On 11 Jan 2005 12:48:55 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005 00:32:02 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Charles A. Sherwood wrote:
they found a .50 caliber BAR on a tripod aimed out his living room
window, ready to mow down everyone on the street.

Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.

Well, if you're shooting into a thick crowd, you're going to mow a few
down with even one round, as it'll go through several people without
really slowing down.

So will just about any deer rifle bullet.

True.
But (given a deep crowd with a sniper firing horizontally) the .50 will
go through rather more people, though perhaps not inflicting as severe
injuries on the first, depending).

Depends on if you are using FMJ or not out of the deer rifle. But
yes..you might nail another 3 deep.

The only place where the .50 is really 'dangerous' would be extreme-range
sniper shots, or (economic)terrorist attacks.
For example, shoot a round into the space shuttle SRB when it next goes
up (I do not know if the exclusion area is wide enough), or high voltage
transmission line insulators, or ...

And banning it will stop the terrorists getting one.

I didnt see a smiley face on that last sentence. I hope you intended
on putting one there. It is rather humorous...saying that banning
something will stop any criminal from getting one.

Gunner


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

YEAH, Man. They ARE neat !



On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:01:01 GMT, "Bernd" wrote:

Boy would it be fun to own one of them.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 10 Jan 2005 23:13:58 GMT, Charles A. Sherwood wrote:
they found a .50 caliber BAR on a tripod aimed out his living room
window, ready to mow down everyone on the street.

Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.

He's talking about a BAR, Browning Automatic Rifle. There are
semi-auto versions out there, and dummy-receiver kit guns that
look great but can't be fired. Hard to say what this one really was.
Since there's only been one crime every by a class-3 license holder,
it's pretty clear it wasn't the real deal.

On 11 Jan 2005 12:51:27 GMT, Ian Stirling wrote:
wrote:
snip

None of which reflects on the 50 caliber rifle because we don't know
what the guy had.

Are there any 50 caliber paintball guns?

Nope, paintballs are more like (checks permanant bruise/scar on
hip) I'd say 75 or 80 caliber. And they hurt like a _bitch_ when
they don't break.

Gunner wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005 12:48:55 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005 00:32:02 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Charles A. Sherwood wrote:
they found a .50 caliber BAR on a tripod aimed out his living room
window, ready to mow down everyone on the street.

Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.
snip
But (given a deep crowd with a sniper firing horizontally) the .50 will
go through rather more people, though perhaps not inflicting as severe
injuries on the first, depending).

Depends on if you are using FMJ or not out of the deer rifle. But
yes..you might nail another 3 deep.

The only place where the .50 is really 'dangerous' would be extreme-range
sniper shots, or (economic)terrorist attacks.
For example, shoot a round into the space shuttle SRB when it next goes
up (I do not know if the exclusion area is wide enough), or high voltage
transmission line insulators, or ...

And banning it will stop the terrorists getting one.

I didnt see a smiley face on that last sentence. I hope you intended
on putting one there. It is rather humorous...saying that banning
something will stop any criminal from getting one.

I hoped that it was sufficiently obvious.

Banning reduces the likelyhood of criminal use - many crimes are
due to having the weapon to hand - reduce the availability, and
you're less likely to get the crime,

Of course, most people who have a .50 will have several other guns, so
even then you're only transferring the crime to another gun.

That said - if guns were widely available in the UK, the .50 would be one
of the guns I'd put well down the list of 'likely to get shot with'.

I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with it.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:13:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


The BAR was not a .50 cal, but a 30-06. That indeed was a full auto
weapon at 19 lbs.

That detail occurred to me also, but I kept still because the Ma deuce
is automatic, is a rifle, and is made by Browning.

On 11 Jan 2005 18:33:55 GMT, Ian Stirling wrote:
Gunner wrote:

I didnt see a smiley face on that last sentence. I hope you intended
on putting one there. It is rather humorous...saying that banning
something will stop any criminal from getting one.

I hoped that it was sufficiently obvious.

I thought it was, but then I read the rest of your response:

Banning reduces the likelyhood of criminal use - many crimes are
due to having the weapon to hand - reduce the availability, and
you're less likely to get the crime,

Ah, but crimes are illegal (by definition), so the crime is initiated
by the person deciding to be a criminal.

Of course, most people who have a .50 will have several other guns, so
even then you're only transferring the crime to another gun.

That's the most convoluted logic I've ever seen in such a small
statement. A person is either a threat (a criminal) or they're
not, the flavor of guns they have isn't relevant to them being
either a good person, or a bad person.

That said - if guns were widely available in the UK, the .50 would be one
of the guns I'd put well down the list of 'likely to get shot with'.

Obviously.

I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with it.

And if you're not a criminal, you're not going to commit a crime no matter
how many guns you have.

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
snip------


I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you
can't
commit a crime with it.

