60 Minutes still can not get it right. (gun control)

[Ranb]

Yeah, it's another gun control rant.

CBS 60 Minutes news program just broadcast their piece about 50 caliber rifles again. Transcript is here. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/06/60minutes/main665257.shtml It is the same 13 minute bias inaccurate piece of crap shown back in January. I addressed inaccuracies on another post here, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=51078&highlight=minutes+caliber

The let stand the claim that no one in the Federal government has any idea who owns these guns. I can only guess that their investigation failed to uncover the fact that dealers maintain records that are accessible to the ATF, or that dealers also keep 4473 forms of all sales to civilians.

They also kept the little piece about the NYPD's rigged demonstration of the capabilities of the 50 BMG as compared to their 30 caliber rifles.

I as well as others sent e-mails to CBS asking why this program was so full of errors, and why they let gun control advocates lie on their program. I know that reporters can make mistakes, but replaying a program they should now know is full of errors makes their "mistakes" lies.

Ranb

[TeaBag420]

What you said about Form 4473 isn't entirely accurate.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=82

[Ranb]

Hmmmmm, what did I get wrong? Dealers fill out 4473 for sale to unlicensed people. They keep the forms until they go out of business then send them into the ATF.

Ranb

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by Ranb
Hmmmmm, what did I get wrong? Dealers fill out 4473 for sale to unlicensed people. They keep the forms until they go out of business then send them into the ATF.

Ranb

No 4473 for Class III weapons, plus other cases. Click on the link I provided.

[Ranb]

Thanks. I was focusing on the rifles not controlled by the NFA of 1934. One of the efforts to ban 50 caliber rifles involved putting them under the NFA and banning future transfer.

Ranb

[Ryokan]

Speaking as an ex-military, why would civilians want .50 caliber guns?! What sane government would want their civilians to own .50 caliber guns?!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Speaking as an ex-military, why would civilians want .50 caliber guns?! What sane government would want their civilians to own .50 caliber guns?! Why would any sane person want an automobile with over 200 horsepower engine? They kill thousands of people every year, and waste millions of gallons of fuel..


I don't think a .50 caliber gun has killed anyone in the U.S. recently or used a single drop of fuel...

[merphie]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Speaking as an ex-military, why would civilians want .50 caliber guns?! What sane government would want their civilians to own .50 caliber guns?!

I have a 50 caliber pistol. I have it mainly for the same reason I have the other guns. It's fun to shoot.

I wouldn't use it for much else other than target practice because it's not practical.

Such a large rifle could be useful in hunting big/dangerous game.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Why would any sane person want an automobile with over 200 horsepower engine? They kill thousands of people every year, and waste millions of gallons of fuel..


I don't think a .50 caliber gun has killed anyone in the U.S. recently or used a single drop of fuel...

Civil war count?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
I have a 50 caliber pistol. I have it mainly for the same reason I have the other guns. It's fun to shoot.

I wouldn't use it for much else other than target practice because it's not practical.

I think "rifle" is the keyword, here. People are remembering that damnable DC "sniper", and the whole ability to kill from a distance is frightening.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Why would any sane person want an automobile with over 200 horsepower engine? They kill thousands of people every year, and waste millions of gallons of fuel..


I don't think a .50 caliber gun has killed anyone in the U.S. recently or used a single drop of fuel... But I am guessing that no .50 caliber gun has managed to get the entire carpool gang to soccer practice, either. I could be wrong, of course...

[corplinx]

60 Minutes has been highly anti-gun to the point of being a propaganda outlet (propaganda is a term so thrown around that it has lost its impact, but i am truely serious).

If you remember, they did a piece on ballistic fingerprinting about 3 years ago maybe where they spun it to look like Glock was in favor of this mythical beast.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I think "rifle" is the keyword, here. People are remembering that damnable DC "sniper", and the whole ability to kill from a distance is frightening.

Too bad he was using a .223 Remington. So where does the 50 caliber come in? Any typical hunting rifle could be just as lethal if not better. 50 caliber is a bg chunk of lead and much harder to get down range accurately.

Unfortunately, you will never get rid of all the psycos. Guns don't make the killer. Some the biggest serial killers never used a gun in their crime.

