Sarge Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Democrat Targets .50 Caliber Revolver for Nationwide Ban By Michael L. Betsch CNSNews.com Staff Writer February 17, 2003 (CNSNews.com) - A well-known gun maker recently introduced a powerful new hunting revolver that is said to have no equal in terms of firepower. But within days of introducing the Smith & Wesson 500 Magnum at an industry-wide trade show in Florida, an anti-gun Democrat promised to seek a nationwide ban on the product. "It's hard for me to rationalize any particular need or purpose" for the 500 Magnum, said Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.). "I think guns are made to kill people. That's my opinion." Asked if he would seek a nationwide ban on the 500 Magnum, Davis replied, "Yes, indeed." Billed as the "most powerful production revolver in the world today," S&W claims its new 500 Magnum cartridge produces nearly three times the muzzle energy of the .44 Magnum round, one of the most powerful sidearm cartridges available. But Davis said the .50 caliber revolver, which weighs 72.5 ounces and has an overall length 15-inch has no purpose in society except to cause injury and death to humans, dismissing the manufacturer's claim that it is intended for hunting wild game. He claimed handguns in general are specifically designed kill fellow human beings, whereas rifles and shotguns are typically relegated to hunting animals. "You don't go out hunting deer with a revolver," Davis said. "Those of us who live in big, urban centers have a different fear and a different take than some people who may live in different environments." Davis believes the 500 Magnum has a greater potential for becoming a lethal inner-city status symbol than an effective hunting tool, at least in his congressional district. He added that its high power combined with its concealability could make it the "weapon of choice" for urban gangs. "If you live in a place like Chicago, and you know the amount of violence that is perpetrated by individuals who grow-up with the idea that having, handling and using a gun is a way-of-life in terms of establishing yourself on the streets or as part of the culture, then I'm afraid that many of these individuals will, in fact, acquire this weapon," Davis said. "And, of course, the thing will be, 'I've got the most powerful piece on the block,'" he said. Can a revolver be an assault weapon? While Smith & Wesson's new five-round revolver is billed by the company as "the most powerful production revolver ever made," it's already being reclassified by some gun control advocates. "If you've got something that masquerades as a handgun, but has the firepower of a major weapon, you're all at risk," said Illinois State House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie. "This is not the Wild West. It hasn't been for a long time." Currie compared the 500 Magnum to "military-style assault weapons," although she had no information to base her claims on except for a "tip" received from a reporter. "I'm not a weapons expert, but it sounded like pretty strong firepower to me," Currie said. "The description I heard was that from a significant range you could fell a large bear." She dismissed the notion that the 500 Magnum is a hunting revolver, but did equate it with mob violence. "My concern is whether this kind of weaponry -- it is a handgun as I understand it -- in a crowded, urban area downtown street corners in the midst of people who are angry about something and developing the kind of range that means vandalism and mob action - whether this kind of weapon has any place," Currie said. Like Davis, Currie said she would examine the prospects of making the sidearm illegal in the state. "I'm going to look at the technology, as I say, and see if there is any way to specifically keep it from operating in the state of Illinois," Flynn said. "We are also working on efforts to ban military-style assault weapons, and, perhaps there is something about this technology that makes it possible to amend that legislation to include firepower like this." Anti-gun message said to be flawed Rifles are most commonly used for hunting, but many gun enthusiasts have also used smaller side arms for hunting, according to Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt, who corrected the claim by Davis that hunters don't use revolvers to shoot prey. "He's quite ignorant because there are people who do," Pratt said. "I do know for a fact that people take large caliber handguns with them to go hunting. And, I have no doubt that if you were lucky enough to get close enough, you could take a deer down with a .44 Magnum, which until now, was the biggest gun around." As far as Davis' contention that any would-be criminal could easily conceal the 500 Magnum, Pratt said, "Yeah, if you have a trench coat or something like that." Asked if the 500 Magnum's predecessor, the .44 Magnum faced the same criticisms and threats by politicians upon its introduction in 1955, Pratt said the controversy over Smith and Wesson's latest offering appears to be a sign of the times. "It was all sort of good clean fun when it was introduced, but we're 20 years further along the gun-hating sensitivity training," Pratt said. "We're talking about the frame of mind that opposes concealed carry by private citizens." I can't wait for this to hit the market. Great home defense weapon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 a gun is a gun is a gun, and I am allowed to have one. shut up Danny Davis! I am all for protecting my family with whatever firearm I choose. prefer a glock 9mm. easy to handle and it kicks back, less than up. easy to keep your target aligned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Isn't there already a very large caliber handgun used mostly by hunters ? Maybe I'm thinking of one of the Thompson models. Regardless, this type of thinking is just plain idiotic. How's about they try enforcing some of the gun laws already on the books instead of taking these types of knee jerk (and I do mean "jerk" in the fullest sense of the word) reactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 It IS a hunting revolver. Any owner of one can and should use it to hunt down any SOB that breaks into their house and/or threatens their family. I could bet they wouldn't get far afterwards..... although the splatter may travel a distance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 doesn't sound like an animal hunting weapon. Sounds like something better to be made for police or millitary or better yet not at all. Why a private citizen would need such a powerful long range weapon for self protection in the home as posted above is beyond me too. This sounds like a far better weapon for snipers and murderers. I sincerely doubt this was ever meant to be a defensive weapon. I don't think it should be banned. I think it shouldn't be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 That pesky Constitution getting in the way of the Libs again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Sorry, but people do hunt deer with pistols... This guy needs to shut up. I bought a .357 magnum to keep loaded in the house because of it's ability to kill a person with one shot. If someone breaks into my house, they are gonna die. Period. My wife can handle that gun. I have shot a .50 cal desert eagle, the average person cannont handle that gun. We would all be safer if thugs were toting .50 cal hand guns, the average thug wouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a barn with that gun. I would venture to say that they would be more likely to injure themselves with it than someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 someone breaks into your home.....are you shooting to kill or to injure? are you warning the intruder or are you just blasting away? curious more than anything as I have weighed the pros and cons of purchasing a handgun for protection - but heretofore have decided not to. this sounds more like a hip mounted cannon to me than a gun!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 My wife wanted to get a handgun a few years ago. I asked her a simple and pointed question. "Can you kill someone?" Because if you cant, there is no point in having a gun for protection. If someone breaks into your house, you cannot think "I want to scare him" or "I just want to wound him". You HAVE to think "I want to kill him" Otherwise you put yourself at a higher risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 My wife wanted to get a handgun a few years ago. I asked her a simple and pointed question. "Can you kill someone?" Because if you cant, there is no point in having a gun for protection. If someone breaks into your house, you cannot think "I want to scare him" or "I just want to wound him". You HAVE to think "I want to kill him" Otherwise you put yourself at a higher risk. Exactly right. If you are not willing to kill them, the gun can be used against you. It's harder for a dead person to sue you too.....:laugh: But seriously, you don't want to injure or scare them, you never point a gun at someone unless your life is in danger and you intend to kill them. I have no doubts that my wife would pull the trigger if that were the case. I keep a .357 in the bed room loaded, a 9mm loaded in the kitchen and a 12 guage shotgun in the den. I'm not paranoid and I live in a very nice neighborhood, but I couldn't live with myself if something happened to my wife while I was gone. Important note: I do not have children (human children, 2 dogs though) but when my 5 yr old nephew comes over, my Taurus handguns are equipt with a safety lock and I use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 None of the descriptions of the .500 make it sound like a weapon that is useful for self protection or hunting. The constitutional argument is not very strong either. The 2nd ammendment was the right of indivviduals to own firearms as a part of a millitia designed for self defense. The article and descriptions of the defenders on this thread indicate this is an offensive, not defensive weapon. While that is protected in the militia view of self-defense- logically, it's probably not what was intended as a weapon designed for self defense. Remember, using the definitions around during the time of the 2nd ammendment a shoulder based missile launcher or bazooka is a firearm. Are we comfortable about easy access to these? Many are interested in going into Iraq to prevent the possibility of them having or using weapons of mass destruction. More are afraid of the illegal sale or distribution of these items to terrorists. It really is only a difference of degrees. Who would most want these weapons? A sportsman or someone like the sniper? Would this weapon be useful for defending the home. Doesn't sound like it. Would it be a grreat weapon for going after deer or ducks, maybe. Is it a good weapon for man to use against man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 When a criminal decides to invade your home you should assume that the thug has weighed his/her options and understands the risks so is therefore prepared for a confrontation that could result in death. When in fear for my life or that of a loved one I would shoot to stop the threat as quickly as possible. A small caliber weapon can be fatal but is unlikely to stop the threat in time to prevent injury to the defender. A thug with a knife can enter your safe space faster than you think. Tests involving a man laying prone on the ground 14 feet away have revealed that a person can get up off of the ground and be in position to deliver a lethal knife attack in less than 2 seconds. What good is firing several fatal 22 cal. rounds into an attacker that leaves them capable of delivering a fatal blow to the defender? A large caliber slow moving projectile such as the 45 cal. pistol cartridge will deliver much more energy on the target, increasing the chance of an instant stop. 357 magnum, 40 cal. S&W or 45 ACP are all capable of one shot stops as indicated by a study made of actual use of force by the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Burgold None of the descriptions of the .500 make it sound like a weapon that is useful for self protection or hunting. The constitutional argument is not very strong either. The 2nd ammendment was the right of indivviduals to own firearms as a part of a millitia designed for self defense. The article and descriptions of the defenders on this thread indicate this is an offensive, not defensive weapon. While that is protected in the militia view of self-defense- logically, it's probably not what was intended as a weapon designed for self defense. Remember, using the definitions around during the time of the 2nd ammendment a shoulder based missile launcher or bazooka is a firearm. Are we comfortable about easy access to these? Many are interested in going into Iraq to prevent the possibility of them having or using weapons of mass destruction. More are afraid of the illegal sale or distribution of these items to terrorists. It really is only a difference of degrees. Who would most want these weapons? A sportsman or someone like the sniper? Would this weapon be useful for defending the home. Doesn't sound like it. Would it be a grreat weapon for going after deer or ducks, maybe. Is it a good weapon for man to use against man? All your points are well spoken and have merit. I would just add that the .50 cal could be used for home defense IF and only if the person using it were trained. My wife could not shoot that gun. Again, the average Thug on the street could not handle that gun. The ammunition is priced so high, it is not even practicle to purchase a gun like this for any reason other than home protection or hunting. The 9mm in my opinon is a much more dangerous weapon. It is cheap, the ammo is dirt cheap, it can be small and easily concealed and can hold 15 rounds or more. With hollow point bullets, it is deadly. Which is more of a threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorEastNCFan Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Codeorama is right. There is a discreet group of hunters that like to use pistols. I know a couple myself. They really get into it, mounting scopes and the like on them. I much more prefer my .270 Remington long rifle. I have a feeling this pistol is geared more to larger game than deer though, probably bear and the like. And it is correct that this is not a pistol for the average person. I've never shot a 50 cal, but I have shot the 10mm and 40 cals. These weapons have alot of recoil, even the autos. This is not a weapon I can see street thugs carrying around. After the first shot, the rest will probably wind up straight in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Well, I believe in the constitution and yes there are criminals out there that break into homes and kill people. Code, I can understand why you want to protect yourself. The whole aura and mystique of guns is pretty overwhelming as I who detest the notion of friends or family having guns can stare at them in awe for quite a while... Nevertheless, why do you need a cannon when a 9mm can kill with one shot as well? Even a 22 if you are a good shot. I believe in the constitutional right to own a weapon Code, I think one is enough. I'm not salmmin into you. Law is the law and you are within your right to have as many as you please(to an extent obv) but there should be a minimum. I also feel that there should be more in depth training on how to use, care, store and maintain the firearm one is purchasing. Homes are broken into quite often and quite a few homeowners posess guns down here in the south. Problem is, most of these criminals are drug addicts looking for anything to satisfy their jones and often get seriously injured or killed when they aren't even breaking in with a weapon. I know that falls under self defense, but come on. We are so goddamned fast to kill.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by IAMBG Well, I believe in the constitution and yes there are criminals out there that break into homes and kill people. Code, I can understand why you want to protect yourself. The whole aura and mystique of guns is pretty overwhelming as I who detest the notion of friends or family having guns can stare at them in awe for quite a while... Nevertheless, why do you need a cannon when a 9mm can kill with one shot as well? Even a 22 if you are a good shot. I believe in the constitutional right to own a weapon Code, I think one is enough. I'm not salmmin into you. Law is the law and you are within your right to have as many as you please(to an extent obv) but there should be a minimum. I also feel that there should be more in depth training on how to use, care, store and maintain the firearm one is purchasing. Homes are broken into quite often and quite a few homeowners posess guns down here in the south. Problem is, most of these criminals are drug addicts looking for anything to satisfy their jones and often get seriously injured or killed when they aren't even breaking in with a weapon. I know that falls under self defense, but come on. We are so goddamned fast to kill.......... Good points. I don't agree on a limit. But I agree that in the right hands a .22 pistol is a killer, you just have a smaller target to shoot (eg: you must hit them in the head or heart etc... or your are not likely to kill them. A .357 magnum and above will at the very least knock them down, preventing them from charging you. ) The reason that I choose a .357 magnum is because it has enough power to kill in one shot to pretty much anywhere, yet it is not so overpowering for my wife to handle. She is a good shot, but I feel safer with this weapon for her. I have read that most gunfights last less than 3 seconds. If I'm in a gunfight, I plan on winning, and if one shot gives me the best chance, so be it. I totally agree about the training. IF more people were trained, that would be a step for a safer world. NorEastNCFan: I agree with you totally. I think the hunters that like to use pistols do so because it is much more of a challenge. A pistol is nowhere near as accurate or easy to control as a rifle. Target shooting with a pistol is what got me interested in the first place. It is not