|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 09 2014 02:14 psheldr wrote:
I dunno if that has been asked already but is there anyone here who thinks if you have the buck you should be able to buy surface to air missiles?
In the US, with the right paperwork, you can own ANYTHING.
Get a permit to own a museum and you can have a battalion of tanks for example. If you build it yourself then it is yours, almost no questions asked.
Most American laws hinges on commerce laws. So they can ban you from buying stuff, but it takes a lot of worker to ban you from owning stuff. If you make you're own gun (or surface to air missile) then you get to keep it.
The state and federal government will suddenly be very aware of your existence and bother you all the time to make sure you're not a sleeper cell trying to blow up a passing airline/Air Force one. But it's still within your rights.
|
|
|
On September 09 2014 04:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2014 02:14 psheldr wrote:
I dunno if that has been asked already but is there anyone here who thinks if you have the buck you should be able to buy surface to air missiles? In the US, with the right paperwork, you can own ANYTHING. Get a permit to own a museum and you can have a battalion of tanks for example. If you build it yourself then it is yours, almost no questions asked. Most American laws hinges on commerce laws. So they can ban you from buying stuff, but it takes a lot of worker to ban you from owning stuff. If you make you're own gun (or surface to air missile) then you get to keep it.The state and federal government will suddenly be very aware of your existence and bother you all the time to make sure you're not a sleeper cell trying to blow up a passing airline/Air Force one. But it's still within your rights.
This is untrue. You can make your own guns only so long as they follow the same regulations as factory-made guns. You cannot make a surface to air missile with no regulation. That'd be a destructive device, which the ATF regulates pretty heavily, and many states outright ban.
You don't need to own a museum to own a tank. The only laws about tanks would be motor vehicle ordinances and weight limits to protect roads. The main gun, and any machine guns would be destructive devices, regulated as I already explained.
Plutonium bullets aren't terribly dangerous. Probably less dangerous than lead actually, since plutonium is much harder. You don't get favorable terminal ballistics, and you have trouble taking advantage of rifling. This article is so hilariously misinformed.
|
On September 09 2014 06:48 Millitron wrote:
Plutonium bullets aren't terribly dangerous. Probably less dangerous than lead actually, since plutonium is much harder. You don't get favorable terminal ballistics, and you have trouble taking advantage of rifling. This article is so hilariously misinformed.
Oh that's a good point: Aren't lead bullets actually pretty dangerous since they can give you lead-poisoning? Compared to bullets that go straight through...
My point was that plutonium is radioactive - it is a byproduct of nuclear fission. Maybe depleted uranium ammunition is a better example: there you actually get ballistic benefits for armor penetration. But that isn't quite so radioactive as plutonium. Again it is a byproduct of nuclear fission and hence in principle easier to regulate than the naturally occurring element uranium. Since maybe not all uranium deposits are accounted for but civilian nuclear fission is pretty rare.
So in the case of plutonium again maybe it doesn't have ballistic benefits but it kills your enemies in a really really long fight because of it's toxicity? The hypothetical question in this case is why is ownership of plutonium banned and hence it's use as plutonium bullets?
|
On September 09 2014 07:07 psheldr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2014 06:48 Millitron wrote:
Plutonium bullets aren't terribly dangerous. Probably less dangerous than lead actually, since plutonium is much harder. You don't get favorable terminal ballistics, and you have trouble taking advantage of rifling. This article is so hilariously misinformed. Oh that's a good point: Aren't lead bullets actually pretty dangerous since they can give you lead-poisoning? Compared to bullets that go straight through... My point was that plutonium is radioactive - it is a byproduct of nuclear fission. Maybe depleted uranium ammunition is a better example: there you actually get ballistic benefits for armor penetration. But that isn't quite so radioactive as plutonium. Again it is a byproduct of nuclear fission and hence in principle easier to regulate than the naturally occurring element uranium. Since maybe not all uranium deposits are accounted for but civilian nuclear fission is pretty rare. So in the case of plutonium again maybe it doesn't have ballistic benefits but it kills your enemies in a really really long fight because of it's toxicity? The hypothetical question in this case is why is ownership of plutonium banned and hence it's use as plutonium bullets?
