50
2 votes
Apr 10, 2015

Sure. However, there are risks. There is a greater probability of a gun accident in the home, then saving oneself from a home invasion. Also, the State has a right to limit what type of weapons can be kept for self defense. States can limit and regulate highly dangerous and exotic weapons. For example, no one really needs a .50 caliber sniper rifle for home defense. It will punch through several walls! But collectors and enthusiasts should be allowed to obtain them under special conditions.

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 10, 2015

No one needs a high performance Porsche to drive our roads, but they can own one. That is mere transportation and will not likely ever save many lives due to the speed it can move on roads. Firearms, even big, black scary ones, can defend someone in some circumstance regardless of some odd opinion that 'it's too powerful to ever be useful'. The Supreme Court has written opinions that see the right for citizens to own guns to be connected to "...weapons of military utility...". No one that has seen a .50 caliber rifle be used at long range for precision shooting can question it's military utility. Besides, at the price they are, as large as they are and as noticeable when fired as they are, fear a criminal with a .22 pistol, not an enthusiast with a Barrett.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
linked reply
2 votes,
Apr 10, 2015

It is true, that a .50 caliber is great at long range, but even the military wouldn't use one in a house fight. Take a look out of your window, and imagine all of your neighbors owning such a weapon. How safe would that make you feel? But again, the State can limit and control what weapons you buy, and can also limit who cannot buy any at all. Such as age limits, felons, and the mentally ill.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
3 votes,
Apr 10, 2015

Take a look out of your window, and imagine all of your neighbors owning such a weapon. How safe would that make you feel?

How safe would you feel if all your neighbors owned a horribly-difficult-to-drive Porsche like the one that killed Paul Walker? But more importantly, how would all your neighbors afford such cars? Do you live among millionaires?

.50-cal rifles are ridiculously expensive, not only to own, but to shoot. Each round costs at least $5 (at least that's what I was told about 7 years ago, the price is probably higher now). There's a reason not many people own them, just like not many people own high-end Porsches, Bentleys, or Rolls-Royces. All this hysteria about 50-cal rifles is just that: hysteria. When was the last time one was used in a crime? Never? Criminals can't afford this kind of equipment, and don't bother when much cheaper stuff is available.

This is why gun owners and enthusiasts never take the liberal anti-gun people seriously: they don't know what they're talking about, and they're always demonizing and concentrating on things that don't matter, such as 50-cal rifles, pistol grips, and bayonet mounts. When was the last time someone was murdered by a bayonet anyway? So why are the liberals always screaming about them?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 10, 2015

Who says I'm anti-gun or screaming? I never owned a gun, but my sons do, and I go to the range with them. One even has a AR-15. I don't believe criminals would use a .50 cal, nor do I worry about serious gun collectors who can afford the rifle and shells. I worry about the idiot next door who after a few beers, decides to get rid of that pesky squirrel. But the point still remains, the State can regulate certain weapons be it .50 cal, bayonet, or hand grenade.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 10, 2015

No one needs a Porsche, but before you can drive one (or any car) you have to take a written test, complete 6 hours of supervised training (in my state), 6 months of supervised driving under a learner's permit, then a graduated license where you are not allowed to have more than one non-family member passenger in your car for the first year and only drive during certain hours. Further, the car you drive--Porsche or otherwise--has to be registered in a government database and insured both for yourself and against third-party liability.

Why do we not apply these same credentials to weapons whose sole purpose is to destroy?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 10, 2015

If were going to talk apples to apples then you have to compare what their intended use is vs. what the requirements to operate one is. If were going to use a transportation analogy then:

Sedan = 9mm pistol
Pickup truck = Hunting Rifle
Porche = AR-15
18-wheeler = .50 cal
NASCAR = M60

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: