Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Armour piercing "hunting" rifle sold in 49 states because of alarming number of deer wearing armour   ( divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

24445 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2005 at 2:34 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

760 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

2005-01-09 02:52:10 PM  
It also has Submarine experts, Martial Arts experts, award-winning physicists, and Panda trainers.

Sometimes, they're all one person. Like me, for example. I am a Ninja, trained in killing-focused close range combat, assault weapons, quantum physics (a ninja is always prepared, and advanced understanding of physics is needed to combat four-dimensional beings), and tactical animal handling. I can teach a Panda to move through fresh snow without leaving the faintest trail, and to hit a fly with a .50 rifle from a mile away.
2005-01-09 02:52:16 PM  
If I'm not mistaken , you need a class 3 permit to own one of these..

You are mistaken. These are regular rifles, no different than any other rifle in the eyes of the law. As it should be.
2005-01-09 02:52:23 PM  
Gavin, the better question should be why should .50 cal weapons be illegal. Given the bias set in the constitution towards the right to own arms, the burden of proof should be on the government to show why the guns should be outlawed.

And although times have changed somewhat since the time the constitution was written, the right to bear arms was intended as a means of creating a popluace that could oppose, with arms, and unjust federal govermnent. In that context, military-grade, or near military-grade, weapons should be legal. The ability to pierce armor should not disqualify private ownership of a weapon, as it is entirely within the spirit of our constitutional rights.

And with regards to the article, 'terrorists could do this' and 'terrorists could do that' arguments are stupid and weak. Otherwise, we might as well outlaw anything that could be possibly turned into an explosive (fertilizer, gas, gun powder, etc), anything that can be possibly turned into a weapon, and hell, anything that might be given a sharp edge. And we would still be exposed. You cannot stop terrorism in a free and open society.
2005-01-09 02:52:26 PM  

I'm not saying that you shouldn't own guns, far from it. Own a gun and shoot targets, go hunting for all I care. I don't hunt, I don't like it but that doesn't mean it's wrong. But I think there should be a limit on guns - if we allowed .50 calibre rifles to be legal, where does it end? We'll just keep on wanting, demanding something bigger and better when we get bored of that one.

I understand that a bigger rifle will kill the animal instantly (or at least quicker) so there's less suffering, a sort of "humane hunting", if there is such a thing. But seriously, there's gotta be a limit on it somewhere.

Forget that... what if I want to go elephant hunting? Or whale hunting? Huh? Never thinking about us big game hunters are you? How bout if I wanted to hunt small aircraft? It is a man's undeniable right to hunt Cessnas in their natural habitats! Gawd made us smarter then them durn planes fer a reason! I will accept no less then a weapon firing 14.5mm armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot rounds!

In all reality though, a .50 is unnecessary, but there is no reason not to allow it. A .308 would penetrate an aircraft's winshield or skin just as easily, although a .50 would retain much more energy. The point is that if you are going to ban a specific calibre for being too deadly, you need to ban them all, and we know that that isn't going to happen.
2005-01-09 02:52:28 PM  
This .50 will go perfect with my H2.

/my penis is so hugeness
2005-01-09 02:52:48 PM  
You're allowed to hunt with .54 caliber rifles in most states. I have a .50 caliber muzzleloader. They want to ban technology that's been around for 250 years? Any smokeless powdered rifle has a range of 2 to 3 miles. Even a .22 caliber squirrel gun can reach 1.5 miles with the proper angle of trajectory. It's not the rifle anyway! It's the ammo shot thru the rifle that can pierce armor, and you can't just go to WAL-MART and buy a few boxes.
2005-01-09 02:53:29 PM  
Just because the gun is big and unnecessary doesn't mean it should be illegal. Hell, using that logic Michael Moore should be illegal.
2005-01-09 02:53:50 PM  
It's coming right for us!

[image from too old to be available]
2005-01-09 02:53:53 PM  
infinity before 2:16 pm CST. print it.
2005-01-09 02:54:01 PM  
You don't need gun control ... you need Bullet Control :D
2005-01-09 02:54:03 PM  
Fine, so terrorists can't use this gigantic weapon for uses that the article claims. So what do we need this available for anyone who wants it in 49 states?