Less than plutonium yes, but DU munitions are still extremely toxic. Haven't you read anything about the fallout of the heavy usage of US depleted uranium munitions during the Iraq War? In Iraq, cancer exploded during the war and there were tons of mutated/dead births and whatnot. The effects have been pretty nasty. It's just that DU is extremely cheap as it's a byproduct of nuclear power generation so Yank and Ruskie forces are happy about killing people with munitions made from it because they have too much DU just sitting around.
I have no idea why anyone outside of war involving heavy armored vehicles on both sides would ever need high-penetration munitions made from DU or plutonium, especially not in the civilian sector (which this thread is about). Normal ammunition is more than enough for target shooting, hunting, and emergency self-defense.
|
On September 09 2014 06:48 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2014 04:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 09 2014 02:14 psheldr wrote:
I dunno if that has been asked already but is there anyone here who thinks if you have the buck you should be able to buy surface to air missiles? In the US, with the right paperwork, you can own ANYTHING. Get a permit to own a museum and you can have a battalion of tanks for example. If you build it yourself then it is yours, almost no questions asked. Most American laws hinges on commerce laws. So they can ban you from buying stuff, but it takes a lot of worker to ban you from owning stuff. If you make you're own gun (or surface to air missile) then you get to keep it.The state and federal government will suddenly be very aware of your existence and bother you all the time to make sure you're not a sleeper cell trying to blow up a passing airline/Air Force one. But it's still within your rights. This is untrue. You can make your own guns only so long as they follow the same regulations as factory-made guns. You cannot make a surface to air missile with no regulation. That'd be a destructive device, which the ATF regulates pretty heavily, and many states outright ban. You don't need to own a museum to own a tank. The only laws about tanks would be motor vehicle ordinances and weight limits to protect roads. The main gun, and any machine guns would be destructive devices, regulated as I already explained. Plutonium bullets aren't terribly dangerous. Probably less dangerous than lead actually, since plutonium is much harder. You don't get favorable terminal ballistics, and you have trouble taking advantage of rifling. This article is so hilariously misinformed.
That's where you cheat. A museum license allows you the whole tank (even the whole surface to air missile) so long as you show proof of progress that the museum will at some point be open.
How do you think the gun nuts in Northern California get to ride around a tank in their property?
|
On September 09 2014 07:07 psheldr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2014 06:48 Millitron wrote:
Plutonium bullets aren't terribly dangerous. Probably less dangerous than lead actually, since plutonium is much harder. You don't get favorable terminal ballistics, and you have trouble taking advantage of rifling. This article is so hilariously misinformed. Oh that's a good point: Aren't lead bullets actually pretty dangerous since they can give you lead-poisoning? Compared to bullets that go straight through... My point was that plutonium is radioactive - it is a byproduct of nuclear fission. Maybe depleted uranium ammunition is a better example: there you actually get ballistic benefits for armor penetration. But that isn't quite so radioactive as plutonium. Again it is a byproduct of nuclear fission and hence in principle easier to regulate than the naturally occurring element uranium. Since maybe not all uranium deposits are accounted for but civilian nuclear fission is pretty rare. So in the case of plutonium again maybe it doesn't have ballistic benefits but it kills your enemies in a really really long fight because of it's toxicity? The hypothetical question in this case is why is ownership of plutonium banned and hence it's use as plutonium bullets?
Lead bullets do not give you lead poisoning. You have to ingest lead to get poisoned by it, and quite a bit as well. Lead bullets only really kill by their impact, the lead in a bullet will not be metabolized by your body. They're banned for hunting in California because of some nonsense about birds. Something like if you kill an animal, but can't find it, birds may eat it, eat the bullets as well, and get lead poisoning. Which is almost an outright ban on hunting with guns since the vast majority of bullets are lead. "Bullets that go straight through" tend to actually be regulated by the ATF for their supposed armor penetration capabilities. What they fail to realize, or simply don't care about, is that many types of ammunition they consider armor penetrating is used not because it makes killing cops easier or something, but because it's dirt cheap. For instance, 7N6 is a type of bullet made by the soviets in the 70's. When the soviet union collapsed, entrepreneurial Russians started selling off warehouses of them. They're actually somewhat expensive to make, but with warehouses full of them laying around uselessly, they had nothing better to do but try to sell them in the US. There are a bunch of kinds of old, military surplus ammo sold like this. The ATF banned 7N6 in April citing its armor penetration ability. Not so coincidentally, the ban occurred during a pretty tense period of the Ukraine crisis.
