You don't mean the M82A1 Barret "Light Fifty" do you? This rifle is BTW also in use by the Swedish military where it's called the AG90.

I think thats the one.

Yeah, its over a 1k I believe. I saw one in a gun mag a year back. Don't remember the price on it. That rifle is awesome though. I've seen that mother ****er explode targets on impact. lol

Since that Sniper was mentioned earlier in this thread, I thought I would just mention that the mother ****er struck again. This time he shot a 13 year old boy getting dropped off at school. Thankfully hes alive, but this is some out of control crazy shit. If I ever got ahold of that ****er i'd keep him alive for months while I tortured him, then i would turn him over to the police.

2nd amendment "Gun Nuts"
 

I hope no one forgets (at least those in the US) that the primary impetus behind the 2nd amendment was not the necessity of hunting, but the fear of governmental tyranny. I am no conspiracy theorist - governments in general tend to screw things up more than get things done, so we're pretty safe - but it is no coincidence that one of the first thing Hitler did upon coming to power was to outlaw civilian gun ownership. Same with Lenin, Mao, and just about every police state since the invention of gunpowder. Just something to ponder...

Just remember: "An armed society is a polite society". I don't remember who quoted that, but the logic is unassailable.

Bob

hmm.. :D
farmers prefer blowing things up, well, I do :)

As long as I can keep my razor sharp hatchet in the sleeve of my coat when I go out drinking I don't care

(that is a joke; I drink mostly at home)

with the hatchet at your side :)

This is hyped a bit. (Edit to clarify) An AK47 round through a concrete wall at a mile is pushing it. The AK47 fires a 7.62x39mm round. Bullet weight is 125 grains with a muzzle velocity of 2365 FPS. As an example, 7.62 is .308 Winchester in US bullet size. 30 caliber. By 500 yards the AK has lost 1/2 it's velocity and 75% of it's energy. Though it wasn't mentioned here, the bullets do not tumble in flight either....unless the barrel is worn out and that can happen with any barrel that is shot past it's servicable life.

Machine-gun ownership has never been outlawed by the federal government as many people believe. Regarding Class III weapons, State Law overrides Federal Law. Check with the ATF or your state's attorney general's office to find out. In the State of Illinois, I had to have an FFL (Federal Firearms License) in order to have a Class III license to deal in or own Class III select fire weapons. License Fee was $200 when I was a dealer but it went up to $500 in the early '80's. Some States you only needed to pay the transfer tax when purchasing the weapon. At that time it was a $200 per weapon fee.

Silencers and suppressors were covered under the National Firearm Act but were also overridden by State and local law. Bullet velocity is one area that determined what you heard as anything over roughly 1000 FPS (air temperature has an effect) would make a ballistic crack though the suppression would made it difficult to determine where the shot originated.

Prior to 1986 it was legal to modify certian semi auto weapons to full auto, but you had to apply to the feds and get approval before you could do it. You had to provide a name of the owner too. Only when you got the title back could the modifications be legally made.

Class III select fire weapons can be legally sold to law enforcement agencies and Class 3 dealers. It is the buyers responsibility to check local and State laws to the legality of your purchase as the Feds don't do it for you. Before a Class III weapon changes hands, you have to apply to the Feds so they know what your intending to sell and to whom. The weapon does not change hands until it is approved by the Feds. If approved, the seller recieves the title for that weapon with the new buyers name on it. It used to be a $200 transfer fee, no idea if it's the same or higher now.

Someone mentioned it was not easy to modify some weapons and that is true in some cases. Some weapons require machine work. Some just the right parts. Another law that was changed back in the '80's is what defined a machine gun. Prior to the law change, the weapon in question was sent to a crime lab and if the weapon could fire more than one round with the trigger held to the rear it was classified as a machine gun. The law was changed in that if the weapon contained even one small part from a machine gun, it could be classified as such. ("....is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot"). That was due to drop in stuff that could be substituted for easily visible machining. Stiff fines and jail time apply, so with ownership comes responsibility.

