Has it ever benefited someone to own one? By your theory, let's legalize nuclear bombs, they've never harmed anyone on American soil yet, right? The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths. Fine, 30000 gun deaths a year. Politfact scores me mostly true!
Congrats. You are following the complete regurgitation of the typical Michael Moore-esque argument. Your brain is easily programmed. Ok so the score is up to 3 lies by you right? Let us just get that straight first. Now, out of the 12.6K homocides (justifiable or not), ZERO involved the automatic and .50 caliber firearms you hate so much. Total logic failure on your part.
Let's see some logic on your part. Possession of these weapons is inherently dangerous. Excessive ammunition and overwhelming firepower were significant factors in, for example, the Gifford shooting. There is an inherent risk in higher caliber weapons---for example, organized crime syndicates getting a hand on these can murder federal agents with them. In this case specifically, we know that automatic weapons were a factor in the murder of two federal agents. What is the benefit of having them?
This is the type of crap that makes it impossible to have a discussion. Please explain the terminal ballistics behind this statement.
The Draco 7.62, a semi-automatic weapon similar to the one used to kill a federal agent in Mexico on Feb. 15.
Let's see... Law enforcement wears protective gear that protects against handguns, since they expect to be fired upon. Criminal acquires semi-automatics and automatics. Law enforcement dies.
Lol, going after automatics again even though they were not involved? Well done genius. Also just to let you know, most handguns are semi-automatics. your ignorance and programming is hilarious.
Higher caliber guns=more dangerous. Waco lunatics were shooting .50s at federal agents. Even if they didn't directly kill one (thank God), how in the f*** can you not recognize that as a threat? They had to change the cars to armored, for christ's sake. Remind me again of having the benefit of guns that can melt away several people at once? If handguns are so effective at murdering people, why not stick with them for your burglar defense/"federal government fearing". My programming is economic in nature. It doesn't ask "why are higher-caliber guns bad?". It asks, what are the cost/benefits of having higher caliber guns? If the cost outweighs the benefit, then it is inefficient. Period. If you can convince me otherwise, than fine, but this is how I approach every problem. So far though, you have not given me one tangible benefit.
What metric is this based on? The largest caliber easily accessible in the USA is .50 caliber. You haven't been able to show a single homicide where it was used. Your logic is based on lies and misinformation. This is the problem. You know nothing about guns. Saying "high caliber gun" tells nothing of its terminal ballistics. The gun you posted a picture of is 7.62mm low powered by rifle standards. So with limited technical knowledge, and large amounts of propaganda uptake you are making decisions about what is dangerous and what is not. I have been too busy calling out your lies and propaganda. If you had any real knowledge we could have a real discussion.
Thank god I'm an internet user, and not the President of the United States. Jeez, this is an internet forum for debate and discussion, not the Council of Economic Advisers. I'm not 100% clear on guns. I never claimed to be a gun expert. If you can show me some benefits of having higher caliber guns (let's define that as full automatics, certain semi-automatics, and .50 cals for discussion purposes), then I will renege. At this point, I am fairly certain the costs outweigh the benefits. I'm fairly sure there have been murders with automatics on American soil, and I'd research them out, but you have shown zero inclination towards answering for benefits. If you don't want to debate, then fine. agree to disagree, whatever.
If people were forbidden from expressing their opinions based on their in-expertise in the area, pretty much half of the people who post here should be banned from posting on economic topics. Period. thank god the internet has such exacting standards. :/
Why do I have to debate more? I have shown you to be either ignorant or a liar on the subject. You have already lost the debate. All of your points and facts were just flat out wrong.
Because, even though you may have reduced the cost that I had, to be honest, not properly researched, you still have not accounted for the full cost, and you bring zero benefits of the policy. You also show a complete silence on anything else this topic brought up such as the validity of the War on Drugs. I must conclude you are irrationally and emotionally attached to the notion of Second Amendment rights. That's a dangerous thing to do since the government arbitrarily violates the Constitution on a regular basis. There's no further point for you to debate, if you think you've "won." you're an internet warrior, hoorah for you. like I said, agree to disagree, whatever. You still have not changed my opinion on anything. If you do not wish to change it, then move on. like I said, agree to disagree.
Your opinion is based on nothing. Your logic is therefore seriously flawed. Now that you know that in it's 80 year history, the .50 BMG has been responsible for no murders in the USA, you still want to ban it. I don't really know what could possibly convince such an illogical person to change.
We get it, Basso. You hate Obama, liberals and all things that don't match your narrow view of the world and society. Next...
The .50 BMG has been responsible for crimes, and have been carried before into crime scenes and actively used. Martin Heemeyer's bulldozer rampage in Granby. The Albert Petrosky incident. Chamblee, GA. It changes the game. Law enforcement had to armor their cars for christsakes after Waco idiots fired .50s at them. Just saying the .50 is responsible for no murder is disingenuous. It's like saying a minigun is responsible for no murders either. They're exceedingly rare. However, they serve no other purpose other than in a potential conflict, to be able to severely hamper law enforcement, and kill federal agents. Seriously, what other uses can a .50 have?
waterboarding was considered torture under u.s. law until junior had his lawyers change the definition of torture to be acts that only resulted in death or organ failure.