If the answer is "bu-bu-but we have a right to own them," then tell me why I don't have the right (or you for that matter) to own a nuclear weapon.
2005-01-09 02:54:23 PM  

These weapons are not usually used for hunting purposes...they are VERY expensive toys for men who have lots of disposable income. Your average rifle would run about $3000 at least, then add on a $1000 scope. The shells go for about $5 per round. The rifles are usually used for extreme long-range shooting competitions. They are very large and extremely loud when fired....not something that can used without attracting alot of attention. Also, there are some handguns and Black-powder rifles which are chambered for .50cal. rounds (though, most of these are not truelly .50 cal.)...these do have legitimate hunting/sporting value...something which an asshat lawyer or politician will probably not take into consideration.
2005-01-09 02:55:19 PM  

I guess he hasn't seen all the paperwork you have to fill out to buy a gun. Even in Texas.

Oh yeah....because terrorists ALWAYS register their weapons properly.

2005-01-09 02:55:33 PM  
Did any of these concerned people bother to check the statistics on deaths with .50 cal rifles? No, if they did theyd be out getting people to exercise to stop Americas number one killer: heart disease.
2005-01-09 02:56:35 PM  
jarbabyj: infinity before 2:16 pm CST. print it.

No chance
2005-01-09 02:56:45 PM  
Guns are sad.
2005-01-09 02:57:01 PM  
how many rounds from a smaller more acceptable calibre does it take to equal a .50 round in damage? does it even matter? if someone wants a gun in the states and they got money, they get one. gun control? ffs they dont need to buy them from the local gun store. and if the person is a terrorist, chances are they already have guns and a supply for more guns, better than the ones you allow yourselves to buy at your gun store through "gun control".
2005-01-09 02:57:25 PM  
Once, on a very promising date I was felled by some undercooked chicken - so I for one, think amour piercing poulets should be outlawed.

What? Oh.

2005-01-09 02:57:32 PM  
Because we all know how manny gang-bangers are willing to drop $3000 or more bucks on a rifle that shoots $2 a pop ammo.

Oh wait, they use mostly stolen guns like Lorcin .380's because they can get them for $50 and isn't a hit to their tiny wallets after they dump them.
2005-01-09 02:57:53 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
why have gun control when you end up with gems like this?
2005-01-09 02:57:54 PM  

2005-01-09 02:45:31 PM phobos512

The end result of all this nonsense is that those of us who lived in California are screwed in terms of owning cool weapons, while people that live in pretty much any other state can own, as usual, whatever they want, even as ridiculous as machine guns and flamethrowers.

I'm not a hunter, but I have had the opportunity to play with a .50BMG rifle and WOW was it awesome. Target shooting at half a mile is really cool.

Something that's curious though is that .50 HANDGUNS are still legal. Yes, that's right, they make .50 handguns. And they're even legal here in California, amazingly enough. One of my local stores has two. Sure, the barrel's a foot long and they have monster recoil, but I'd think that's a bigger threat, if I were into thinking that any of these things were a threat.

Banning a weapon isn't going to stop people who want to use them from nefarious purposes from obtaining them, plain and simple.

I assume the .50 handguns you are referring to are Desert Eagles or .500 Smith & Wesson revolvers. They each use an entirely different cartridge then the aforementioned .50 rifles...The Desert Eagle is chambered in .50 Action Express and the .500 S&W is chambered in, well, .500 S&W. Both of those cartridges are like bigger versions of the .44 Magnum (big bang, but with much stubbier noses than the .50 BMG rifle rounds). The two pistol rounds are for people-stopping, and I doubt the effective range of either would pose a threat unless the target was <200 yards away. Just food for thought.
2005-01-09 02:58:12 PM  
really? check out kittz cat's post and get back to me.

I won't be here. I'll have gotten on a plane to murder the denver broncos.
2005-01-09 02:58:30 PM  
Hey, NRA guys, why don't we just make mortars, RPGs, and heck even tanks legal? Or better yet, let's just make nuclear weapons legal. In fact, why don't we just make it legal to have a personal standing army that is fully equipped no matter who or where you are. That's cool North Korea, you make all the warheads you like; we understand you probably need to blow up a lot of bears or deer all at once over there.
2005-01-09 02:58:41 PM  

It's a target rifle. It's a toy...a high-end adult recreational toy.