[merphie]

double post

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
Too bad he was using a .223 Remington. So where does the 50 caliber come in? Any typical hunting rifle could be just as lethal if not better. 50 caliber is a bg chunk of lead and much harder to get down range accurately.

Unfortunately, you will never get rid of all the psycos. Guns don't make the killer. Some the biggest serial killers never used a gun in their crime.

It comes in because it's even scarier than the previously scary thing. Someone bitten by a small shark is going to fear big sharks as well.

Fear is almost as good a motivator as greed, when it comes to passing laws.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
It comes in because it's even scarier than the previously scary thing. Someone bitten by a small shark is going to fear big sharks as well.

Fear is almost as good a motivator as greed, when it comes to passing laws.

Except for in this case the big shark is also slow and stupid.


I get you meaning.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Speaking as an ex-military, why would civilians want .50 caliber guns?! What sane government would want their civilians to own .50 caliber guns?!

Most 50 caliber rifles were designed for civilian use. If no one were willing to use them in crime, why would anyone care about them at all? Did the Norwegian government have to ban them there to keep Norwegian terrorists from destroying the economy there? Are 50 caliber guns in Norway reserved exclusively for government use? In the USA, we are allowed to anything that is not actually illegal. I was not aware that Norwegians must obtain the right to do something before they can actually do it. (Yes, this is sarcasm)

Why should I care if the government wants me to have 50 caliber guns? It really is none of their business. Speaking as retired miltary, I can say that 50 caliber rifles are well suited for civilian use in the USA. They have a safety record far better than any firearm from 22 caliber to 12 gauge.

Ranb

[shecky]

Originally posted by Ranb
Speaking as retired miltary, I can say that 50 caliber rifles are well suited for civilian use in the USA. They have a safety record far better than any firearm from 22 caliber to 12 gauge.

Ranb

Have any numbers for that? Not that any particular caliber is generally unsafe, but .22lr (and most any other cartridge) is bound to have more accidents/failures than any .50 simply because they're far more common.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by shecky
Have any numbers for that? Not that any particular caliber is generally unsafe, but .22lr (and most any other cartridge) is bound to have more accidents/failures than any .50 simply because they're far more common.

You are right about comparing numbers. As far as I know, there have only been four cases involving the use 50 caliber rifles in violent crime recently (1934 and later) in the United States. There is some data here, http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm . Various people have been arrested for criminal procession of firearms that happened to be 50 caliber rifles, but the actual use in violent crime is very rare. No one has ever been murdered by a civilian in the USA using a 50 caliber rifle in the last 70 years. Some people act like "chicken little", the sky is not falling and 50 caliber rifles do not represent the kind of threat that justifies making ownerhip of them a felony.

if you have additional data showing how 50 caliber rifles are used in violent crime, then I would like to see it. Thanks.

Ranb

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ranb
Are 50 caliber guns in Norway reserved exclusively for government use?

Yes and no. While there are no explicit regulations on calibre size in Norway, the possession of firearms is prohibited by default, but persons can be given permission to "procure and possess" firearms if they're "sensible and trustworthy [stable]" and has a sufficient requirement for a firearm (primarily if you're a hunter or if you're a member of a gun club and require it for sport shooting.) However, the permission is specific to the type and calibre of weapon, and the weapon must be legal for(*) and suited for the stated requirement. Also, permissions are not granted for "full or semi-automatic firearms of military nature."

You might get a permission for a .50 calibre pistol for sport shooting, but I believe the chance of getting a permission for a .50 calibre rifle is practically nil as it's not legal for hunting and it's not suitable for use in the gun clubs. (There are other acceptable requirements that would let someone own a .50 calibre rifle, such as weapon collection, but even there it would be difficult.)

(*) There are rather strict rules as to the weapons that are legal for various types of hunting in Norway.

In the USA, we are allowed to anything that is not actually illegal.

So you're basically saying that you're allowed to do anything that's legal, but not anything that's legal? Funny, that's how it's here too.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
So you're basically saying that you're allowed to do anything that's legal, but not anything that's legal? Funny, that's how it's here too.

The nature of our constitution is that it is not proscriptive. That is to say that there is a basic, elemental, right to own weapons. Legislation on specific weapons is another matter and is the basis for this talk about the .50.

The notion of a government saying that one need be "sensible and trustworthy [stable]" is interesting. Presumably it is up to some burocrat to make that determination. Here it must be objective. That is to say the reasons for not issueing a license are clearly spelled out and if you don't have one of those problems a license must be issued (that is Connecticut, other states may vary). It is not up to the state to tell you whether you have a "need". Since gun ownership is the default condition, it is up to the government to justify their acts to the citizen, not the reverse as appears to be the case in Norway.

Now, this does not always work. Government (on a federal, state or local level) is made up of two classes of people: The burocratic drone, sucking on the teat of the public who must justify their stupid job at all costs AND the goat fornicating elected official that is often mentally unbalanced with the need for power and the absolute conviction that they, and they alone, know what is best for you. The countervailing force is the legislature which is made up of people that are somewhat more accountable to that actual people. They suck, too, but their need for power must take into account the possibility of not getting elected. That said, since people here like guns, the power of the executive gets curtailed.

It must have been easier in Norway in Viking times. If you wanted a .50BMG and someone said "no" you simply bashed his head in with a sword. Case closed. No whining, no chicks putting in their 2 cents, no debate. An up or down vote, to steal an expression from some of our resident low lives.

I hope that this clears up any questions that you had. Everything that I have written is 100% true.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
.....Also, permissions are not granted for "full or semi-automatic firearms of military nature."

You might get a permission for a .50 calibre pistol for sport shooting, but I believe the chance of getting a permission for a .50 calibre rifle is practically nil as it's not legal for hunting and it's not suitable for use in the gun clubs. .....

My "In the USA, we are allowed to anything that is not actually illegal." comment was a stab at Ryokan's "What sane government would want their civilians to own .50 caliber guns?!" It seemed rather silly that it should matter if my rifle is a 1/4" bore or a 1/2" bore.

Why are 50 caliber rifles not legal for hunting or suitable for use in gun clubs? 50BMG is not the only 50 caliber chambering available. Are the smaller cartridges such as 50-70 (black powder) also difficult to aquire? I am asking these questions because I have been unable to find answers in English on the net. Thanks.

Ranb

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ed
The nature of our constitution is that it is not proscriptive. That is to say that there is a basic, elemental, right to own weapons. Legislation on specific weapons is another matter and is the basis for this talk about the .50.

The nature of the Norwegian constitution is no different, and like the laws of the USA, the laws of Norway is based on the concept that "Anything that isn't explicitly forbidden is permissible." However, unlike the USA, the Norwegian legislation (but not the constitution) has explicitly forbidden the ownership of firearms (and then given a number of exceptions to this.) This is no different from when US law explicitly forbids something.

The difference between US and Norwegian law on the ownership of guns lies thus not in the nature of their repsective constitutions, but in in the paticular contents of them -- in particular the US constitution's first amendment.

The notion of a government saying that one need be "sensible and trustworthy [stable]" is interesting. Presumably it is up to some burocrat to make that determination.

Actual, the decision lies with the executive arm ("embetsverket") as the decision nominally lies with the chiefs of police.

It must have been easier in Norway in Viking times. If you wanted a .50BMG and someone said "no" you simply bashed his head in with a sword. Case closed. No whining, no chicks putting in their 2 cents, no debate. An up or down vote, to steal an expression from some of our resident low lives.

Actually, the Vikings had a quite extensive legal system and some suprisingly modern seeming laws, and for instance Gulatingslova enshrined rules for procurement and inspection of personal weapons. (Of course, as the free farmers were also the military might, the laws were angled at ensuring that people had the right arms rather than prohibtition.)

[merphie]

Originally posted by Ranb
You are right about comparing numbers. As far as I know, there have only been four cases involving the use 50 caliber rifles in violent crime recently (1934 and later) in the United States. There is some data here, http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm . Various people have been arrested for criminal procession of firearms that happened to be 50 caliber rifles, but the actual use in violent crime is very rare. No one has ever been murdered by a civilian in the USA using a 50 caliber rifle in the last 70 years. Some people act like "chicken little", the sky is not falling and 50 caliber rifles do not represent the kind of threat that justifies making ownerhip of them a felony.

if you have additional data showing how 50 caliber rifles are used in violent crime, then I would like to see it. Thanks.