Chuckle! That's what's wrong. That's flawed thinking.

The crime and the weapon of choice typically have nothing to do with one
another. So long as a person is hell bent on doing the wrong thing,
they'll come up with a method to execute their plan. No gun? How about a
fire bomb? No fire bomb? How about a syringe loaded with AIDS
contaminated blood? How about a screw driver? Hammer? Ball bat?
An automobile? The list is endless. Crime can't be controlled by
removing all the potential weapons. Hell, we'd all have to go around naked
if that were the case. How many people have been strangled by their own
apparel?

I say get rid of the criminals, not the tools they use to commit their
crimes.

Harold

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Ian Stirling
wrote back on 11 Jan 2005 18:33:55 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :

That said - if guns were widely available in the UK, the .50 would be one
of the guns I'd put well down the list of 'likely to get shot with'.

I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with it.

If you don't have tools you can't use them. Doesn't mean you can't
accomplish what you wanted to do, just that you will have to find another
set of tools. I do a fair amount of design work based on what tools I have
to accomplish the intended task.

OTOH, if you don't have the gun, you can't use it for self-defense.

It's not the tool used in the crime, its the crime in the tool user.
Or as I say "A hundred nuns with guns is less of a threat than one hun with
a club."

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"We don't support "guns" ... the term "gun" gets in the way of
what is really being talked about here - we want choice in
personal security devices." Ann Coulter

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 11 Jan 2005 16:28:06 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 10 Jan 2005 23:13:58 GMT, Charles A. Sherwood wrote:
they found a .50 caliber BAR on a tripod aimed out his living room
window, ready to mow down everyone on the street.

Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.

He's talking about a BAR, Browning Automatic Rifle. There are
semi-auto versions out there, and dummy-receiver kit guns that
look great but can't be fired. Hard to say what this one really was.
Since there's only been one crime every by a class-3 license holder,
it's pretty clear it wasn't the real deal.

I was a regular 50 MG, on a pintle mount, loaded and pointed out the
window. Generally a bad practice.

In Oregon, Class III is legal. And if Memory serves, he was legal to
have it.

Watching the coverage, it reminded me of a lot of "oh my god, he's got
three guns and a thousand rounds!" kind of ignorance. Heck, the only
reason I don't have three guns and thousand rounds in the bedroom is that
one gun lives elsewhere, and I'm low on ammo.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:15:39 GMT, pyotr filipivich wrote:

Watching the coverage, it reminded me of a lot of "oh my god, he's got
three guns and a thousand rounds!" kind of ignorance. Heck, the only
reason I don't have three guns and thousand rounds in the bedroom is that
one gun lives elsewhere, and I'm low on ammo.

1000 rounds? That's not much at all, I've probably got more than that
in a half dozen calibers at any given time. Why tool up to reload a batch
if you're not going to reload like you mean it? Besides, primers come in
boxes of 1000 anyway, so it's a good number to work with.

" Hell, we'd all have to go around naked
if that were the case. How many people have been strangled by their
own
apparel?"

Whew, good thing I reread that, Harold... at first I thought you said
strangled by their own appendages.... OUCH!

Ron, remembering the old ditty

Do your boys hang low
Do they wobble as you go,
Can you tie them in a knot,
Can you tie them in a bow,
Can you throw them o'er your shoulder
Like a Continental soldier,
Do your boys hang low...

Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
snip------


I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you
can't
commit a crime with it.

Chuckle! That's what's wrong. That's flawed thinking.

The crime and the weapon of choice typically have nothing to do with one
another. So long as a person is hell bent on doing the wrong thing,

Oops, I see I've not quite got what I meant over, to you and the other
responder.

Reduce the number of .50 cal weapons legally held, and you reduce the
chances that a legal owner will commit a crime with one. (neglecting the
small point that none have yet)

I'm arguing the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with that gun.

Not that you can't commit a crime without a gun.

Some crimes are impulse crimes.
If you see someone doing something that you violently object to (sleeping
with your (of age) daughter/...), peeing outside your driveway, ...

You can pick up a gun and shoot them immediately.
Or just run outside and start beating on them.

The first is more likely to result in a death, and conviction for murder.

Of course, if there is premeditation, something else can be substituted for
the gun.

Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
snip------


I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you
can't
commit a crime with it.

Chuckle! That's what's wrong. That's flawed thinking.

The crime and the weapon of choice typically have nothing to do with one
another. So long as a person is hell bent on doing the wrong thing,

Oops, I see I've not quite got what I meant over, to you and the other
responder.

Reduce the number of .50 cal weapons legally held, and you reduce the
chances that a legal owner will commit a crime with one. (neglecting the
small point that's been missed by the lawmakers in question that
none(one?) have yet)

I was arguing the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with that gun.

Not that you can't commit a crime without a gun.

Some crimes are impulse crimes.
If you see someone doing something that you violently object to (sleeping
with your (of age) daughter/...), peeing outside your driveway, ...