A TOY?'s a toy that can shoot a PLANE out of the sky!!

/Friggin gun enthusiastic MORANS!
//Go USA!

Unless you hit a hydraulic line, an engine, or the pilot, you aren't taking down a plane, and any other large calibre rifle can do the same thing in the same places, so yes, Go USA.
2005-01-09 02:59:47 PM  
kittz_cat: Oh yeah....because terrorists ALWAYS register their weapons properly.

Um, for a Barrett you have to get on a list that is quite long. You are checked out before you go on the list, and again before you pick up the rifle. It used to be about a 9 month wait unless you had a priority buy, which was limited to EOD and SF in the military, or SWAT teams.
2005-01-09 02:59:55 PM  

Hey, don't fret yet... Wait till the 4th quarter to fret, it could get much worse. :)

/saints fan. sigh.
2005-01-09 03:01:06 PM  
Being a gay, city-dwelling, liberal, early twenty-something Canadian, you'd likely expect me to condemn these weapons as unnecessarily dangerous and call for their banning along with gas-guzzling SUVs and the ever-oppressive lawn dart. But I like to think of myself as having a rarely open mind, and I'm sure that, if I'm mistaken, someone here will point it out to me :)

Constitutionally, Americans are entitled to arm themselves. Allowing one's citizenry to go armed is a symbol of government integrity and a symbol of the defense of freedom; it empowers the citizens of a country with their own ability to levy force. Any unfounded attacks on this right should be seen as a threat to a constitutional imperative, the spirit of which was designed as a check and balance against government oppression. By logical definition, a government that allows its citizens to arm themselves cannot ultimately be as oppressive as a government that does not.

I'm not saying that American gun zealots are all paranoid survivalists concerned that the elimination of assault rifles will bring an end to Western democracy. But the spirit behind the American concept of a right to bear arms (that it is a very real symbol of what the US Constitution stands for -- the accountability of the people's government) needs to be recognized by gun control proponents -- it's far too easily dismissed, even to the point of willful, insulting ignorance (ie. Rosie O'Donnel vs. Tom Selleck).

So, bottom line, you can't just condemn firearms offhand -- there's a very real reason that they're legal, and it goes much deeper than edgy hobbyists and selfish lobby groups. You need a compelling reason, and gun control freaks have yet to present one. Watch "Bowling for Columbine" to see that gun control laws are most certainly not the problem, and condemning law abiding gun owners is discriminatory. Alternatively, check out for as unbiased a dissection of the gun control controversy as I've ever read. It fairly clearly illustrates that the most "gun violence"-free countries are those with extremely lax gun control laws.

Just to eliminate any attacks on my credibility over bias, I don't own a gun, never intend to, think hunting for sport is immoral and haven't fired so much as a paintball in my life. Unless LaserQuest counts. Does LaserQuest count? ;)
2005-01-09 03:02:09 PM  
I have a friend who deer hunts with a .50 rifle. He built it himself, so its not as fancy looking as the ones in the pick above. As for what it does to a deer, if you hit it at far enough range, the exit wound isn't that bad. On a deer he hit from about half a mile away the exit wound was about the size of a soda can. On one that he hit from much closer range the exit would was about the size of a football. He also told me that .50 isn't the biggest rifle out there that gets used for deer hunting. There are some guys that like to use a 20mm rifle, which is even bigger than a 50 cal.
2005-01-09 03:02:38 PM  
I want my own nuclear bomb. that woudl be a cool adult toy too.

I think after a few more years, the republicans will be able to hook me up. woot.
2005-01-09 03:02:57 PM  
I thought it's the ammunition that can pierce armor, not the kind of rifle itself. Can anyone knowledgeable in this field clarify the issue for me?
2005-01-09 03:03:28 PM  
In L.A. from any roof near the 405 and LAX you could probably hit airliners with baseballs if you wanted. One of the first things I thought after 9/11 was that if you had ten guys with .50 cals off the 405 you could probably down 4 or 5 planes before anyone realized what happened.