Ranb

I just like VPC style. Their evidence of crimes with 50 caliber include things that are already crimes. For example, the first instance stays

"In March of 2005, Kyle Harness of Marina del Rey, California, was arrested after being pulled over on a traffic stop and found to be in possession of a stolen Armalite 50 caliber sniper rifle. Harness was stopped for having a broken taillight and false registration tags, and was on parole for armed robbery at the time of his arrest. (“Officer Finds Rifle in Parolee’s Car,� Daily Breeze, March 15, 2005) "

In June of 2000, Robert W. Stewart of Mesa, Arizona, a convicted felon, was charged with felony possession of firearms for being in possession of Maadi-Griffin 50 caliber "kit guns" he was selling from his home, along with other firearms alleged to be in his possession. Stewart has become a folk hero among hard-line gun advocates and 50 caliber enthusiasts. He was distinguished, among other things, by his assertion that convicted felons have the right to possess firearms: "I don't care if he's a mass murderer, he killed 50,000 people. He still has a right to have a gun. A gun is just a tool." (MSNBC transcript, "The .50-caliber militia," http://msnbc.com/news, May 15, 2001)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Speaking as an ex-military, why would civilians want .50 caliber guns?! What sane government would want their civilians to own .50 caliber guns?!

1. I fired the .50 cal. Barrett while in the US Army, and boy was it fun. It also requires great skill to fire accurately at extreme range.

Am I allowed to have fun? Am I allowed to hone my shooting skills, or compete against fellow gun enthusiasts?

2. My right to bear arms is not conditional upon what the government wants.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Kodiak
1. I fired the .50 cal. Barrett while in the US Army, and boy was it fun. It also requires great skill to fire accurately at extreme range.

Am I allowed to have fun? Am I allowed to hone my shooting skills, or compete against fellow gun enthusiasts?

2. My right to bear arms is not conditional upon what the government wants. So, you are in favor of arming bears?




I couldn't stop myself. Sorry.

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by Kodiak
1. I fired the .50 cal. Barrett while in the US Army, and boy was it fun. It also requires great skill to fire accurately at extreme range.

As does any firearm. Actually, the firing part is easy. It's the accuracy part that's tough.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kodiak
2. My right to bear arms is not conditional upon what the government wants.

You have bear arms? Yuch. Oughta see a doc about that.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Yes and no. While there are no explicit regulations on calibre size in Norway, the possession of firearms is prohibited by default, but persons can be given permission to "procure and possess" firearms if they're "sensible and trustworthy [stable]" and has a sufficient requirement for a firearm (primarily if you're a hunter or if you're a member of a gun club and require it for sport shooting.) However, the permission is specific to the type and calibre of weapon, and the weapon must be legal for(*) and suited for the stated requirement. Also, permissions are not granted for "full or semi-automatic firearms of military nature."

You might get a permission for a .50 calibre pistol for sport shooting, but I believe the chance of getting a permission for a .50 calibre rifle is practically nil as it's not legal for hunting and it's not suitable for use in the gun clubs. (There are other acceptable requirements that would let someone own a .50 calibre rifle, such as weapon collection, but even there it would be difficult.)

(*) There are rather strict rules as to the weapons that are legal for various types of hunting in Norway.


Your system is quite similar to the UK system. You need to have "good reason" to possess a firearm. This may be either land to hunt on or permission to hunt on someone elses land.. Or you need to be a member of a rifle or shotgun club. The gun does have to suit the "good reason" ie. you are not going to get a shotgun if you are a member of a .22 target rifle club but there is no proscribed caliber for any specific game. You cant have any handgun except black-powder nor can you have any automatic rifle. You can have semi-automatic .22 and there are virtually no restrictions on shotguns- you can have a semi-auto with a 50 round magazine if there was such a thing.

And yes, you can have a .50!

Some of this may change though- there is a review due soon and I fear that many types of shooting are going to get the chop. This, even though the Home Office's own research and Analysis shows that legally-owned weapons neither contribute to crime or are a result of a significant number of serious accidents (compared, for example to golf). I guess the government can do this because shooters are a minority and are mostly white, middle class and male- a section of the population easily victimised because it isnt black/asian/muslim/female/asylum-seeking/disabled or all of the above.