as easy as many may think. I'm just now getting into the "Bowling Pin shooting". That is really fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Just curious, How many homes are broken into while people are at home and are thwarted by a gun-toting homeowner.... verses..... How many homes are broken into while people aren't at home and the thief or thieves steal the gun(s) kept in the home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I personally would like to see a world with no guns. And then again, I would like to work at disneyland. Point is, if more of the liberals would find compromise and common ground, I think we would get much more accomplished. Training is definitly a must. What did you have to go through to get your weapons code? Or are you a vet/police officer? I think that if someone values a weapon that much, they will do what it takes to get it and would want to be trained and informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Montilar It IS a hunting revolver. Any owner of one can and should use it to hunt down any SOB that breaks into their house and/or threatens their family. I could bet they wouldn't get far afterwards..... although the splatter may travel a distance :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by IAMBG I personally would like to see a world with no guns. And then again, I would like to work at disneyland. Point is, if more of the liberals would find compromise and common ground, I think we would get much more accomplished. Training is definitly a must. What did you have to go through to get your weapons code? Or are you a vet/police officer? I think that if someone values a weapon that much, they will do what it takes to get it and would want to be trained and informed. In Virginia, you have to go through a background check and can only purchace one handgun per month. In order to get a concealed weapons permit, you must attend a class where you are 1. trained how to use your gun properly, 2. qualify on a target range, 3. Have a class room session with a lawyer/gun law expert, 4. Go before a judge or magistrate and be interviewed as to why you wish to have the permit. I have never been in the military, but my dad was. I grew up around guns and hunted from time to time. I became interested in handguns because it was more of a challenge (target shooting wise) than a rifle. I also am very proficient with a compound bow. I became interested in guns for home protection because my grandmother's house was broken into on several occasions. The thought of what could happen to her if she was home crossed my mind. My wife's dad was in the military and she grew up around guns as well. She feels comfortable around them and is a pretty good target shooter with a pistol and skeet shooter with a shotgun. Several girls had been attacked near where she worked, that's why she wanted a conceal permit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by TheKurp Just curious, How many homes are broken into while people are at home and are thwarted by a gun-toting homeowner.... verses..... How many homes are broken into while people aren't at home and the thief or thieves steal the gun(s) kept in the home? This is a great question. I don't proclaim to know all the answers, I just base my views on how I am affected. On my hand guns, there is a safety mechanism that disables the firing pin. If the gun is locked, it can't be fired, the mechanism is internal so there is nothing that can be broken off to allow it to work. If you try to take it apart to disable the mechanism, the gun won't fire either. When we are not home, or have children in the house, they are locked. If someone stole mine, they would be disappointed when they pulled the trigger and nothing happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I want to commend Code and others in this thread. It has been amongst the most respectful gun control/rights thread debates I have seen. Honest debate and disagreement/compromise is what it's all about. Now, if we could just stop with the conservative-liberal blinders and name calling we could solve all the world's problems or at least generate many more solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama On my hand guns, there is a safety mechanism that disables the firing pin. If the gun is locked, it can't be fired, the mechanism is internal so there is nothing that can be broken off to allow it to work. If you try to take it apart to disable the mechanism, the gun won't fire either. When we are not home, or have children in the house, they are locked. If someone stole mine, they would be disappointed when they pulled the trigger and nothing happened. It's good to read you do this Code. From the USA TODAY: Six states — Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico and Georgia — had firearm theft rates at least twice the national average, which is 16.8 stolen guns per 1,000 households, the report says. "For the most part," the report says, "these states share three common traits: a large percentage of gun owners, relatively high crime rates and no laws requiring safe storage of firearms in the home." California, Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina had the highest number of gun thefts over the past 10 years. But those states drop out of the top five when population is taken into account. The report also says that the 18 states that have safe storage laws had 26.3% lower than average firearms thefts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Does that mean theft of firearms or thefts where firearms were used to committ the act? If it's the first, then I think that stands to reason. I bet more stereos are stolen from people houses that have stereos in them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Perhaps I'm missing your point Kilmer. Stereos in the hands of crimminals aren't used to commit violent crimes. That's my point. There appears to be less theft of guns in states that have safe storage laws. Meaning, less stolen guns in the hands of crimminals. That again, is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.