Should using .50cal (12.7mm) weapons against humans be illegal? I have to wonder why it should be. While I would not want to be hit by a .50cal round, I would not want to be hit by a .30cal (7.62mm) round either. Why do some people find a moral difference here?
Poll
Should using .50 Caliber weapons against humans be illegal
| Yes | 21% | 21% - 81 | ||||
| No | 78% | 78% - 296 | ||||
| Total: 377 | ||||||
no conventional weapon should be illegal when it comes to war.
American "authorities", especially in California, want to ban 50 cal weapons because their behavior is such that they know they should get whacked, and 50 calibre weapons defeat all body armor.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
no conventional weapon should be illegal when it comes to war.
For regular law enforcement and military use, I would have to say yes. I don't see why anyone need to blow holes in people. That being said, I don't have anything against it being used to penetrate light armour to get to targets (Armour-plated cars, APCs, tactical shields, ect. - Not body armour).
So.. am I to understand you to say I can have a fidty, but the man shouldn't?
I think I like you.
By the way, a 50 doesn't blow holes in people; it chunkifies them. A shot to the upper arm would tear your whole body into pieces. A shot to the torso and fido would be playing fetch with your ribs...dude, its unbelievable.
BTW what do you think the field where Audy Murphy won his medal of honor looked like? My guess would be a pop tart covered in strawberry jam. He killed about 50 men with a tank mounted 50 calibre machine gun in one engagement.
I think I like you.
By the way, a 50 doesn't blow holes in people; it chunkifies them. A shot to the upper arm would tear your whole body into pieces. A shot to the torso and fido would be playing fetch with your ribs...dude, its unbelievable.
BTW what do you think the field where Audy Murphy won his medal of honor looked like? My guess would be a pop tart covered in strawberry jam. He killed about 50 men with a tank mounted 50 calibre machine gun in one engagement.
Last edited by yerded (2006-05-31 22:46:26)
Audy Murphy....hes kind of a big deal
I would say use it only when you need it, like penetrating through something..
The only time it should be used against a human is if the human was behind armored walls or thick glass or something like that
The only time it should be used against a human is if the human was behind armored walls or thick glass or something like that
I think the average citizen should not be able to own a gun like that. But for police or military it should be OK.
I thought it'd be implied that if law enforcement wasn't supposed to use them, they shouldn't be sold to private owners. I have nothing against hunting or hunting weaponry, and I like to shoot. I just don't in any way see a genuine need for a .50cal rifle, unless you're hunting dinasaurs.yerded wrote:
So.. am I to understand you to say I can have a fidty, but the man shouldn't?
I think I like you.
By the way, a 50 doesn't blow holes in people; it chunkifies them. A shot to the upper arm would tear your whole body into pieces. A shot to the torso and fido would be playing fetch with your ribs...dude, its unbelievable.
BTW what do you think the field where Audy Murphy won his medal of honor looked like? My guess would be a pop tart covered in strawberry jam. He killed about 50 men with a tank mounted 50 calibre machine gun in one engagement.
Mounted on vehicles in their automatic form is also just fine by me. I was specifically referring to the scoped rifles chambered for similar rounds. Sorry for not clarifying.
When the shit hits the fan you will use whatever gun you can.
What I can't figure out is why California wants to ban a gun that has never been used or associated
with any crime. These .50 cal rifles are not cheep and they are huge. It is not a gun that a gang banger is going to be lugging around the streets.
As far as the .50 cal being able to defeat all body armor is true but to the best of my knowledge any high powered rifle (i.e .308, .223, 7.62) will defeat regular law enforcement bullet proof vests. I dont know about the military body armor but I think the only way to stop a high powered rifle round is to use a ceramic plate in the vests.
What I can't figure out is why California wants to ban a gun that has never been used or associated
with any crime. These .50 cal rifles are not cheep and they are huge. It is not a gun that a gang banger is going to be lugging around the streets.
As far as the .50 cal being able to defeat all body armor is true but to the best of my knowledge any high powered rifle (i.e .308, .223, 7.62) will defeat regular law enforcement bullet proof vests. I dont know about the military body armor but I think the only way to stop a high powered rifle round is to use a ceramic plate in the vests.
With a .50 the chance off it being a fatal shot is higher than a 7.62mm round. I'll take the .50.RAIMIUS wrote:
Should using .50cal (12.7mm) weapons against humans be illegal? I have to wonder why it should be. While I would not want to be hit by a .50cal round, I would not want to be hit by a .30cal (7.62mm) round either. Why do some people find a moral difference here?