You can pick up a gun and shoot them immediately.
Or just run outside and start beating on them.

The first is more likely to result in a death, and conviction for murder.

Of course, if there is premeditation, something else can be substituted for
the gun.

In article , Dave Hinz says...

He's talking about a BAR, Browning Automatic Rifle.

Supposedly the favorite weapon of the Barrow folks. They
used to knock over local armories to get them.

The law would have lever guns and pistols, they'd
have a BAR.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 11 Jan 2005 21:49:19 GMT, Ian Stirling wrote:

Reduce the number of .50 cal weapons legally held, and you reduce the
chances that a legal owner will commit a crime with one. (neglecting the
small point that's been missed by the lawmakers in question that
none(one?) have yet)

The legal holders aren't the ones causing the problem, Ian, it's
criminals who are. I'm no threat to you, regardless of what
hardware I own.

I was arguing the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with that gun.

True, but if you're a criminal, you're going to do bad things regardless.

Some crimes are impulse crimes.
If you see someone doing something that you violently object to (sleeping
with your (of age) daughter/...), peeing outside your driveway, ...
You can pick up a gun and shoot them immediately.
Or just run outside and start beating on them.

Yes, this _can_ happen, but rarely does. It happens rarely enough
that when it does, it's news, rather than routine

The first is more likely to result in a death, and conviction for murder.
Of course, if there is premeditation, something else can be substituted for
the gun.

Of course. And often is. Besides, there are two sides to the
equation - guns are used defensively as well, and nearly every
defensive use of a gun is by a good person. Why should we take that
away from non-criminals?

Ian Stirling wrote:

Are there any 50 caliber paintball guns?

I don't know if there are anymore, but back when I played (in the early
1990s) there were 50 caliber, 62 caliber, and 68 caliber paintballs. The
most common one, which I think is the one still in use today, was the
68. It was quite annoying to own anything else since people rarely carried
the correct size of ammo. The Tippmann SMG-60 was probably the best known
user of 62 caliber, and the Crossman 3357 was a 50 caliber often used by
players as their "backup pistol."

The new ban in California seems to address the .50BMG specifically, though.
In fact, last time I read the text, it seemed to be extremely specific
to the point that a necked-down .50BMG case with something like a turned
down .50BMG projectile now measuring .49 would be legal. Makes me wonder
if a market for wildcatted rounds will show up, though I hear a .338 Lapua
is enough to satisfy most folks wanting the ".50BMG experience" after the
ban.

On 11 Jan 2005 12:48:55 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005 00:32:02 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Charles A. Sherwood wrote:
they found a .50 caliber BAR on a tripod aimed out his living room
window, ready to mow down everyone on the street.

Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.

Well, if you're shooting into a thick crowd, you're going to mow a few
down with even one round, as it'll go through several people without
really slowing down.

So will just about any deer rifle bullet.

True.
But (given a deep crowd with a sniper firing horizontally) the .50 will
go through rather more people, though perhaps not inflicting as severe
injuries on the first, depending).

The only place where the .50 is really 'dangerous' would be extreme-range
sniper shots, or (economic)terrorist attacks.
For example, shoot a round into the space shuttle SRB when it next goes
up (I do not know if the exclusion area is wide enough), or high voltage
transmission line insulators, or ...

And banning it will stop the terrorists getting one.

The problem is that in order to do that kind of shooting you need
someone who is highly trained. Long-range shooting, even from a rest,
is not a simple business. It takes training and then a lot of
practice.

The 50 cal round can do a lot of damage in the hands of a well-trained
shooter. That's why the military uses them. But if you've got an
organization that can produce a sufficently well trained shooter,
you've got one that has the resources to acquire the weapon without
bothering with the commercial market.

As to going through several people at one shot -- well, it's possible.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On 11 Jan 2005 18:33:55 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005 12:48:55 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005 00:32:02 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Charles A. Sherwood wrote:
they found a .50 caliber BAR on a tripod aimed out his living room
window, ready to mow down everyone on the street.

Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.
snip
But (given a deep crowd with a sniper firing horizontally) the .50 will
go through rather more people, though perhaps not inflicting as severe
injuries on the first, depending).

Depends on if you are using FMJ or not out of the deer rifle. But
yes..you might nail another 3 deep.

The only place where the .50 is really 'dangerous' would be extreme-range
sniper shots, or (economic)terrorist attacks.
For example, shoot a round into the space shuttle SRB when it next goes
up (I do not know if the exclusion area is wide enough), or high voltage
transmission line insulators, or ...

And banning it will stop the terrorists getting one.

I didnt see a smiley face on that last sentence. I hope you intended
on putting one there. It is rather humorous...saying that banning
something will stop any criminal from getting one.

I hoped that it was sufficiently obvious.