PS.
I recently bought an Anshutz 1807 with a custom trigger- although I dont legally own it as you need a gun-safe attached to the structure of your house before you can get a firearms certificate- in the meantime its nominally the property of my rifle club. Lovely rifle though!

[richardm]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
there is no proscribed caliber for any specific game.

Actually if you're shooting deer there is a minimum calibre in England - or a minimum bullet weight and muzzle velocity in Scotland, which also limits your choice of calibre I should think. For Red deer, you must use a minimum bullet weight of 100 grains, with a minimum muzzle velocity of 2450 ft/sec, 1750 ft/lbs muzzle energy. My local deer management guy uses a .308, I seem to recall.

In England it's a minimum .240 round with a minimum muzzle energy of 1700 ft/lbs - why the difference in ft/lbs I don't know.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ranb
Why are 50 caliber rifles not legal for hunting or suitable for use in gun clubs?

They are not illegal for hunting per se, but there are other restrictions (such as to the number of rounds in the magasine) that would have to be fullfilled. However, even if the rifle is not illegal for hunting, it still has to be deemed appropriate for hunting. It's possible that a .50 calibre rifle might be deemed appropriate, but I doubt it, as for the types of hunting done in Norway a smaller calibre rifle would be more appropriate.

As for gun clubs, you will only get a license for weapons that suit the "programs" of the gun club; that is, the types of shooting the club competes in. So, if you join a gun-club that only competes in pistol-shooting, you won't get a license for a rifle or shotgun, and you'll only get licences for pistols that are appropriate for the type of shooting the club already.

I'm reaching the extent of my knowledge about the shooting sport in Norway, but as far as I know there are no shooting programs or competitions for which .50 rifles would be appropriate, and I would be surprised there are.

Edited to add: Actually, it seems there are one type of shooting program which allows you to get certain rifles of calibre 50 or greater: black powder shooting. Mea Culpa.

50BMG is not the only 50 caliber chambering available. Are the smaller cartridges such as 50-70 (black powder) also difficult to aquire?

I would assume so, yes.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
....I'm reaching the extent of my knowledge about the shooting sport in Norway, but as far as I know there are no shooting programs or competitions for which .50 rifles would be appropriate, and I would be surprised there are. .......

Thanks. Sure sounds oppressive. I participate in competitions using my 45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, and a single shot 50
BMG rifle. I'm glad I can keep the guns in the house (in a safe), instead of locked up at a club like some places require. It is fun to take the 50 cal out and blow up rocks at the local range, or knock down bowling pins with the 45.

Ranb

I started this thread about CBS's lack of integrity. I was hoping it would not get dragged down into a debate on why people should or should not be able to own certain rifles.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ranb
Thanks. Sure sounds oppressive. I participate in competitions using my 45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, and a single shot 50
BMG rifle. I'm glad I can keep the guns in the house (in a safe), instead of locked up at a club like some places require. It is fun to take the 50 cal out and blow up rocks at the local range, or knock down bowling pins with the 45.



By the way, I could keep the rifle in my house if I had a safe- and since I rent and my landlord wouldnt be thrilled at finding a dirty great safe drilled into his walls..... well when I buy my own house someday... (Also, this law doesnt bother me at all as I wouldnt want a firearm in my house were it not in a safe in the first place).

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ranb
Thanks. Sure sounds oppressive.

How so? You can basically get whatever weapon you need (including for recreational shooting) as long as you can point to a reasonable reason why that weapon is appropriate to a task. Yes, you have to have a slightly better reason than "I want one of those" to get one, but I don't think that is enough to make the system oppressive.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Speaking as an ex-military, why would civilians want .50 caliber guns?! Why does anyone want anything that is not necassary?

What sane government would want their civilians to own .50 caliber guns?! Why not?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by RandFan
Why does anyone want anything that is not necassary?


Yeah...That's one of those gun control arguments that holds as much water as a fishing net. "But, why do you want a 50-cal rifle?" None of your %^&*ing business unless I threaten you with it.

I went to the GA Rennaisance Festival this weekend with some friends of mine. I wound up winning a nice steel dagger and bought a Japanese katana (curved sword) at a steel (heh) for $20.

