Very sad - Cooper firearms

[A4sForever]

So have garage door openers, cell phones, and pagers. Should we outlaw them?....

+139

And there you go -- still another example of why the dumbest and most ignorant, ill-informed, demagogic anti-gun/gun-control diatribes/arguments out there evolve out of: what "might" happen and why we should therefore "ban" something or other ... so it "might not" happen.

It's absolutely a hollow argument; always has been -- always will be .... it's always offered when nothing else works.

A last ditch defense put forth by the "anything" control mob ...

 

[PropAddict]

Kids drown in swimming pools (guarded and unguarded) every year. Ban swimming pools?

Sounds like someone's been reading Freakonomics. Been A while since I read it. Was it that kids are twice as likely to be killed at a house with a swimming pool than one with guns?? (Yeah, I know correlation =/= causality. Spare me.)


<<break break>>

Like many on here, I would love to have (or at least be able to shoot) that monster Flash posted. There is no practical reason why. My attraction is much the same as it was to the Barrett, which I gladly paid $2 (for each trigger squeeze) to shoot. Totally worth it, btw.

The crux, though, is that collectively our society has deemed certain weapons like these too dangerous to allow Joe Sixpack to own. Sometimes, it really pisses me off ("shall not be infringed", Nanny State, and all). Then, I see the unholy damage your average Texan can inflict on himself and others with just a can of hairspray and a cigarette, and I can see where they're coming from. Spend some time in the CC ER some weekend, you'll see what I mean.

It's our turn to decide where that threshold of "Whoa, nobody needs that; risks outweigh the benefits; BANNED" should be.

How do we do that? Close the curtain, pull the correct levers.

This month's American Rifleman, page 60 and following, has some guidance.

 

[statesman]

Sounds like someone's been reading Freakonomics. Been A while since I read it. Was it that kids are twice as likely to be killed at a house with a swimming pool than one with guns?? (Yeah, I know correlation =/= causality. Spare me.)

Haven't read Freakonomics, I've been told I should.

The arguments above were 'original' in that I didn't take them from anyone, I formulated them as I was making my last post before heading out to the shooting range. The only way to calm down after the travesty that was the Texas / Tech game last night. Drinking to forget works with women. It does not work for Texas football games.

 

[nittany03]

Then, I see the unholy damage your average Texan can inflict on himself and others with just a can of hairspray and a cigarette, and I can see where they're coming from. Spend some time in the CC ER some weekend, you'll see what I mean.

Yes, but the minute we let what Bubba the Redneck can't handle define what someone completely unrelated can or can't do is the minute this nation goes down the drain. Punish people who abuse others' rights. If you violate my rights, you lose rights of your own. That's what citations, fines, and jail time are for, and why you lose rights by committing a felony. Don't punish me for what I haven't done and only possibly might do in the future. That's how you handle children, and I am not one of them anymore.

 

[Flash]

So have garage door openers, cell phones, and pagers. Should we outlaw them? .....Only a few people in this country could provide a reason that they NEED an F-450 SupperDuty, or a Ferrari. But we havent put restrictions on these purchases simply because the population cant provide a legitimate need.

Yes, but the minute we let what Bubba the Redneck can't handle define what someone completely unrelated can or can't do is the minute this nation goes down the drain......Punish people who abuse others' rights.......Don't punish me for what I haven't done and only possibly might do in the future.

We already restrict quite a few things in this country because people have been shown to abuse them or they have been deemed too dangerous for the average citizen to use/own. Can you pick up SEMTEX at your local hardware store? How about buy a brand new automatic rifle? Try to buy Sudafed lately? Or how about controlled drugs?

And while garage door openers, cell phones and pools can kill people one way or another, since when could they punch a hole through body armor or an armored vehicle? None of them were designed as 'anti-material' weapons and need to be utilized with other items or be drastically altered to be used as terrorist tools.

My biggest point is that we place restrictions on all sorts of things, including many Constitutionally protected rights. Why should arms be any different? What makes them so different than our other rights protected by the Constitution?

 

[Random8145]

IMO, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and as such, government should have no ability to make you have to specify why you "need" any type of firearm. Same with books. Maybe if I buy books on chemical engineering, and I am a Web designer, I have some sinister plans...? Because I obviously don't "need" those books. But maybe I want to study them for fun.

Regarding weapons like tanks, attack helicopters, fighter planes, etc...well IMO unless you are a billionaire, likely a multibillionaire, I doubt you are going to be able to afford them, and even if so, there could be other considerations regarding national security, like not wanting advanced military technology to fall into the enemy's hands or whatnot for example.

As said, the burden of proof should be on the government as to why a person shouldn't be allowed a certain type of weapon.

If I want a .50 caliber or whatnot, and can afford it, I should be able to own one. Have never done it, but I imagine it's a thrill to go and blast away at targets on a range

 

[Random8145]

Why should arms be any different? What makes them so different than our other rights protected by the Constitution?