Banning reduces the likelyhood of criminal use - many crimes are
due to having the weapon to hand - reduce the availability, and
you're less likely to get the crime,

Without getting too deeply into the whole gun control thing -- no. By
now the evidence is pretty overwhelming that availability of a weapon
has practically no influence on crime. (cf Switzerland and assault
rifles, shall-issue concealed carry states in the US.) The individual
criminal/terrorist is much more important than the weapon.

It's hard to conceive of any kind of crime where a 50 caliber rifle
would be any kind of an asset at all and even for terrorist purposes
it's pretty ineffective, both because of its extreme visibility and
the training and skill needed to use one effectively.

--RC


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On 11 Jan 2005 21:46:19 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

snip
Reduce the number of .50 cal weapons legally held, and you reduce the
chances that a legal owner will commit a crime with one. (neglecting the
small point that none have yet)

I'm arguing the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with that gun.

Not that you can't commit a crime without a gun.

Some crimes are impulse crimes.
If you see someone doing something that you violently object to (sleeping
with your (of age) daughter/...), peeing outside your driveway, ...

You can pick up a gun and shoot them immediately.
Or just run outside and start beating on them.

The first is more likely to result in a death, and conviction for murder.

Of course, if there is premeditation, something else can be substituted for
the gun.

You'd think so wouldn't you?

I see where you're coming from Ian. However fortunately you're working
from some incorrect -- albeit extremely common -- assumptions.

Broadly speaking, there are two underlying schools of thought that
appear in the gun control discussion. One of them, call it Position A,
holds that everyone is likely to commit a violent act under the right
circumstances. The other school, call it Position B, holds that while
everyone may be theoretically capable of violence only a tiny minority
of the population are actually predisposed to commit violence. Both of
these positions lead to a series of testable hypotheses which are
relevant to a discussion of the dangers of guns.

Your position is consistent with Position A, which is very popular,
especially in Britian and other countries where there is not a lot of
knowledge about, or experience with, firearms.

One of the inevitable conclusions from Position A is that the more
weapons, the more, and more serious, violence because the greater
weapons supply increases the chances that a weapon will be to hand
when someone wants to commit a violent act.

Position B, OTOH, leads to the notion that the critical factor is the
nature of the individuals involved. Since violent people are a small
minority of the population, increasing the supply of weapons will have
little or no effect on the level of violence. The violent people will
get weapons and use them and the other people can be armed to the
teeth at all times and it won't increase the rate of violence. (In
fact it may well decrease it by making self-defense more effective.)

As I said these are testable hypotheses. All you have to do is find,
or create, populations of law-abiding citizens who are heavily armed
and see if the rate of violence among them goes up.

As it happens, this, and other hypotheses growing from these positions
are not only testable, they have been tested. In fact there are about
a dozen such hypotheses which have been tested and in virtually every
single case position B -- weapons have little effect on violence --
has been supported by the outcome.

I'll just mention two such tests briefly.

The reductio ad absurdium case is Switzerland, where virtually every
adult Swiss male between 22 and 40 has a fully automatic assault rifle
and a full combat load of ammunition stored at home. This is part of
the equipment issued when he finishes military service and by law he
is required to keep the weapon at home. In spite of the almost
universal availability of automatic weapons, the Swiss rate of
violence with these weapons is extremely low.

The second case is even more instructive. Several years ago various
states in the United States started issuing permits to carry a
concealed firearm on extremely liberal terms. Under these
'shall-issue' laws, the applicant is required to have a clean criminal
record and pass a course on basic gun handling and safety -- which
usually takes one day. Then they are issued a permit which allows them
to carry a gun just about anywhere.

What this did was create a population, now in the millions, of
law-abiding people who were carrying guns all over the place.
Opponents of these laws -- following position A -- predicted the
result would be an enormous upsurge in assaults and deaths involving
firearms.

In fact there was no increase statistically and cases of unwarranted
attacks with firearms by permit holders are just about non-existent.
(Parenthetically, what did happen in a number of these states is that
the homicide rates actually went down.)

So while your position is logical, and quite popular, the evidence is
that it is wrong.

That leaves the argument that having 50 caliber rifles in circulation
will make it easier for violent individuals to get their hands on
them. As I indicated elsewhere, the characteristics of the weapons
make their use in crime just about impossible and their use by
terrorists extremely unlikely.

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:28:03 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:13:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


The BAR was not a .50 cal, but a 30-06. That indeed was a full auto
weapon at 19 lbs.

That detail occurred to me also, but I kept still because the Ma deuce
is automatic, is a rifle, and is made by Browning.

The Ma Duce is even less of a rifle than the BAR (which isn't really a
rifle, but the terminology wasn't sorted out in 1917 when John
Browning invented the thing.) It's a heavy machine gun.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On 11 Jan 2005 12:51:27 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

wrote:
snip
If the guy was in fact a collector of WWII firearms, the choices of
what he could possibly have had are extremely limited. About the only
50 caliber rifle made during WWII was the Boys Anti-Tank Rifle, which
was bolt action, and I believe, single-shot. It was not fired from a
tripod.