Depends where you are. All's fair in war, so you could get a 20mm tracer and still not be morally demeaned.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
"Just a damn minute, Lootenant! That's an on-foot A-rab, not a veeyickle! Put that rifle away and get out a smaller one...quick, buhfore he disappears!"mikkel wrote:
For regular law enforcement and military use, I would have to say yes. I don't see why anyone need to blow holes in people. That being said, I don't have anything against it being used to penetrate light armour to get to targets (Armour-plated cars, APCs, tactical shields, ect. - Not body armour).
Don't see that happening anytime soon...
I suppose an instant-kill .50 to the torso is alot more inhumane than a small-caliber, fatal sucking wound. Really, all that matters is the sensibilities of those who have to see the resultant corpses, right? The dead don't matter, is that it?
Where's all the complaints about explosives and even larger projectiles killing people in war? Why all this hubub about .50's?
And for "private" use? Who can afford that shit anyway. An average criminal Joe looking to shoot up a 7-11 isn't going to bring in a $5000+ rifle for the job. If he had one, he'd sell it. I always dream of owning large-caliber rifles for collector's sake, but I have satisfy myself with an SKS-45 once I skim through the price sheets.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-06-01 01:00:43)
They could be used in game hunting?
.50 cal is for women! KPV 14,5 is what real men use! (BRDM-2 gun)
What game are you going to hunt with a .50 rifle? You know the T-Rex is extinct, don't you? Anything smaller and you're not going to have much as a trophy.Pubic wrote:
They could be used in game hunting?
A .50 cal round can go a long distance after killing someone. A 750 grain bullet might be a bit too much club for the shot anywhere around a population.
As far as for the Military, what about the 25mm round???? What about a 500lb bomb???? I honestly have no Idea why it was outlawed.
As far as for the Military, what about the 25mm round???? What about a 500lb bomb???? I honestly have no Idea why it was outlawed.
Pretty soon it'll be the US with Nerf rifles versus Haj and his roadside bombs. We'll hit a Haj in the eye by mistake, and they'll cry the soldier has to go before a war crimes tribunal.
And the reason why you won't ever see that happen is because .50cal rifles issued for anti-vehicular missions are usually just used to, y'know, shoot at vehicles, and my stand is that smaller calibre rifles should be issued when you're asked to go shoot people on foot, in fortifications, ect.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"Just a damn minute, Lootenant! That's an on-foot A-rab, not a veeyickle! Put that rifle away and get out a smaller one...quick, buhfore he disappears!"mikkel wrote:
For regular law enforcement and military use, I would have to say yes. I don't see why anyone need to blow holes in people. That being said, I don't have anything against it being used to penetrate light armour to get to targets (Armour-plated cars, APCs, tactical shields, ect. - Not body armour).
Don't see that happening anytime soon...
You've watched too many movies if you think that being shot with a higher calibre bullet from a sniper rifle doesn't mean that you die right away in many cases. If non-fatal shots really were an issue, don't you think it'd be more humane to get shot in the leg with a bullet that'd go right through, or at least leave your leg somewhat intact, rather than one that's going to rip half of it off?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I suppose an instant-kill .50 to the torso is alot more inhumane than a small-caliber, fatal sucking wound. Really, all that matters is the sensibilities of those who have to see the resultant corpses, right? The dead don't matter, is that it?
People have seen clips of those things blowing limbs off. You should be used to sensationalistic politics.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Where's all the complaints about explosives and even larger projectiles killing people in war? Why all this hubub about .50's?
So get a decommissioned one. I'd like a can of anthrax spores for collector's sake, but hey, I can't have that, either.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
And for "private" use? Who can afford that shit anyway. An average criminal Joe looking to shoot up a 7-11 isn't going to bring in a $5000+ rifle for the job. If he had one, he'd sell it. I always dream of owning large-caliber rifles for collector's sake, but I have satisfy myself with an SKS-45 once I skim through the price sheets.
? Where do people get this stuff? You know, in addition to packing a pretty good punch, the M2 has a lot more range than the smaller caliber machine guns, right? You don't suppose that is a factor too, do you?mikkel wrote:
And the reason why you won't ever see that happen is because .50cal rifles issued for anti-vehicular missions are usually just used to, y'know, shoot at vehicles, and my stand is that smaller calibre rifles should be issued when you're asked to go shoot people on foot, in fortifications, ect.