Why did I want those? Who cares?* Why do I have to rationalize my purchases to you, the government, or anyone? None of your business.

A few years ago I bought a motorcycle. Why did I want it--after all, I've got a perfectly good car. Who cares?** None of your business.

Justifying laws banning or regulating a certain kind of rifle based on "why do you want one" makes as much sense as justifying laws banning motorcycles or knives based on "why do you want one." It's none of your business unless I use them to infringe on your rights.



* Because they're cool.

** Because it's cool. And, it's fun.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cleon
Yeah...That's one of those gun control arguments that holds as much water as a fishing net. "But, why do you want a 50-cal rifle?" None of your %^&*ing business unless I threaten you with it.

I went to the GA Rennaisance Festival this weekend with some friends of mine. I wound up winning a nice steel dagger and bought a Japanese katana (curved sword) at a steel (heh) for $20.

Why did I want those? Who cares?* Why do I have to rationalize my purchases to you, the government, or anyone? None of your business.

A few years ago I bought a motorcycle. Why did I want it--after all, I've got a perfectly good car. Who cares?** None of your business.

Justifying laws banning or regulating a certain kind of rifle based on "why do you want one" makes as much sense as justifying laws banning motorcycles or knives based on "why do you want one." It's none of your business unless I use them to infringe on your rights.



* Because they're cool.

** Because it's cool. And, it's fun. Cool. I have always wanted a 50cal BMG. I can't explain it but then I can't really explain why I like lot's of things. I just do.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Cleon
Yeah...That's one of those gun control arguments that holds as much water as a fishing net. "But, why do you want a 50-cal rifle?" None of your %^&*ing business unless I threaten you with it.

I went to the GA Rennaisance Festival this weekend with some friends of mine. I wound up winning a nice steel dagger and bought a Japanese katana (curved sword) at a steel (heh) for $20.

Why did I want those? Who cares?* Why do I have to rationalize my purchases to you, the government, or anyone? None of your business.

A few years ago I bought a motorcycle. Why did I want it--after all, I've got a perfectly good car. Who cares?** None of your business.

Justifying laws banning or regulating a certain kind of rifle based on "why do you want one" makes as much sense as justifying laws banning motorcycles or knives based on "why do you want one." It's none of your business unless I use them to infringe on your rights.



* Because they're cool.

** Because it's cool. And, it's fun.

I bought a sword too. It is very cool. It was really fun to harvest sunflowers with. I know! I commited herbicide and enjoyed every minute of it. I even ate my victims!

However I don't want a motorcycle and therefor I think you shouldn't either. They should be banned! ;)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by RandFan
Cool. I have always wanted a 50cal BMG. I can't explain it but then I can't really explain why I like lot's of things. I just do.

The way we geeks justify that feeling is usually "because it's cool!" :)

[merphie]

Originally posted by RandFan
Cool. I have always wanted a 50cal BMG. I can't explain it but then I can't really explain why I like lot's of things. I just do.

How about a FN90? I've been wanting one of those.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by merphie
How about a FN90? I've been wanting one of those. Never heard of it before. Looked it up on google. Cool.

[merphie]

Originally posted by RandFan
Never heard of it before. Looked it up on google. Cool.

I've seen the ammo at gun shows. There are about $600 for the pistol.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
How so? You can basically get whatever weapon you need (including for recreational shooting) as long as you can point to a reasonable reason why that weapon is appropriate to a task. Yes, you have to have a slightly better reason than "I want one of those" to get one, but I don't think that is enough to make the system oppressive.

This thread demonstrates that we do in fact live a half a world apart. I never had to point to a reason to own any of my weapons, except for my suppressors (silencers). The reason stated on the ATF form I filled out for making them was, "enhance firearms collection". I also think American gun control laws tend to be oppressive also. They are more or less aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Ranb

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Ranb
I also think American gun control laws tend to be oppressive also. They are more or less aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

They "tend to be" oppressive in the same sense that Rosie O'Donnell "tends to be" obnoxious. There's an endless stream of red tape, firearms are given legal labels (like "assault rifle", for example) that seem to come directly from the mothership, etc. Most of the laws don't even make sense. The only remotely rational gun control legislation I've seen in the past ten years are the criminal background checks.