EDIT:

As far as sniper rifles go, they are built to shoot with a higher degree of accuracy that a service grade weapon. But it doesn't make the gun any more dangerous than a service grade or out of the box rifle. Sure sounds glamorous though. The shooter determines the degree of accuracy that can be achieved with the weapon in hand. Depends what your shooting at too. I've seen guys that can punch x's all day at the range and miss an easy shot at a deer in the field. They just don't have it in them to kill even an animal though they won't even admit it to themselves. Then you have sick types that can kill another human indiscriminately in cold blood.

SComp, with the nature of my current employment I have gone through many many urban warfare courses, weapons familiarizations, demos and other fun stuff. One such event was a demonstration of what exactly is "cover" and what is "concealment". Cover being defined by the US Army as a surface which will stop small arms fire and concealment being something which will conceal you form the enemy but may not stop small arms fire. During the demo we saw how numerous projectiles are effected by various things encountered on the battlefield...cinderblocks, trees of various sizes, hmvee doors both "armored" and non armored, steel plates, tires, etc. We saw everything from 5.56 (ie .223) from an M-16 and M-249 and 7.62 NATO (ie .308) from an M60 to 7.62x39 from an AK47 and upwards to a .50 cal M2 Browning and a 14.5mm Soviet heavy machinegun. You might be supprised to know that a 7.62mm round fired from an AK47 100 meters away (virtually miles away in Urban Combat) has enough juice to penetrate a cinderblock or brick wall and still kill a person. You may be supprised how easilly high powered rounds can penetrate things many think are impenetrable. I know it supprised me...hell it scared the shit out of me as this is an occupational hazard most others simply don't have to face.

decodeddiesel, I should have elaborated more when I stated that based on the one mile range originally quoted. Always beware when stating absolutes.... I don't have the training you do but have some experience with armorers and weapons up to .50 cal. 100 meters is only, what, 328 feet. At close range, it depends on the quality and thickness of the concrete wall. Cinder blocks, depending where you hit them, as there are hollow sections in it. Then you can get into bullet selection, like armor piercing. But at 1 mile, use a .50 cal.

You got a real on the job hazard man! Sincerely hope you never, ever, need to use your training.

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up. I didn't mean to be quoted on the "1 mile" distance, it was just a guesstimate. What escapes me is the technical name of this range. The point still stands: one of those high-power bullet will penetrate anything within a certain range. It is spooky!

a clik(sp) perhaps?

One Kilck = 1 Kilometer
One Mile = 1600 meters

At 1600 meters a .50 cal, even a SLAP-T (Sabot Long-Range Armor Piercing - Tracer) would have a hardtime with thick concrete, steel reinforced concrete, or steel. At such range vehicle mounted weapons such as a recoilless rifle, 25mm chaingun, 30mm chaingun, TOW missle, 120mm maingun, 105mm maingun, Hellfire missle, Javelin missle, etc. is needed to really be effective. However all of these weapon systems can strike and kill vehicle targets out to about 3 miles+, but are thankfully are unavailable to the public.

mmm, hellfire....

God I miss FirePower on the Discovery Channel.

I am on the engineering staff/technical support at an Impact (shock physics) research facility. I get to build, design and modify projectiles and targets for (material science) research. We can do atomic level research on materials if need be during shock impact loading. Pretty damn cool job. We need flat (planar) impacts, therefore I am an expert on getting the projectile face, targets, and materials flat and polished if need be (ooo-relevance to heatsinks, etc.) We have projectiles and research guns 30mm, 50mm, 75mm, and 100mm. The 30mm projectiles can be shot up to 2.5 Km/sec, and the larger projectiles up to 1.5 Km/sec. yea....:drool: they will go through just about anything at that size and speed. One shot usually takes 1-2 hours to clean the mess. We don't go for distance obviously, but you gotta wonder how far a 30mm slug would go at 2.5 Km/sec.:evilaugh:

Edit: those are projectile diameters, not length. Envision 100mm bore and a projectile @ 1.5 Km/sec.:eek:

well, how about the fact - rather than just words

after being awakened by breaking glass (classic NRA prose here)
at 4 AM I 'met' a stranger in my living room, crouched towards me
I shot him just below the right eye with a .357 wadcutter
he drowned in his blood several minuets later (and ruined a new carpet !)
not arrested, no-billed by the grand jury

do I sleep at night ? just fine thanks (but I do have a homicide on my record now)
BTW, ring the doorbell at my house

moral of the story...

break bones with a bat...

They don't leave the same mess that knives and guns do

Well I'm afraid I already have been on a 2 way shooting range once...can't really get into specifics like BillA did, but it was over fast, I nearly pissed my pants and didn't settle down for about 2 hours after it was over. Getting shot at is not cool.

I have a hell of a lot of experience with a 120mm SABOT and HEAT rounds fired from the M256 Smoothbore cannon on an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank. A Sabot (meaning "boot") projectile has a much smaller diameter projectile than 120mm, more like 30mm and is surrounded by the "boot" which breaks away within 1000m of leaving the barrel. This ensures it travels straight down the tube, all propellant gasses are sealed, and it is stabialized during it's initial 10m of flight before the projectile fins become effective. It travels at roughly 2.0Km/sec+ and is made of depleted uranium encased in Tungsten. The projectile weighs about 6.1kg, and can strike and kill an armored Main Battle Tank at 3200m-5000m+ (depending on Gunner skill and visual/thermal conditions). Probably the closest real life application to your work N8. I wish I could lap a thermal surface like you do though, damn dude.

I'll just call from a pay phone down the street! OK?

I hope your story was well-publicised - give burglars a second thought, eh?

Bob

and that is indeed the point
if gun ownership was widespread, with responsable and proficient owners, eh ?;
and intruders were routinely KILLED
(NOT arrested with a gun and set free on bail in several hours - I've been there too),
then it is clear to my mind that there would be fewer intruders

that those persisting might then be more violent ?
give me a break, read the paper - are they not already so ?

That's a real tragic story. Do you have any after thoughts that you would care to share?

tragic ?
TRAGIC ?

methinks you are a fool

why on earth, or any other planet, would I care a whit about a piece of shit breaking into my house at night ?

screw his 'needs', his childhood deprivations, his dysfunctional family, his lack of opportunities

I am, and will be, concerned about my and my family's security

if one wishes respect, START by giving respect
- not by breaking into houses

tragic ? yes, anyone thinking such

afterthoughts to share ?
sure
buy a large caliber pistol and practice a great deal (use ear protection !)
load it with heavy slug / low velocity ammo
keep it in a safe place
be prepared to use it
if you are a drunk or a doper disregard all of the above

Good for you, Bill. Killing a man is a sad thing, but have no regrets that you did the least of all possible evils. That man will never break into another house.

Those who break the law no longer deserve full protection from their "rights". I would gladly shoot and kill anyone who endangered my family, friends or (to some extent) my property. I would probably be very sad that I had to kill the person, but I would not change the decision to protect myself and my family.

To me, responsible weapons handling is defined as being in control of the weapon at all times that the weapon is not locked up. A gun is for entertainment (shooting range, etc...), collecting, or killing. It is not a threat. If I pull a gun out, someone is going to be shot. Otherwise, you'll never see it.

Yes, I have taken the required classes for a concealed weapons permit.

Having said that, I choose not to have a gun in the house because I have small children that make a gun more difficult to keep simultaneously safe and effective. If I was worried about my neighborhood, I would get a large dog, because dogs are less likely to accidentally kill family members (pack instinct). Now, when the kids are older, I might reconsider my gun ownership options.