In fact, thinking about it, there were almost no 'rifles' designed to
be fired from a tripod.

Which is not to say I'm damn glad someone took his ranting seriously
and turned him into the cops -- and that the cops took it seriously
enough to investigate. Even if all he had was a Daisy air rifle, the
guy needed to be stopped.

None of which reflects on the 50 caliber rifle because we don't know
what the guy had.

Are there any 50 caliber paintball guns?

I believe there are, but those are hardly lethal. As I say, given the
quality of the reporting here, it's just about impossible to know what
he had.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:13:55 -0800, Tim Wescott
wrote:


Charles A. Sherwood wrote:


they found a .50 caliber BAR on a tripod aimed out his living room
window, ready to mow down everyone on the street.


Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.

cs

My mistake -- the newspaper only describes it as an "anti-aircraft gun".


If it was a working anti-aircraft gun, the guy needed a federal
license to own an operating one.

As for fitting it into a living room -- if it was a 20 mm or a 50
caliber class machine gun, yeah it would fit. But the story just gets
fishier and fishier.

--RC


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
Gosh, I know a house that has a 50 cal B-52 barrel (tail gun) (Radar guided)
mounted on the house and holding up a rotator and antenna.

The wimpy rod that was the rod for the rotator and antenna bent in a wind storm.

Now SAC is on guard over that house as I type. :-)

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Ian Stirling wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On 11 Jan 2005 00:32:02 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:


Charles A. Sherwood wrote:

they found a .50 caliber BAR on a tripod aimed out his living room
window, ready to mow down everyone on the street.

Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.

Well, if you're shooting into a thick crowd, you're going to mow a few
down with even one round, as it'll go through several people without
really slowing down.

So will just about any deer rifle bullet.


True.
But (given a deep crowd with a sniper firing horizontally) the .50 will
go through rather more people, though perhaps not inflicting as severe
injuries on the first, depending).

The only place where the .50 is really 'dangerous' would be extreme-range
sniper shots, or (economic)terrorist attacks.
For example, shoot a round into the space shuttle SRB when it next goes
up (I do not know if the exclusion area is wide enough), or high voltage
transmission line insulators, or ...

And banning it will stop the terrorists getting one.
Only at the local gun store. They will simply drive them across the boarder,
boat them in, and cargo box them in. No sweat. Oh - just buy on the black or
gray market. The bad guys have avenues open to them that citizens don't.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Ian Stirling wrote:

Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
snip------


I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you

can't

commit a crime with it.

Chuckle! That's what's wrong. That's flawed thinking.

The crime and the weapon of choice typically have nothing to do with one
another. So long as a person is hell bent on doing the wrong thing,


Oops, I see I've not quite got what I meant over, to you and the other
responder.

Reduce the number of .50 cal weapons legally held, and you reduce the
chances that a legal owner will commit a crime with one. (neglecting the
small point that none have yet)

I'm arguing the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with that gun.

Not that you can't commit a crime without a gun.

Some crimes are impulse crimes.
If you see someone doing something that you violently object to (sleeping
with your (of age) daughter/...), peeing outside your driveway, ...

You can pick up a gun and shoot them immediately.
Or just run outside and start beating on them.

The first is more likely to result in a death, and conviction for murder.

Of course, if there is premeditation, something else can be substituted for
the gun.

If you don't have hands, you can't stick your finger in your eye either.
Lets ban hands now ?

Martin
--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:22:50 GMT, wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:28:03 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:13:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


The BAR was not a .50 cal, but a 30-06. That indeed was a full auto
weapon at 19 lbs.

That detail occurred to me also, but I kept still because the Ma deuce
is automatic, is a rifle, and is made by Browning.

The Ma Duce is even less of a rifle than the BAR (which isn't really a
rifle, but the terminology wasn't sorted out in 1917 when John
Browning invented the thing.) It's a heavy machine gun.

Ma deuce is definitely a heavy carry, also definitely a rifle. Maybe
ya gotta use it to appreciate it. It works a treat.

wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005 21:46:19 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

snip
Reduce the number of .50 cal weapons legally held, and you reduce the
chances that a legal owner will commit a crime with one. (neglecting the
small point that none have yet)

I'm arguing the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with that gun.

Not that you can't commit a crime without a gun.

Some crimes are impulse crimes.
If you see someone doing something that you violently object to (sleeping
with your (of age) daughter/...), peeing outside your driveway, ...

You can pick up a gun and shoot them immediately.
Or just run outside and start beating on them.

The first is more likely to result in a death, and conviction for murder.

Of course, if there is premeditation, something else can be substituted for
the gun.

You'd think so wouldn't you?