The radiation risk of plutonium and DU small arms is overblown. The Gulf War Syndrome was from DU tank munitions. Small arms don't pack enough punch to turn DU or plutonium to dust, which is necessary for inhalation and ensuing radiation sickness.
On September 09 2014 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2014 06:48 Millitron wrote:On September 09 2014 04:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 09 2014 02:14 psheldr wrote:
I dunno if that has been asked already but is there anyone here who thinks if you have the buck you should be able to buy surface to air missiles? In the US, with the right paperwork, you can own ANYTHING. Get a permit to own a museum and you can have a battalion of tanks for example. If you build it yourself then it is yours, almost no questions asked. Most American laws hinges on commerce laws. So they can ban you from buying stuff, but it takes a lot of worker to ban you from owning stuff. If you make you're own gun (or surface to air missile) then you get to keep it.The state and federal government will suddenly be very aware of your existence and bother you all the time to make sure you're not a sleeper cell trying to blow up a passing airline/Air Force one. But it's still within your rights. This is untrue. You can make your own guns only so long as they follow the same regulations as factory-made guns. You cannot make a surface to air missile with no regulation. That'd be a destructive device, which the ATF regulates pretty heavily, and many states outright ban. You don't need to own a museum to own a tank. The only laws about tanks would be motor vehicle ordinances and weight limits to protect roads. The main gun, and any machine guns would be destructive devices, regulated as I already explained. Plutonium bullets aren't terribly dangerous. Probably less dangerous than lead actually, since plutonium is much harder. You don't get favorable terminal ballistics, and you have trouble taking advantage of rifling. This article is so hilariously misinformed. That's where you cheat. A museum license allows you the whole tank (even the whole surface to air missile) so long as you show proof of progress that the museum will at some point be open. How do you think the gun nuts in Northern California get to ride around a tank in their property?
The guns on those tanks are all deactivated. There's no law against an armored bulldozer, which is basically all a tank without guns is.
|
Zurich15317 Posts
On September 09 2014 08:25 Millitron wrote:
The radiation risk of plutonium and DU small arms is overblown. The Gulf War Syndrome was from DU tank munitions. Small arms don't pack enough punch to turn DU or plutonium to dust, which is necessary for inhalation and ensuing radiation sickness.
He was talking about the (chemical) toxicity of DU, not radiation. Which is pretty much the same as not depleted uranium, which is pretty damn high. For plutonium it would be even higher, plutonium is one of the most poisonous elements we know.
|
Edit: It seems i missed the original discussion, so i am gonna put my post in spoilers for anyone who still wants to discuss about it instead of alcohol, drugs and the advantages and disadvantages of plutonium ammunition.
+ Show Spoiler +
Simply put i dont need a gun to defend myself. A knife is more than enough for anything where no gun on the other side is used and will increase the danger enough to scare off most criminals. In fact in the few cases where the opposing side has a gun it's more going to destabilize the situation than anything else.
A gun is an aggressive weapon that carries way to much power and power corrupts. There have been some situations where i was very angry at people and i am very happy that i never had a weapon and didnt do something stupid at the time. We have the saying that "occasion/opportunity creates thieves" and i think that often people don't go and desperately try to get a gun to kill someone, but act in the heat of the moment.
Most of the kids that went on a rampage in our schools stole their weapons from their fathers who had their guns at home and were part of a shooting association. If they had to go through the trouble of trying to illegally get a gun by stealing it from somebody non-related to them, or try to illegally buy it a lot of them just wouldnt have had the balls. It also might have given other people the chance to notice something and prevent the massacres. But they had the opportunity and it made them killers.
Also @lack of symmetry between crimes including guns and firearms per person, Italy is well known for having huge difficulties with their criminal organizations and Switzerland is well known for having little poverty. What makes the U.S. one of the more dangerous countries is that it has both problems (criminal organizations and extreme poverty) and the weapon laws as a cherry top, which means that every really frustrated poor person who just became junior member of a gang legally gets a weapon if he wants to. That is a big problem in states like Mexico as well.