And to all those people aruguing "oh, well, you -could- shoot down a plane with a .22 so you'd have to ban them too." I bet that's why military aircraft are just loaded down with .22s and muzzle loaders, 'cause obviously bigger guns don't help that much.

2005-01-09 03:03:51 PM  
kittz_cat's a toy that can shoot a PLANE out of the sky!!

You try hitting a planes cockpit traveling at 160MPH a half mile or more away with a bolt action or semi-automatic weapon. It would be like trying to thread a needle while wearing oven mitts and standing on the flatbed of a semi trailer going 70mph on the highway during a thunderstorm.

The military uses full-auto machine guns as air defense for one reason, it's really difficult to hit a plane so the best bet is to fill the sky with lead.

Anyone know if any convenience stores have ever been robbed with one of these?
2005-01-09 03:04:01 PM  

Quite a few of those things are actually legal, with the right paperwork.

And by the way, arguing that .50 caliber rifle = nuke does not make you sound very intelligent.
2005-01-09 03:04:12 PM  
di they just ban this one gun, or all .50 caliber guns in california? as far as i know the legal limit is .60 caliber, for muzzle-loading purposes.

i can't see any way to justify owning one for hunting purposes, but that doesn't mean we can't use them in the revolution.

/happy with his crappy old 7.95 turk mauser
//unhappy with cheap corrosive ammo
2005-01-09 03:04:35 PM  
Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

"I just think there are certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety...our national security, we will not allow it,"

That's as far as I got before throwing up my homemade bread and mashed potatos.

This entire article was the gun-confiscators wet-dream.
The "certain occasions" he's reefering to, are when any peon or member of the little (non-government elite) class has the
effrontery to believe he should be "allowed" to buy or keep any weapon.
(posting while I should be oiling my new Christmas presents)
2005-01-09 03:04:45 PM  

Your argument is like saying why should cars that go faster than 55mph be legal?
Why should drinking more than 3 beers be legal?
I dont see good enough reason for it not to be legal.

EVERY law is based on this reasoning, if you think that the relative arbitrariness of the line drawn in the sand is grounds for not having any regulation whatsoever, then you might as well throw out _every_ law that exists.

We choose a point at which behavior is absolutely unacceptable and voila, everyone cries out that it is arbitrary. Yes, yes it is. I mean, this is the reason why this country lets certain tyrants stay in power and others get removed or bumped off... Limits may be arbitrary, but that does not make them unnecessary.

I mean, if we can't say when a gun is too big, do we just let people in the 'burbs install 800mm Gustavs in their back yards and call it good?
2005-01-09 03:05:27 PM  
What does selling a 50cal have to do with terrorism, as I'm sure the terrorists are trying to buy and legally license the firearms they want.
2005-01-09 03:05:37 PM  
The article is ridiculous, any terrorsist who needs special hardware can just bring it with them over our borders. No need to ban anything if this is the logic they're using.
2005-01-09 03:06:17 PM  
A Canadian or Brit commenting on American gun sales again? "Armour"
2005-01-09 03:07:02 PM  

Um, for a Barrett you have to get on a list that is quite long. You are checked out before you go on the list, and again before you pick up the rifle. It used to be about a 9 month wait unless you had a priority buy, which was limited to EOD and SF in the military, or SWAT teams.

I'm not talking about being LEGAL here. I'm talking about CRIMINALS. They do not register. They are not put on a waiting list. They do not follow the word of the law. They file the guns registration numbers and they sell them on the black market. Don't think it doesn't happen. Too many gun lords are makeing too much money from this practice. It's a sad sad world we are living in when denial reigns supreme.
2005-01-09 03:07:27 PM  
mc frontalot:

I thought it's the ammunition that can pierce armor, not the kind of rifle itself. Can anyone knowledgeable in this field clarify the issue for me?

A .22lr can go through lot's of personal body armor.