Because government gun control advocates are not reasonable. You offer them an inch and they'll take a mile.

 

[statesman]

I think by bringing up restrictions on other materials (whether explosives, medications, fertilizer) we expand the discussion to what nittany03 briefly mentioned.

It raises the question, should the government be in the business of punishing people for what they havent done? For instances there are certain fertilizers which you can not buy without a permit and if you are found in possession of them you can be prosecuted. But what if you don't go through the correct process but you are using the fertilizer for legitimate purposes?

The law is written for the purpose of keeping a chemical which can be used to make bombs out of the hands of terrorists, but if a small farmer illigally obtained the fertilizer and used it for ligitimat purposes does that make him a criminal? The farmer became a criminal but not for the reason that the law was written.

I guess from my mostly libertarian point of view we should put far less restrictions on those things you mentioned previously. Medications are over regulated in my opinion, as are fertilizers and even explosives. Just like guns these materials are OVERWHELMINGLY used for legitimate purposes even though they can be used maliciously.

I don't think the government should be telling people what they can and cant do. Not to say that there shouldnt be laws, but whenever possible I think personal freedom should come before a politician or an interest group saying 'there ought to be a law...' Especially in the name of security. Security is so overwhelmingly over used to enforce restrictions. As I said .50 cal rifles are almost never used in crimes. AR-15s, Ak-47s, and the other weapons banned in the AWB were also rarely used in crimes. This was known before the ban was written. Handguns are used in violent crime far more often than 'assault weapons'. So why didnt Clinton and the Congress go after handguns?

Its been said a million times before, in this thread and others, gun control, illicit substance control, fertalizer control arent about the things they claim to control, the restrictions are about CONTROL.

 

[Zissou]

We already restrict quite a few things in this country because people have been shown to abuse them or they have been deemed too dangerous for the average citizen to use/own. Can you pick up SEMTEX at your local hardware store? How about buy a brand new automatic rifle? Try to buy Sudafed lately? Or how about controlled drugs?

And while garage door openers, cell phones and pools can kill people one way or another, since when could they punch a hole through body armor or an armored vehicle? None of them were designed as 'anti-material' weapons and need to be utilized with other items or be drastically altered to be used as terrorist tools.

My biggest point is that we place restrictions on all sorts of things, including many Constitutionally protected rights. Why should arms be any different? What makes them so different than our other rights protected by the Constitution?

You can buy SEMTEX, PETN, RDX, and COMP B with a driver's license and a five safety course certificate.



Flash, your arguments on this thread just show one consistent pattern, you seem to feel the people are children and need to be protected from themselves. And that its the governments responsibility to create more laws to that end.

Is that how you feel Sir?

 

[Spekkio]

And while garage door openers, cell phones and pools can kill people one way or another, since when could they punch a hole through body armor or an armored vehicle? None of them were designed as 'anti-material' weapons and need to be utilized with other items or be drastically altered to be used as terrorist tools.

I admittedly have not fired a .50 cal rifle, but one look at them in the gun range here can easily explain how these things are not feesible for use in any sort of crime situation. They are absolutely huge, bulky, heavy, loud, and supposedly kick like a mule.

Again, I defer to www.gunfacts.info. They go into great depth about the .50 cal myths that are out there.

.50-CALIBER RIFLES

Myth: .50-calibers are the favorite weapon of terrorists

Fact: Most terrorist attacks are in the form of bombings (90%). Other acts, such as kidnapping (6%), armed attack (2%), arson (1%), firebombing (1%), and other methods (2%), are far less common.313 Of the “armed attacks,” the most common weapons used are fully-automatic AK-47 rifles.

Fact: A single.50 caliber rifle costs upwards of $10,000, yet terrorists can buy the favored AK-47 in Pakistan for less than $200. History shows they opt for the AK-47.

Fact: .50-caliber rifles are heavy (20-35 pounds), expensive (from $3,000 to $10,000 each, with ammunition costing $2-$5 for each round), impossible to conceal (typically four feet long), usually single shot (slow to reload), and impractical for terrorists.

Fact: .50-caliber rifles have only been used in 18 crimes in the history of the United States

The site links to primary sources if you wish to verify these claims. I have not seen any similarly concise and accurate argument put together by the anti-gun side.

 

[Flash]

You can buy SEMTEX, PETN, RDX, and COMP B with a driver's license and a five safety course certificate.

That is still a restriction though, however basic. And there are also likely other 'artificial' restricitons that are not transparent to most. Limitations including importation, marking, manufacture and investgative inquiries into large purchases. Other efforts to sanction companies and individuals that deal with such material or arms has also been used, to great effect.