I see where you're coming from Ian. However fortunately you're working
from some incorrect -- albeit extremely common -- assumptions.

Sigh, you don't, I see I'm not quite explaining myself.

Broadly speaking, there are two underlying schools of thought that
appear in the gun control discussion. One of them, call it Position A,
holds that everyone is likely to commit a violent act under the right
circumstances. The other school, call it Position B, holds that while
everyone may be theoretically capable of violence only a tiny minority
of the population are actually predisposed to commit violence. Both of
these positions lead to a series of testable hypotheses which are
relevant to a discussion of the dangers of guns.

Neither are quite what I'm arguing.

I suspect you'd concede that there is a seperate set of people, who
are predisposed to violence, but don't commit serious crime, through
socialisation, fear of punishment, fear of losing a physical attack,
lack of opportunity, or lack of need.

For some of these, a gun will enable their crime by making them feel
safe enough, though some will be happy with a knife, club, or bare hands.

Your position is consistent with Position A, which is very popular,
especially in Britian and other countries where there is not a lot of
knowledge about, or experience with, firearms.

One of the inevitable conclusions from Position A is that the more
weapons, the more, and more serious, violence because the greater
weapons supply increases the chances that a weapon will be to hand
when someone wants to commit a violent act.

This is obviously correct - less legal availability of guns - less people
shot by legally held guns in crimes of passion.

This is an argument for reducing gun ownership.

However, if there are any guns available illegally, and criminally intent
people can obtain them, then this argument is much weaker, as it only
eliminates a small fraction of gun crime.
As to the legislation I was referring initially to (banning .50 caliber)
it obviously reduces the (tiny) risk of a crime being committed by a legal
owner.
It's a stupid bit of legislation, as an equal amount of time spent on
many other bits of possible legislation would probably save more than
the 1 life every 500 years (or whatever) this ban might.

Position B, OTOH, leads to the notion that the critical factor is the
nature of the individuals involved. Since violent people are a small
minority of the population, increasing the supply of weapons will have
little or no effect on the level of violence. The violent people will
get weapons and use them and the other people can be armed to the
teeth at all times and it won't increase the rate of violence. (In
fact it may well decrease it by making self-defense more effective.)

In a healthy society.
snip
So while your position is logical, and quite popular, the evidence is
that it is wrong.

I seem to be having problems in that I was commenting on the specific
legislation, and a lot of people took it as my views on gun ownership.

Personally, my ideal situation would be the one where I get a gun, and
nobody else does

Barring this, the ideal would be some sort of biometric ID for guns - so that
they can only be used by the purchaser, or those they authorise, with
somehow tagged bullets.

Unfortunately current technology falls short of this, as it adds a large
amount to the price and makes it more unreliable.
I'd only be truly happy with this solution if the extra cost was under
10% of the cost of the gun/bullets, and it would work with a naked owner, or
one wearing gloves, mud, ...
And the technology isn't there yet.

I don't think there is any fundamentally right position, I tend towards
the one that reduces overall death rates due to crime - concealed carry
states are perhaps not a perfect example, as there is debate on if the
criminals just move elsewhere, so if every state went CC, then numbers
may be different.

I think that a generally unarmed police force is important - it reduces the
criminals fear of armed response, and means they are less likely to try
to obtain guns.

I do not believe there is an inherent right to own firearms, or that any
of the rights outlined in the US constitution are somehow inborn (I
forget the term used)

Rights are what society overall says they are.

There are inborn desires - to be in control of ones fate, ...

I d

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

And if you're not a criminal, you're not going to commit a crime no matter
how many guns you have.

So - if you are not a criminal, you cannot become one??

Bob

On 12 Jan 2005 13:25:44 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005 21:46:19 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

snip
Reduce the number of .50 cal weapons legally held, and you reduce the
chances that a legal owner will commit a crime with one. (neglecting the
small point that none have yet)

I'm arguing the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with that gun.

Not that you can't commit a crime without a gun.

Some crimes are impulse crimes.
If you see someone doing something that you violently object to (sleeping
with your (of age) daughter/...), peeing outside your driveway, ...

You can pick up a gun and shoot them immediately.
Or just run outside and start beating on them.

The first is more likely to result in a death, and conviction for murder.

Of course, if there is premeditation, something else can be substituted for
the gun.

You'd think so wouldn't you?

I see where you're coming from Ian. However fortunately you're working
from some incorrect -- albeit extremely common -- assumptions.

Sigh, you don't, I see I'm not quite explaining myself.

Broadly speaking, there are two underlying schools of thought that
appear in the gun control discussion. One of them, call it Position A,
holds that everyone is likely to commit a violent act under the right
circumstances. The other school, call it Position B, holds that while
everyone may be theoretically capable of violence only a tiny minority
of the population are actually predisposed to commit violence. Both of
these positions lead to a series of testable hypotheses which are
relevant to a discussion of the dangers of guns.