You cant just ignore factors for crimes and claim that weapon laws are fine because the filthy rich countries with huge expenses to fight crime and lots of content peoples, who bought some guns for the fun of it have little crimes including firearms. Switzerland is number 11 in terms of fewest homicides per year.
|
On September 09 2014 02:14 psheldr wrote:
I dunno if that has been asked already but is there anyone here who thinks if you have the buck you should be able to buy surface to air missiles?
I know the answers in this thread have been overwhelmingly positive (wtf? :D), but I'm going to ask. Why would anyone want to buy those? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for buying useless stuff just because I can, but is there even a single reason you would want those things? Shooting down your neighbor's kid's kite? Utterly demolishing that Amazon drone? I mean I'm a bit lost.
Ok so apparently, the air space above your home up to 83 feet (25m) is yours, and anything above 500 feet (152m) is public property. What's between is a bit blurry currently, but I can't imagine the need for personal surface to air missiles in those conditions.
|
I would garner it is for the same reason some guy said he wished it wasn't against the law to buy a 20mm autocannon and shoot it. There's no need for it obviously, and there are large swathes of uninhabited land in usa, so for recreational use. As is the intended use for the vast majority of civilian weapons sold. It's fairly self explanatory isn't it? Afterall, there are so many people in this thread saying that guns are weaponry that don't need to be controlled.
|
It does make somewhat sense, although I'm a bit sad that it does :D
|
Ground to air missiles are needed to defend those 25 meters above your home obviously.
|
Btw, can I shoot someone's pet (a cat or a dog) on my property? If yes to the previous question, can I do it with a 20mm autocannon? If no to the previous question, can I do it with a surface to air missile (assuming the cat is on my roof, for example)?
|
That's just a dumb article. The person who wrote that doesn't understand that firearms are regulated. He also lumps every gun owner into the same heap: a heap made of obsessive gun-nuts (as we say in this thread). just because the gun-nuts are very vocal about their rights doesn't mean that they represent every gun owner. The person who wrote that article is incapable of seeing both sides of the issue and that's just click-bait to annoy people. If gun-nuts are one extreme, that author is the other. There's nothing rational about his arguments, you can probably do a better job defending against firearm laws than that idiot ever could.
|
According to some people here, as long as you have the right paperwork, or made it yourself, you can do anything on your property, in the land of freedom. Disclaimer: surface to air missille not recommended against cats. Cats are agile and have 360 degree radar system installed in their heads.
|
On September 09 2014 22:17 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2014 02:14 psheldr wrote:
I dunno if that has been asked already but is there anyone here who thinks if you have the buck you should be able to buy surface to air missiles? I know the answers in this thread have been overwhelmingly positive (wtf? :D), but I'm going to ask. Why would anyone want to buy those? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for buying useless stuff just because I can, but is there even a single reason you would want those things? Shooting down your neighbor's kid's kite? Utterly demolishing that Amazon drone? I mean I'm a bit lost. Ok so apparently, the air space above your home up to 83 feet (25m) is yours, and anything above 500 feet (152m) is public property. What's between is a bit blurry currently, but I can't imagine the need for personal surface to air missiles in those conditions.
I was being facetious because that guy's question was stupid. Obviously missiles should stay under military control.
|
On September 09 2014 22:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
According to some people here, as long as you have the right paperwork, or made it yourself, you can do anything on your property, in the land of freedom. Disclaimer: surface to air missille not recommended against cats. Cats are agile and have 360 degree radar system installed in their heads.
Magpie constantly spreads bullshit in this thread. He likes to make outrageous claims a simple Google search will debunk. Anything to prove how crazy those gun nuts are. Who cares if its true?!?
|
I thought I made it clear I was mocking him? Unless you truly believe that cats have a 360 degree radar system in their heads.
|
On September 09 2014 22:40 ZenithM wrote:
Btw, can I shoot someone's pet (a cat or a dog) on my property? If yes to the previous question, can I do it with a 20mm autocannon? If no to the previous question, can I do it with a surface to air missile (assuming the cat is on my roof, for example)?
you can in some states and in all states if you say that the dog was coming to bite your throat off.
the 20mm autocanon will probably be banned and that'll be where you get into trouble. idk how you're suppose to fire off an aircraft weapon and explain it to people. A SAM would probably ruin your entire house but would be legal if you had a $50 stamp from the right government agency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