Flash, your arguments on this thread just show one consistent pattern, you seem to feel the people are children and need to be protected from themselves. And that its the governments responsibility to create more laws to that end.

Is that how you feel Sir?

I feel that certain things should not be in the hands of normal citizens, simple as that.

I admittedly have not fired a .50 cal rifle, but one look at them in the gun range here can easily explain how these things are not feesible for use in any sort of crime situation. They are absolutely huge, bulky, heavy, loud, and supposedly kick like a mule.

Originally Posted by gunfacts
.50-CALIBER RIFLES

Fact: A single.50 caliber rifle costs upwards of $10,000, yet terrorists can buy the favored AK-47 in Pakistan for less than $200. History shows they opt for the AK-47.

Fact: .50-caliber rifles have only been used in 18 crimes in the history of the United States

The site links to primary sources if you wish to verify these claims. I have not seen any similarly concise and accurate argument put together by the anti-gun side.

The funny thing about facts from a site that is explicitly against 'controlling' arms is that they will use the ones to fit their argument, shockingly enough.

Probably the most effective and infamous terror campaign that the IRA waged in the 90's was sniping at British policemen and soldiers in Northern Ireland. Their preferred weapon of choice? The .50 caliber sniper rifle. Where did they get them? In this country. You would be fooling yourself if you don't think terrorists are not using them today. And what other type of rifle would we sanction a company for selling it to one of our adversaries and formally call on the country's government where the company was located to stop the sale? If you guessed .50 caliber sniper rifles, then you would be correct.

My larger point, where is the limit? The purpose-built .50 caliber sniper rifle is a pretty recent development, what is going to come next? Should there be no limits placed on what type of arms are available to the regular citizen? While it is a Constitutionally protected right, we have limits on others. Why not arms?

 

[Spekkio]

The funny thing about facts from a site that is explicitly against 'controlling' arms is that they will use the ones to fit their argument, shockingly enough.

I'm quite shocked. I still haven't seen any sort of similar website on the anti-gun side that puts together such an overwhelming amount of facts to make a convincing argument. Instead, they usually do the following...

Probably the most effective and infamous terror campaign that the IRA waged in the 90's was sniping at British policemen and soldiers in Northern Ireland. Their preferred weapon of choice? The .50 caliber sniper rifle. Where did they get them? In this country. You would be fooling yourself if you don't think terrorists are not using them today. And what other type of rifle would we sanction a company for selling it to one of our adversaries and formally call on the country's government where the company was located to stop the sale? If you guessed .50 caliber sniper rifles, then you would be correct.

Ok, you know of one example where .50 cals are used in a crime. If we banned everything that was used in a crime one time, we wouldn't be allowed to have anything at all.

You are missing the forest for the trees. The fact is that .50 cals are used in an extremely low percentage of violent crimes, terrorism included -- so low that it doesn't warrant banning them. For the record, I never claimed that terrorists don't use sniper rifles at all, and neither does the site I linked. Rather, I am claiming that it is an impracticle weapon that is used extremely rarely in such a case.

Should there be no limits placed on what type of arms are available to the regular citizen? While it is a Constitutionally protected right, we have limits on others. Why not arms?

Considering that every state that has loosened gun restrictions has seen a following fall in crime, there should not be any limit on what arms a law abiding citizen should be able to purchase, own, and carry.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

That is still a restriction though, however basic. And there are also likely other 'artificial' restricitons that are not transparent to most. Limitations including importation, marking, manufacture and investgative inquiries into large purchases. Other efforts to sanction companies and individuals that deal with such material or arms has also been used, to great effect.



I feel that certain things should not be in the hands of normal citizens, simple as that.



The funny thing about facts from a site that is explicitly against 'controlling' arms is that they will use the ones to fit their argument, shockingly enough.

Probably the most effective and infamous terror campaign that the IRA waged in the 90's was sniping at British policemen and soldiers in Northern Ireland. Their preferred weapon of choice? The .50 caliber sniper rifle. Where did they get them? In this country. You would be fooling yourself if you don't think terrorists are not using them today. And what other type of rifle would we sanction a company for selling it to one of our adversaries and formally call on the country's government where the company was located to stop the sale? If you guessed .50 caliber sniper rifles, then you would be correct.

My larger point, where is the limit? The purpose-built .50 caliber sniper rifle is a pretty recent development, what is going to come next? Should there be no limits placed on what type of arms are available to the regular citizen? While it is a Constitutionally protected right, we have limits on others. Why not arms?

No. Irish constables of the Ulster Constabulary yes. Get your facts straight there, sir. If you want to delve into whether it was right or justified for them to use that weapon against the British soldiers and Irish constables then all you need to do is peel back and read the history.

Don't use poor examples that take place in another country where sectarian violence had been going on for nearly 80 years. Bombings were common place there and it wasn't just the IRA. It was the UVF as well. It went both ways and always has. They got the weapons from here. True. How should that affect control here? It shouldn't and right now it still doesn't.