And the shooting a plane down is total BS. How many B17's came back during WWII that had whole sections of wing blown off? And had a 88mm flak shell go off in the fuselage and the plane still made the bombing run and back to base? My fear-mongering alarm is going off.
2005-01-09 03:07:53 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2005-01-09 03:08:43 PM  
OMFG! What are we going to do about cars? I mean, really, they are already used in crimes every get away cars, in drive by shootings and sometimes as a weapon to run people over deliberately! And don't get me started on the accidental and negligent injuries and deaths from cars. Why, just imagine all the lives we'd save by banning cars!

How is the 7th grade! Didn't make the debate team again it seems???

Look who's talking
2005-01-09 03:08:56 PM  

You, my friend, deserve a cookie. That post is one of the most intelligent, unbiased, and reasonable posts I have seen concerning this issue.
2005-01-09 03:09:18 PM  
Just to play devils advocate, a lot of you right wingers are pro patriot act which allows the goverment to limit peoples rights because they might be a terrorist.
Well, is it that big a leap to make that maybe the goverment should prevent certains weapons from being available to a possible terrorist?
2005-01-09 03:10:32 PM  
I apologize for being the voice of reason/if this has been covered.

But aren't all rifles capable of piercing armor?
2005-01-09 03:11:07 PM  
Sorry guys, but most rifle caliber ammunition will go right through body armor.

Whenever a police officer/ ATF/FBI/DEA agent gets killed in a shootout, it is usually reported that the bullet "hit a seam" in the armor. Sure it did, it made the seam.

Armor vests worn by most police forces in the US are made to stop 9mm rds, or if they are lucky up to .357 or .45. They are intended to stop the rounds most used by criminals, who use the smaller calibers.

Military vests (with plates) are rated to stop AK rounds, but there is a reason they are called flak jackets, they are also designed to absorb shrapnel from grenades, mortars, and artillery.

Past a certain point, no matter what you are wearing, the round WILL penetrate, and you will be a casualty.

There were and are 20mm anti-tank rifles available for sale, very much so after WW2. That is 2cm. Never heard a massive public outcry about those. Then again they have never been portrayed in movies and on TV.

.50 cal rifles in the hands of civilians is a gadget. You cant hunt with it (anything you shot would splatter) it is too heavy for home defense (unless you have sandbag embankments in the hall by your bedroom) I suppose it would be useful if there was an invasion, but the Branch Davidians had one, and you saw how much good that did them.

They are a toy. A very expensive toy, but there you go, the market is probably collectors, and those who never grew out of the Rambo combat knife phase of their childhood. The same guys that go out and buy a Desert Eagle .50, shoot it once (damn that hurts) and put it away, but brag about it.

Would I shoot one if I had the chance? Hell yes, and maybe if I had a shiatload of money, and one was offered at a deal, I would buy one, but it would be about as useful as a sailboat in the Sahara.

Unfortunately for the bellowing panic mongers and bed-wetters, this is still the US, there is still a second amendment, and if someone wants a ridicules firearm, it is as much his right as it is your right to spend $10,000.00 on a chunk of quartz that channels nature hey you could bash someones head in with that, lets take it away!!!

While we are at it lets fill the Grand Canyon with plastic balls, and lock everyone up in rubber rooms.
2005-01-09 03:11:16 PM  
fark it

Most anyway, obviusly a .177 a .22 won't
2005-01-09 03:11:23 PM  
Well I am impressed. A headline that is a troll, with the guarantee that the following thread is a flamewar.

Did anybody see the elephant gun in the NRA mag just recently? Costs $100 a bullet. Real expensive. I know this has been argued, but would terrorists use this? That's $100 per shot. You wanna shoot 50 people, that's $5,000. Wouldn't it be easier to pick up the makings for a fertilizer bomb? It would be easier to make, far easier to purchase the supplies for, and would kill ten times the civilians for way cheaper.

And I saw a show about a guy who would hunt with a .50 BMG. Long range. Complete with VERY expensive scope. He took out a mountain goat at a mile and a half. Very expensive hobby, but one that he can afford and one that he's willing to pay the money for. Ban them? Might as well ban Car Racing, skydiving, and sushi.
2005-01-09 03:11:27 PM  
They should only let reporters than know something about guns write stories about them. Any high velocity rifle can pierce armor, and a chemical tank or airplane bursting into a huge fireball from a bullet impact only happens in the movies.
Displayed 50 of 760 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.