Misc thoughts:
1. Criminals will always have weapons that are illegal. Laws don't usually change that.
2. People will kill each other with any and all available means at hand. You may change their method, but they will still kill each other. Reducing the homocide rate means that you change the culture, not change the available weapons.
3. The government should fear the people or it will have no respect for them.
4. The people should respect the government because it protects them.

Is that true? Is it the least of all possible evils?

I don't have a gun, and I do insist that my kids don't play with toy guns either. That being said, I have entertained the idea of getting one for some time.

2 things:

1-One must be prepared to shoot at another human being. It's hard to tell if one could, until faced with the situation. It's hard to do, for anyone.

2-I would not shoot down an unarmed person. That would be an unnecessary use of force. I may threaten to shoot, while calling the authorities, but if he decided to run off, then I'd let him. Either way, I doubt I'd ever see him/her again.

Of course sometimes it's not possible to tell if an intruder is armed, but the importance of "property" does not come to be as being above the life of others, no matter what they do. The "shoot first, sort them out later" mantra doesn't fly with me.

Ben

to say that your post exhibits imprecise, confused, circular, and irrational 'thought' would be an understatement

you are NOT a candidate for handgun ownership
in your debate and dilemma it will be taken away from you and used against you
as Brians256 said, when you show your gun it is ONLY to pull the trigger

better that you learn to bleat like a sheep at the slaughter

big fish eat little fish, so if you do not wish to be eaten - better to have thorns

at the time of a violent assault, all of your words and thoughts and intentions don't mean jack shit
believe me Ben; at the right time and place, shooting someone is the easiest thing in the world
-> but NOT if you are confused

do not fear death, it comes to each of us
and by our actions we hasten or retard the day, thats all

This , I believe, illustrates the difference between Americans and Canadians rather clearly. We may jokingly refer to Canada as "the 51st state", but there exists a wide cultural gulf between our two societies. Canadians, as well as most Euro-centric cultures, have so beaten down the concept of private property rights (as well as individual rights in general) that people are expected to "give it up" rather than defend themselves.

As to point 2 above, I hope you are never in a position to parse out the necessary vs. unnecessary use of force in a split-second, as Bill has done. As I see it, if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling, he's not there to help you clean the basement. He's gambling, and sometimes you lose. Bill won, and though he can be a real PITA, I think most of us are OK with that. (Maybe he won't piss on my next design now :p )

Bob

I thought we called Puerto Rico the 51st state :)

Since they supply us with rum and hot spanish women :D

Well, I think we may disagree on a fundamental issue, BigBen2k. I believe that there are some crimes that (at least temporarily) remove the ability for a person to expect guaranteed safety. If someone breaks into my home, he or she should not expect to be safe. If they surrender to authorities or to a civilian arrest, fine, but that is unusual. If they respected authority, they wouldn't be breaking into my house. Burglars also have a bad tendency to repeat their crime (even after prison time). So, stopping a burglar once is depriving other homes of their presence. So, yes, I do believe that it is a least evil of the alternatives.

It takes a lot of forethought to break into someone elses house. I don't mind rewarding it.

As for having the ability to shoot a human, I have (thankfully!) never been required to do so. I suspect that I'd be like decodediesel in that I'd probably shoot, it'd be over quickly, and I'd be hard to calm down for several hours. Animals are much easier to kill.

Also, remember that it is difficult to tell if someone is armed. Demeanor is much more important than the visibility of armament. The primary task of the home owner is threat assessment, not proving a threat. Just as I assess the thread from a 220VAC electric line, I assess the potential threat from an intruder. I turn off the breaker on the electric line because I might be hurt, not because I know that I will be hurt.

Please remember that I am NOT eager to kill anyone, but I am unrepentant about my right to defend my family and property. Frankly, I'd rather see the criminal stopped and corrected such that his/her behavior is no longer antisocial. But, wishes are not always granted.

The hot spanish women don't come to Detroit. We get Canadian hockey wenches :D

Bob
(Suburban Detroiter)