I don't know why you insist on using arguments for restriction based on what has happened outside of the country. If you're saying we should restrict the sell of arms to those outside of the country....okay that's fine I suppose. But I'm more than certain that in so doing you're going to run into some issues especially if you tip-toe on the sensitive Northern Ireland conflict that had been active. It's good business to sell weapons. Why should we be held responsible for the way people use them?

Because they might use them against us? Well then we should exercise better common sense. Selling to terrorists only amounts to something when you decide to get involved in their conflict. Afghanistan probably is a good example of that.

Also you keep reverting to why should we not have restrictions on arms, yet your arguments are progressively weakening for the restrictions.

So I'll ask the following.

Why should we have restrictions?

 

[Flash]

No. Irish constables of the Ulster Constabulary yes. Get your facts straight there, sir. If you want to delve into whether it was right or justified for them to use that weapon against the British soldiers and Irish constables then all you need to do is peel back and read the history.

I am not here to debate the Northern Irish conflict, but a terrorist is a terrorist, and the IRA (of the 60's on) and its various factions are/were terrorist organizations. I don't care what religion, race or ethnicity they are, the IRA and the UVF are terrorists who deserve nothing more than contempt. And last time I checked, Northern Ireland is still British. Those are the facts, and I do have them straight.

Don't use poor examples that take place in another country where sectarian violence had been going on for nearly 80 years. Bombings were common place there and it wasn't just the IRA.

Poor example? It is a perfect example of criminal/terrorist use of the weapon that we have been talking about, one that gunfacts and others who argue for the continued sale of these weapons conveniently fail to mention at all. And I never said anything about bombings, we are talking about .50 caliber sniper rifles, not IED's. I am talking about a specific weapon that can, and has, been used by terrorists. It's range and lethality make it an especially difficult weapon to counter.

Well then we should exercise better common sense. Selling to terrorists only amounts to something when you decide to get involved in their conflict. Afghanistan probably is a good example of that.

That has got to be one of the most idiotic and stupid things I have heard or seen in a while. Do you know where suicide bombers got their first widespread use by a modern terrorist group? How about IED's emplaced in/next-to roads? I will give you a hint, it wasn't against us. And yet they are being used against us today in Afghanistan and Iraq, by groups that did not originate their use. The proliferation of terrorist tools and weapons will eventually come back to us, because we are the biggest target in the world.

And why do you heck would you want to sell anything to terrorists in the first place? Oh, wait......

It's good business to sell weapons.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

I am not here to debate the Northern Irish conflict, but a terrorist is a terrorist, and the IRA (of the 60's on) and its various factions are/were terrorist organizations. I don't care what religion, race or ethnicity they are, the IRA and the UVF are terrorists who deserve nothing more than contempt. And last time I checked, Northern Ireland is still British. Those are the facts, and I do have them straight.



Poor example? It is a perfect example of criminal/terrorist use of the weapon that we have been talking about, one that gunfacts and others who argue for the continued sale of these weapons conveniently fail to mention at all. And I never said anything about bombings, we are talking about .50 caliber sniper rifles, not IED's. I am talking about a specific weapon that can, and has, been used by terrorists. It's range and lethality make it an especially difficult weapon to counter.



That has got to be one of the most idiotic and stupid things I have heard or seen in a while. Do you know where suicide bombers got their first widespread use by a modern terrorist group? How about IED's emplaced in/next-to roads? I will give you a hint, it wasn't against us. And yet they are being used against us today in Afghanistan and Iraq, by groups that did not originate their use. The proliferation of terrorist tools and weapons will eventually come back to us, because we are the biggest target in the world.

And why do you heck would you want to sell anything to terrorists in the first place? Oh, wait......

Actually you DON'T.

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. It is NOT part of Great Britain. That's basic geography.

It's an example of use outside of OUR country...you know the United States. The US government didn't sell the weapons to them. A privately owned business did. If you want to go after them for supporting a terrorist organization then do so. Don't go after them because they were trying to make money and thus make it a reason to restrict the sale of the arms in THIS country.

And I'm aware that you're not talking about IEDs. It's pretty apparent when I don't see anything about such in your arguments. But you're arguing for a weapon that still has killed far less than IEDs and bombs in Northern Ireland. You're presenting the argument that fits your view instead of looking at both sides.

It's not a perfect example. Face the music. It's playing plenty loud right now. You're basing a lot of your arguments on speculation. Sure we're a target. But on 9/11 they didn't use rifles or bombs.

If you've got an argument against .50s that applies in THIS country feel free to present and decimate me. But until then I think you should go back to drinking your gun control kool-aid and doing your sudoku.

Remember now. Less speculation about what will happen or more of what has happened.....in THIS country.