Using .50 Cal

2006-07-21 11:08:03

#201

GR.:.Lt._Squall: I am an X-Phile; +0|6880|USA

I do not find a moral dilemma here, if you're gonna outlaw any type of ammo, make it all of it or none. Some just do more damage than others. Not to mention that just because the caliber is large doesn't mean that it's immoral to use. I have to say if anything is gonna be marked as moral or immoral it sould be using guns at all. Which, by the way I think is moral. If you think it should be illegal to use .50 caliber rounds, then it'd be illegal to use modern day sniper rifles and Desert Eagles.

Last edited by GR.:.Lt._Squall (2006-07-21 11:09:16)

2006-07-21 16:05:26

#202

scouseclarky: Member; +10|6970

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
TXVeteran512 wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
no conventional weapon should be illegal when it comes to war.
Well said... rather put a HE or AP on a running RPG team.... but what do these people know there GunSlinger....
man, I keep trying to tell em about the Bushmaster, haha. honestly you know more than I do, how many .50's were issued out to the platoons after we (mostly you guys and second) got rid of the guntrucks. shit even when 3rd was in baghdad we never took out the .50 from those oregon or arkansas cats. we just stuck to our Brads and 240's when we were using the humvees.

.50 cal.....Rhodes....HAHAHA

fuck me i cant believe this thread is still going gunslinger. but people just don't get it. no matter how hard you try unless they have served or are still serving they wont understand the advantage of being able to out range out shoot out class and finally out fight the enemy. you would have better luck trying to wear a dress and bra on a regimental parade without getting your face kicked in than some of these ppl understanding that it's not the weaponry used, but the wars themselves that are truly inhumane

2006-07-21 16:30:04

#203

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7105

the person who got shot by a 50 cal doesnt feel a thing when the bullet hits... dies instantly... 50 cal is nothing comparing to a 20 or 30mm cannon...

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-07-21 17:27:22

#204

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,068|7161|PNW

mafia996630 wrote:
shit, i just searched google to see wot the .50 calebur bullet looks like, first pic that came up shows wot it can do.

THIS IS SICK!!!! PLEASE DONT CLICK LINK IF YOU CAN NOT HANDLE IT.
http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudie … esults.jpg

Well. He still has something resembling a face. You could just about reconstruct it for funeral purposes. Then again, closed casket may be more cost-effective...

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-07-21 17:29:42)

2006-07-22 15:34:35

#205

mafia996630: © 2009 Jeff Minard; +319|7152|d

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
mafia996630 wrote:
shit, i just searched google to see wot the .50 calebur bullet looks like, first pic that came up shows wot it can do.

THIS IS SICK!!!! PLEASE DONT CLICK LINK IF YOU CAN NOT HANDLE IT.
http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudie … esults.jpg
Well. He still has something resembling a face. You could just about reconstruct it for funeral purposes. Then again, closed casket may be more cost-effective...

Tell him that .

2006-08-12 18:50:48

#206

Deathscope: Member; +2|7035

The only reason anyone should have a problem with how humane a weapon is , is if it is purposely designed to inflict as much pain as possible to the target, otherwise it shouldn't be an issue.

2006-08-13 15:44:53

#207

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6970|SE London

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
no conventional weapon should be illegal when it comes to war.

Well Napalm wouldn't be a very nice way to go - I see why that was banned.

*edit*
I've got nothing against using .50 cal weapons though, thats fine.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-13 15:46:23)

2006-08-15 09:25:22

#208

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7033

why dont we ban terrorist from using IED's

an injury or death from IED is an ugly thing

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-08-15 09:25:43)

2006-08-15 10:35:40

#209

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6970|SE London

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
why dont we ban terrorist from using IED's

an injury or death from IED is an ugly thing

Because it's quite hard to impose penalties on people after they've blown themselves into a million bits.