Neither are quite what I'm arguing.


I suspect you'd concede that there is a seperate set of people, who
are predisposed to violence, but don't commit serious crime, through
socialisation, fear of punishment, fear of losing a physical attack,
lack of opportunity, or lack of need.

Actually the evidence is that the populations are pretty bipolar:
Those who are inclined to commit violent acts and those who aren't.
Note I said 'violence', not 'crimes.' Studies of criminal histories
show that most people who commit crimes with guns have histories --
usually long histories -- of violent anti-social acts.

For some of these, a gun will enable their crime by making them feel
safe enough, though some will be happy with a knife, club, or bare hands.

That's a variation of Position A. The so-called 'guns as enablers'
argument. Again, the examples I cited -- along with many others --
pretty well demonstrate that this is not so in the real world.

Your position is consistent with Position A, which is very popular,
especially in Britian and other countries where there is not a lot of
knowledge about, or experience with, firearms.

One of the inevitable conclusions from Position A is that the more
weapons, the more, and more serious, violence because the greater
weapons supply increases the chances that a weapon will be to hand
when someone wants to commit a violent act.

This is obviously correct - less legal availability of guns - less people
shot by legally held guns in crimes of passion.

That only holds if the limiting factor is the availability of firearms
-- position A -- in other words. It fails to explain why concealed
carry permit holders, for example, don't commit more crimes of
passion. In fact, in spite of their ready access to guns gun crimes,
of passion or otherwise, are just about non-existent among such permit
holders.

This is an argument for reducing gun ownership.

However, if there are any guns available illegally, and criminally intent
people can obtain them, then this argument is much weaker, as it only
eliminates a small fraction of gun crime.
As to the legislation I was referring initially to (banning .50 caliber)
it obviously reduces the (tiny) risk of a crime being committed by a legal
owner.

Under position B -- what you might all the 'bad guys' position -- it
would be expected to have no effect whatsoever. And its worth noting
that in the 40 years or so that 50 caliber rifles have been available
to the American public (counting the war-surplus Boys AT) no one has
apparently ever committed a crime with them.

It's a stupid bit of legislation, as an equal amount of time spent on
many other bits of possible legislation would probably save more than
the 1 life every 500 years (or whatever) this ban might.

Position B, OTOH, leads to the notion that the critical factor is the
nature of the individuals involved. Since violent people are a small
minority of the population, increasing the supply of weapons will have
little or no effect on the level of violence. The violent people will
get weapons and use them and the other people can be armed to the
teeth at all times and it won't increase the rate of violence. (In
fact it may well decrease it by making self-defense more effective.)

In a healthy society.
snip

True. The main reason the US has such a huge problem with violence is
that our criminal justice system is broken.

So while your position is logical, and quite popular, the evidence is
that it is wrong.

I seem to be having problems in that I was commenting on the specific
legislation, and a lot of people took it as my views on gun ownership.

I for one agree with your position on the 50 caliber rifle. However I
think that some of your premises are incorrect and that's what I was
commenting on.

snip

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:54:50 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:22:50 GMT, wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:28:03 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:13:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


The BAR was not a .50 cal, but a 30-06. That indeed was a full auto
weapon at 19 lbs.

That detail occurred to me also, but I kept still because the Ma deuce
is automatic, is a rifle, and is made by Browning.

The Ma Duce is even less of a rifle than the BAR (which isn't really a
rifle, but the terminology wasn't sorted out in 1917 when John
Browning invented the thing.) It's a heavy machine gun.

Ma deuce is definitely a heavy carry, also definitely a rifle. Maybe
ya gotta use it to appreciate it. It works a treat.

If we're talking about the M2 here, it is a heavy machine gun, not a
rifle. (Okay, so it has a rifled barrel)

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:07:47 -0800, Bob wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

And if you're not a criminal, you're not going to commit a crime no matter
how many guns you have.

So - if you are not a criminal, you cannot become one??

You're either a good person, or a bad person. The presence of a
firearm, or a dozen firearms, or a hundred firearms, is not
going to change you from one to the other.

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote back on Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:23:45 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :

And banning it will stop the terrorists getting one.
Only at the local gun store. They will simply drive them across the boarder,
boat them in, and cargo box them in. No sweat. Oh - just buy on the black or
gray market. The bad guys have avenues open to them that citizens don't.

Actually, the bad guys have avenues open which citizens don't avail
themselves of, or don't know how to avail themselves of.

