Yeah, and a 44 Magnum is SO much smaller, and less lethal, than a 50 caliber...

A .22 is no less lethal than a .50, and .50s are actually HARDER to shoot because of the recoil, so this whole thing is stupid. What defines a sniper weapon of terror, anyway? I could use my .22 rifle and snipe with it. I could put a scope on a pistol and snipe with that (won't be of much help but it works).

Why don't we just ban all guns, right? Wait, that would be unconstitutional. Whoops. I thought after Prohibition people realized the Constitution shouldn't be used to TAKE AWAY rights.

Yeah, this whole thing is a typical pansy over-reaction to something.

If I was going for a long-range "snipe", I think I'd use a 30-06 or something like that. 50 Caliber is just bad.

Are you kidding me? .50 is the best for sniping. Everyone will hear the roar of your rifle and ph34r you. The 10 seconds it takes you to set up a second shot is irrelevant because everyone will be cowering.

Who cares if they know exactly where you are due to how loud the bastard is? You've got a .50 caliber sniper rifle! You can take them all out! Wait, a silencer (whoops, suppressor), you say? Anything larger than like 9mm will still be quite audible.

It's not Counter-Strike where the M4 sounds like it's underwater or something. Think of the AWP. Even with a suppressor, it won't sound much different.

I hate people.

Obviously.

I think the main thing we have to be careful of here, is that we do not go around banning things in an uneducated manner. It is a lot easier to take a right away than it is to get it back.

I can definately see the possibility for a future where you would very much want your right to bear arms.

Taddy, I already want my right to bear arms, and any attempt to take away that right as far as I'm concerned is the equivalent of reenacting Prohibition. The Constitution is not meant to take away rights, which I know we both agree on. It's not only in the Constitution, it's in the freakin' Bill of Rights.

We fought a war to secede from England, why are we trying to emulate them? Regardless, you have a higher chance of dying from cancer or a car accident than a gunshot wound (from a legally owned firearm). Illegal firearms don't count, because if you banned guns, illegal ones will still be around.

Which, of course, is the MAIN problem with most gun control laws.

Precisely. There's no harm in owning your own gun. Why make it harder for people to legally obtain them? People who own aren't trigger-happy psychos. Kids? Your gun should be in a safe, period. Smart kids? Don't write down your lock combo or speak about it with your wife or whoever within earshot. Kids aren't so determined to open up the safe to play with Daddy's gun that they are gonna open it.

So all that leaves besides danger to kids is...home invasion. An armed robber invades your house. Grabbing your gun increases exponentially the chances that he discharges his firearm (the basis for gun control laws). So, you have a CHOICE. You either CHOOSE to not grab your gun, and allow him to steal your shit at gunpoint, since most robbers aren't willing to shoot. Or, you CHOOSE to grab your gun and confront him, in which case he may shoot you out of fear.

You're placing your own life at risk doing this, and possibly your family's in the (HIGHLY) unlikely chance he decides to take hostages. So, what's the problem? If you grab your gun and confront him, your family is more than likely cowering upstairs or in the rooms, so they're not in real danger unless you die and they get raped. In that case, you would have been killed for trying to stop him from doing that, but without a gun.

So, yes you do put your life at risk by confronting an intruder. That's your decision, though. You shouldn't be penalized by the law for that decision. The intruder may die. So what? He invaded your house, you have a gun as a warning that he needs to leave. If he leaves, fine you win. If he doesn't, you can possibly stand him off until cops finally arrive. If he comes after you, you have every right to shoot him.

I see no problem at ALL with LEGAL gun ownership. You renew your license every couple of years, and all is well. I don't want to hear bull about how psychos can still buy guns. Fine, go through a psychiatric evaluation as part of the background check before you buy. But people can go insane after they have the gun. So what? You can't be right 100% of the time. There's no point in denying millions their Second Amendment rights to "protect society" from the couple tens, maybe a hundred, deranged people in any given year.

*Note that this is all about LEGAL gun ownership, just to emphasize. Legal, meaning you own a license and went through the procedures to procure a weapon. Gang-wars and inner-city murders are not a counter-point, as those weapons are illegally obtained by people without licenses. If it's a gun dealer's fault for handing out the weapons, then punish the dealer, not the customer.

I agree 100%!