[Loud Whispers]

Well if they lose most of their offshore firepower to the Navy, and end up with groundtroops and vehicles primarily, they will lose a huge amount of soldiers and vehicles to civilians.

Artillery. Artillery is a god of war. Guns cannot save you from getting blown up.

But are they going to waste a several hundred+ dollar (equivalent) shell on a single civilian hiding in a building?

Shells are much cheaper than guided missiles so you've got about 40 shells per missile you could've spent taking out guerillas hiding in buildings. Alternatively; drones drones drones drones.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. We're back to shiny steel phallus worship.

Shiny mechanical phallus anything worship. Big cars, big boats and big guns. Masculinity is attracted to personal power. If you can afford the latter gun you are either terrible at managing your funds or are a plutocrat - and it will show.

[Mr. Strange]

Shiny mechanical phallus anything worship. Big cars, big boats and big guns.

Because not everybody can have big penis.

[Zombi]

The latter also sounds sexier.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. We're back to shiny steel phallus worship.

But I like wooden furniture on my guns...

[RedKing]

The latter also sounds sexier.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. We're back to shiny steel phallus worship.

But I like wooden furniture on my guns...

Hey, we all got fetishes. Whatever pops your cork.

[Loud Whispers]

Shiny mechanical phallus anything worship. Big cars, big boats and big guns.

Because not everybody can have big penis.

To be honest even if you had a garganutan knob you'd still be attracted to the same status symbols, because you can't exactly wave your knob around in many social situations.

[~Neri]

I really like how I have literally no interest in material goods whatsoever~

Hurrah for not wasting money on status symbols~!