What is the point of owning a .50 cal? Besides having fun and assassinating people I can imagine why someone wants to own one of those.

Shooting practice fundamentally means practicing to kill.
How many Olympic sports are using assault rifles? They all use bolt action or single shot weapons, modern pentathlon uses laser pistols.

2nd amendment is not accurate enough and has a few loopholes:
It says "well regulated Militia"
It doesn't describe what kind of weapons are allowed - it was written in age of muzzle loaded rifles, but under current courts interpretation if some one will go to court saying that he has a right to bear rocket launcher/machine gun, he shall win.
It was authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, and lets see what he had to say about the constitution.

that the harm is suffered by people who voluntarily participate. There are no innocent bystander casualties in poker, neither can I take a table and chips and cards to the mall and take money from dozens of people in seconds while they scream and run in panic.

No shooting practice means shooting at targets so that in the event you need to use it for protection you don't have to think when operating it.

Can you tell me what is an assault weapon?

Of course there are innocent bystander casualties in poker. When you click your mouse and lose your house your kids are the innocent victims who didn't voluntarily participate.

I dunno.

Is the purpose of gun control IYO to get rid of things you don't understand? Or is it to reduce crime?

And yet we let people with kids join the military or work other dangerous jobs, or make other unwise decisions with their money or child care. Your argument is bad and you know it.

CC knows the point of owning a .50 cal. If you don't, that's your problem.

But I'm not arguing that people with kids should be prohibited from doing dumb things. Of course such an argument would be bad, that's the entire point.

I'm not the one asking.

Yes, you do know.

I do understand.

The point of gun control is to reduce gun violence.

ok, if .50 cals are banned how much will "gun violence" decrease IYO?

Of course I know, the point is that whatever it is doesn't actually matter in any respect to the points I am making.

So you want to ban a gun that is never really used to murder people because you think it's pointless? Banning a .50 cal rifle has nothing to do with reducing gun violence.

I laughed almost as much when I read this as when Alex Jones said it.

If that was the point why is Chicago so violent? Do they not have some of the most restrictive gun laws? How does Washing DC measure up as well?

I try to convince society it is wrong, but if its banned I stop playing.

Very little. It's not very important in an of itself. But any reasonable gun legislation will cover it.

Oh, it's horrible trying to have a discussion with you sometimes, you know that, right?

Right, but any gun ban that I want will include a .50 cal. I'm not going to shed crocodile tears for the people who want to own a .50 cal weapon and cannot because of we decide to have reasonable gun legislation in this country.

When you intentionally shoot someone with a lethal weapon it still means killing, even if you interpritate it as self defense.
Term assault weapon is pretty much open for various interpretations with varying requirements, but in all of them the core is ability to use detachable magazines.

That's a massive question. Short answer is something about the social issues and poverty.

Yes, but a city cannot effectively control the amount of guns in their city when the rest of the country could not care less about stopping gun violence. It's just functionally impossible. It has to be a national policy imo.

So people that want an in-line muzzle loader to hunt deer or elk with can't own one because you feel threatened?

There's a huge disconnect here. I mean I get that the easiest tactic is to just paint everyone who opposes what you want as "unreasonable" but if we take you at your word and assume your goal is to reduce gun violence, then why would any "reasonable" legislation towards that goal include banning things that have zero impact on gun violence?

curious - what's the actual number we should expect for the decrease?

This seems more like a spiteful desire to ban guns rather than a genuine desire to reduce gun violence.

Is it equally important to limit violent crime or strictly gun violence?