Put another way, one drawback to not being a user of recreational
pharmaceuticals is, I don't have any contacts who might know someone who
might know someone who could put me in touch with the guy who has what I'm
after. I knew some people who knew some people, who might know ... but
they moved. And I can't find "Fast Eddie" in the phone book, nor is there
a listing for Black Market. (I even looked under "Taxidermy.")


toodles
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 11 Jan 2005 21:22:52 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:15:39 GMT, pyotr filipivich wrote:

Watching the coverage, it reminded me of a lot of "oh my god, he's got
three guns and a thousand rounds!" kind of ignorance. Heck, the only
reason I don't have three guns and thousand rounds in the bedroom is that
one gun lives elsewhere, and I'm low on ammo.

1000 rounds? That's not much at all, I've probably got more than that
in a half dozen calibers at any given time. Why tool up to reload a batch
if you're not going to reload like you mean it? Besides, primers come in
boxes of 1000 anyway, so it's a good number to work with.

Well, I'm not set up to roll my own. I had more ammo, but I traded the
gun and the ammo for two Colt Navey Revolvers, and a pound of powder.
"Happy, happy, he got screwed." Of course, he can hit the target with it,
and I couldn't ...

tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:31:43 GMT, pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 11 Jan 2005 21:22:52 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :

1000 rounds? That's not much at all, I've probably got more than that
in a half dozen calibers at any given time. Why tool up to reload a batch
if you're not going to reload like you mean it? Besides, primers come in
boxes of 1000 anyway, so it's a good number to work with.

Well, I'm not set up to roll my own.

www.dillonprecision.com makes some fantastic reloading equipment. Best
customer service I've ever experienced, excellent engineering, and
their products are a joy to use. They've sent me updated parts for my
press, for free, "just because", and the people who answer the phone
know the product so well that they've been able to answer my complicated
questions immediately.

I had more ammo, but I traded the
gun and the ammo for two Colt Navey Revolvers, and a pound of powder.

Fun, aren't they?

"Happy, happy, he got screwed." Of course, he can hit the target with it,
and I couldn't ...

When both parties think they got the better side of the trade, and
they're both happy, that's about right.

Dave Hinz wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:07:47 -0800, Bob
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

And if you're not a criminal, you're not going to commit a crime no
matter how many guns you have.

So - if you are not a criminal, you cannot become one??

You're either a good person, or a bad person. The presence of a
firearm, or a dozen firearms, or a hundred firearms, is not
going to change you from one to the other.

But the presence of one bad politician or banker *will* I guarantee. ;0)

On 12 Jan 2005 21:35:58 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:07:47 -0800, Bob wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

And if you're not a criminal, you're not going to commit a crime no matter
how many guns you have.

So - if you are not a criminal, you cannot become one??

You're either a good person, or a bad person. The presence of a
firearm, or a dozen firearms, or a hundred firearms, is not
going to change you from one to the other.

I'd phrase it slightly differently. You're either prone to commit
violence or your're not. "Criminal" implies someone who has been
convicted of a crime. Many of these people have never been convicted
until they do something like kill someone.

But the principle is right on.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:14:49 GMT, wrote:
On 12 Jan 2005 21:35:58 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

You're either a good person, or a bad person. The presence of a
firearm, or a dozen firearms, or a hundred firearms, is not
going to change you from one to the other.

I'd phrase it slightly differently. You're either prone to commit
violence or your're not. "Criminal" implies someone who has been
convicted of a crime. Many of these people have never been convicted
until they do something like kill someone.

Subtle but important difference. Good point.

But the principle is right on.

Of course. But the thing is, there are people who _think_ about
things, and then there are people who _feel_ about things. This sort
of logic doesn't work on the second group.

Dave Hinz

On 11 Jan 2005 18:33:55 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:


I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with it.

Works really well as witnessed by the criminalization of recreational
pharmacuticals didnt it?

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On 11 Jan 2005 21:46:19 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
snip------


I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you
can't
commit a crime with it.

Chuckle! That's what's wrong. That's flawed thinking.

The crime and the weapon of choice typically have nothing to do with one
another. So long as a person is hell bent on doing the wrong thing,

Oops, I see I've not quite got what I meant over, to you and the other
responder.

Reduce the number of .50 cal weapons legally held, and you reduce the
chances that a legal owner will commit a crime with one. (neglecting the
small point that none have yet)

I'm arguing the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with that gun.

Not that you can't commit a crime without a gun.

Some crimes are impulse crimes.
If you see someone doing something that you violently object to (sleeping
with your (of age) daughter/...), peeing outside your driveway, ...

You can pick up a gun and shoot them immediately.
Or just run outside and start beating on them.

The first is more likely to result in a death, and conviction for murder.

Of course, if there is premeditation, something else can be substituted for
the gun.

Assuming that you were not emasculated in a terrible belt sander
accident, the fact you own a penis makes you a potential rapist.

Please visit the Dehorning Clinic in the morning to remove that
terrible instrument.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Gunner wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005 18:33:55 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:


I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with it.

Works really well as witnessed by the criminalization of recreational
pharmacuticals didnt it?

Yep.
No drug problem in either the US or UK.
Prohibition was a startling success too.