Your TOE is your TOE. You don't get issued different stuff depending on what the mission is (unless you are special ops). Nobody says, "Here's the .50, it is your anti-armor weapon and that is what you are expected to use it against." In fact, it is understood to be, "Here's the .50. If you see the enemy, grease him with it." Gunners may have an M-16 or an M-249 in the truck, but they sure as shit aren't going to switch out when it comes time to fight because someone with a sensitive stomach back home doesn't like the sizes of the holes it makes in the enemy.
Here's a fact:
If you are in the turret of a HMMWV on the .50, you are the eyes and fists of that vehicle. It doesn't matter what form the enemy takes, vehicle or dismount, you are NOT going to take the time to switch weapons or talk it over with the vehicle commander. If you do, you are likely to be responsible for the deaths of the people in that truck. Instead, you will shoot them and kill them with the weapon in your hands: the M2.JG1567JG wrote:
When the shit hits the fan you will use whatever gun you can.
The idea of saying you can't use a .50 to shoot at people is stupid. Anybody who thinks it is a good one doesn't know shit about combat. If you think the .50 is violent, cruel or unfair in use against a dismounted enemy, tough shit. War is hell, and it's kill or be killed - my vote is kill. I'm not going to give up an advantage because someone who never served is a pussy. Fortunately the idiots are not in a position to enforce their views on this point.
for civilians yeah... coz i dont see why sum1 needs a .50 cal to go hunting... but for military, hell they even have anti-matirial sniper rifles
Obviously not when we're talking about whether or not it should be illegal to use those calibres on people. Range has nothing to do with that discussion.whittsend wrote:
? Where do people get this stuff? You know, in addition to packing a pretty good punch, the M2 has a lot more range than the smaller caliber machine guns, right? You don't suppose that is a factor too, do you?mikkel wrote:
And the reason why you won't ever see that happen is because .50cal rifles issued for anti-vehicular missions are usually just used to, y'know, shoot at vehicles, and my stand is that smaller calibre rifles should be issued when you're asked to go shoot people on foot, in fortifications, ect.
I don't think you get the point. I'm talking about issuing .50cal rifles on the same level as you'd issue AT rockets to infantry, and I can assure you that you most definitely aren't told to fire at infantrymen with those things.whittsend wrote:
Your TOE is your TOE. You don't get issued different stuff depending on what the mission is (unless you are special ops). Nobody says, "Here's the .50, it is your anti-armor weapon and that is what you are expected to use it against." In fact, it is understood to be, "Here's the .50. If you see the enemy, grease him with it." Gunners may have an M-16 or an M-249 in the truck, but they sure as shit aren't going to switch out when it comes time to fight because someone with a sensitive stomach back home doesn't like the sizes of the holes it makes in the enemy.
I don't think you read my whole post. I specifically said that I have nothing against .50cals on vehicles. A HMMWV is a vehicle. A HMMWV gunner can face pretty much anything, while an infantry sniper usually expects to hit infantry and nothing else.whittsend wrote:
Here's a fact:If you are in the turret of a HMMWV on the .50, you are the eyes and fists of that vehicle. It doesn't matter what form the enemy takes, vehicle or dismount, you are NOT going to take the time to switch weapons or talk it over with the vehicle commander. If you do, you are likely to be responsible for the deaths of the people in that truck. Instead, you will shoot them and kill them with the weapon in your hands: the M2.JG1567JG wrote:
When the shit hits the fan you will use whatever gun you can.
The idea of saying you can't use a .50 to shoot at people is stupid. Anybody who thinks it is a good one doesn't know shit about combat. If you think the .50 is violent, cruel or unfair in use against a dismounted enemy, tough shit. War is hell, and it's kill or be killed - my vote is kill. I'm not going to give up an advantage because someone who never served is a pussy. Fortunately the idiots are not in a position to enforce their views on this point.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-06-01 08:30:01)
Meh, it's war, banning a weapon is pointless. "Hey, let's all go to war, but keep it safe!"
Do people seriously think that these bullets go through any sort of armour? ITS JUST A BULLET. Theres an article on Barrett's homepage correcting some misconceptions, .50cal is just a bullet. It makes little to no difference the bullet size, 1 shot can kill even with a 6mm. If you want the .50cal to be banned in war just ban war.
edit: By armour i mean ceramic kind of stuff you find on armoured transports etc. Not kevlar.
edit: By armour i mean ceramic kind of stuff you find on armoured transports etc. Not kevlar.
Last edited by Cactusfist (2006-06-01 08:37:20)