2006-08-15 11:03:59

#210

USARANGER01: Member; +35|7037|America

dude, that is just stupid. "ok guys, it is now illegal to shoot someone with a .50 cal gun"
ITS WAR! YOU TRY AND KILL THE ENEMY ANY WAY YOU CAN!
did you know that right after WWI, the League Of Nations made WAR illegal?

ya, that worked out really nice

2006-08-15 11:49:12

#211

James-m: Member; +28|6938|England

ok, lets say, theres an enemy patrol walking towards your bunker, theres a mounted 50cal, what are you gonna do? let them walk up and kill you because the only means of protection is illegal?! piss off! your gona let rip with it and save your skin arent u. if anyone disagrees they obviously have no military expericence or just generally hate life

2006-08-15 12:27:03

#212

Deathsc-O-pe[CoD]: Member; +0|7160

It's not meant to inflict pain, it's meant to kill, so I don't understand why we are even debating this. Although these bullets can and will inflict pain it's purpose is to kill and disable the enemy.

2006-08-15 15:42:11

#213

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7033

Bertster7 wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
why dont we ban terrorist from using IED's

an injury or death from IED is an ugly thing
Because it's quite hard to impose penalties on people after they've blown themselves into a million bits.

IED's arent always suicide weapons. most of the time they aint.

2006-08-15 16:12:01

#214

Major_Spittle: Banned; +276|7044|United States of America

I feel all nonNerf weapontry should be banned from war.

Let's face it, there is just way too much metal flying around the modern battlefield at a high rate of speed. Sooner or later someone is gonna get hurt really bad.

2006-08-15 16:13:14

#215

Dersmikner: Member; +147|6887|Texas

Dead is Dead, butterknife or 50cal.

2006-08-15 16:16:03

#216

tahadar: Sniper!!; +183|7127|Pakistan/England

in WAR, yes it should be legal. but for citizens to own? hell no, in my opinion.

2006-08-15 16:18:57

#217

kilgoretrout: Member; +53|6859|Little Rock, AR

eagles1106 wrote:
I would say use it only when you need it, like penetrating through something..
The only time it should be used against a human is if the human was behind armored walls or thick glass or something like that

What's the difference between a human in an APC or chopper or a human wearing body armor?

2006-08-15 16:20:16

#218

syntaxmax642: Member; +32|7014|Seattle

In general or just in the game? you really should clarify this because if it was legal to pwnerize people with a .50 cal in real life there would be lot less noobs hanging around.

Also the difference bewtween the above is that neither really has a viable defense against a .50 cal.

I need karma... Please....

Last edited by syntaxmax642 (2006-08-15 16:21:28)

2006-08-15 16:30:59

#219

kilgoretrout: Member; +53|6859|Little Rock, AR

syntaxmax642 wrote:
Also the difference bewtween the above is that neither really has a viable defense against a .50 cal.

No they don't, the .50 cal bullet will kill them through an APC wall as effectively as if they were completely naked.

2006-08-15 16:58:55

#220

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7033

kilgoretrout wrote:
syntaxmax642 wrote:
Also the difference bewtween the above is that neither really has a viable defense against a .50 cal.
No they don't, the .50 cal bullet will kill them through an APC wall as effectively as if they were completely naked.

you know nothing, out.

2006-08-15 17:02:30

#221

kilgoretrout: Member; +53|6859|Little Rock, AR

I know nothing? What's the moral difference between killing someone with a .50 cal gun in one situation and killing with a .50 cal gun in another? Either it's morally acceptable or it's not. If you have a .50 cal gun mounted on top of a vehicle and you're being shot at by people with ak-47s, should you not shoot back just because they're not in an armored vehicle?

Last edited by kilgoretrout (2006-08-15 17:02:51)

2006-08-15 17:11:04

#222

dogpile1487: Member; +4|6902

all i know is that there won't be much left if someone gets hit with a .50

2006-08-15 17:12:41

#223

the_hitman_kills: Agent 47 wannabe; +32|6854|Inside my APC

i think all weapons should be banned, and people should fight using inflatable boxing gloves wearing sumo suits

2006-08-15 17:15:19

#224

SuperSlowYo: slow as you go; +124|6949|Canaduhhh.. West Toast

NO... I should be allowed to shoot as many people as i want as often as i want whenever i want with a .50 calibre weapon of my choice...

2006-08-15 17:16:03

#225

dogpile1487: Member; +4|6902

or either side and get a bucket of wet sponges and throw them at each other...

Yes	21%	21% - 81
No	78%	78% - 296
Total: 377

BF2S Forums Using .50 Cal

Poll

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

TXVeteran512 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

eagles1106 wrote:

syntaxmax642 wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

syntaxmax642 wrote:

Board footer