Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias...

Greetings from the land of an unfettered Second Amendment. I say that because while Vermont (only 4 GUN murders last year) has repeatedly -- backed by the state Supreme Court -- upheld the individual right to bear any type of arms you might like, many other states are frothing at the mouth to infringe on your Constitutional rights.

What brings this to my mind is a story that I mentioned last week about a law in California banning the sale, distribution, and new purchase of .50 caliber guns. From the New York Times:

California has become the first state to ban a powerful .50-caliber long-range rifle that gun control advocates portray as a military firearm that could easily fall into the hands of terrorists bent on assassination or shooting down an airplane.

Under the ban, which was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in September and took effect on Jan. 1, it is now illegal to manufacture, sell, distribute or import a weapon known as the .50-caliber BMG, or Browning machine gun rifle, a single-shot weapon widely used not only by law enforcement officers and the military but, more recently, by civilian sport shooters as well.

The writer of this NY Times story, Carolyn Marshall, included quotes and arguments from both sides of the issue. While there were some unexplained, or rather, unelaborated statements, I can't fault this article for being one sided. Here's the gun (one version) from Barrett Rifles that is at the center of all this brouhaha:

That's the ten-round semi-automatic version. Now look, even I -- an acknowledged gun-nut -- recognize that to the lay, non-gun enthusiast public, this firearm probably looks rather intimidating. Of course, to many of them, almost ANY firearm is "scary looking" and that's not a reason to ban them as we saw with the ridiculous and phony "assault weapons" ban that mercifully passed away last September. But I'm sure the pistol grip and the heat-shield add to the impression of the impressionable that this thing is a lot of gun.

It is. It weighs almost 30 pounds and is over five feet long! Hardly the choice of criminals who might like to hold-up the local liquar store. And judging by the comments of supporters of the California ban, that isn't who they are worried about. Once again, the spectre of "terrorism" is used as an excuse to demonize what, when you strip away the bells and whistles, is just another rifle. Here's another quote from the NY Times article:

The .50 BMG rifle, patented in 1987 by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing of Murfreesboro, Tenn., was designed as a sniper weapon for law enforcement and the military; it was widely used by American troops during the Persian Gulf war of 1991.

Manufacturers say the rifle is accurate at a range of up to 2,000 yards, more than a mile. It fires bullets five and a half inches long described as powerful enough to rip through armor, much less the thin aluminum skin that covers commercial airliners.

"They can pierce the skin of an aircraft," said Daniel R. Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a central supporter of the law. "It could be used to shoot down an airplane. And we certainly don't want to wait until a terrorist buys one before we ban it."

First of all, there are plenty of hunting rifles out there whose ammunition can travel a mile or two. And despite a claim made in another story I'll get to shortly, many of them can pierce metal. But simply put, they are not the choice of criminals or, for that matter, terrorists. Even the scare-tactic of claiming that a .50 caliber (and remember, we're only talking about a bullet slightly wider than the traditional .45 that has been with us for most of a century (think 1911...).

Could someone aim one of these things at a jet passing overhead? I suppose so but with a target moving at 600 miles per hour, the chances of a terrorist hitting something on the plane are slight, and hitting something that would cause a catastrophic event, such as a fuel tank exploding, are almost nil. But I suppose, truth in blogging, that it could happen. But, it hasn't. In fact, as all the articles decrying this firearm have pointed out, there is not one instance of the .50 caliber rifle being used criminally or terroristically in the United States.

Now, there are reports that Bin Ladin and his band of mutants have purchased some of these guns but there is no anecdotal evidence that they have employed them here in the US (or elsewhere, for that matter -- but we're talking about gun control here in America and that is what counts to me). There are also claims that the Branch Davidians in Waco used .50 rifles but was that terrorism? I don't consider it so. In fact, I consider their actions to be purely defensive in an onslaught by Janet Reno and her minions using trumped-up charges to kill innocent people. I'm sure that last sentence will get me plenty of nasty comments...

One final point about the Times story: They originally claimed that the bullets fired were 5 1/2 inches long. They did issue a correction this morning:

Correction Monday, Dec. 10, 2005
An article on Tuesday about California's ban on a long-range rifle, the .50-caliber BMG, referred incorrectly to its ammunition. It is the cartridges that are five and a half inches long; the bullets are about two and a quarter inches long.

Good for them for a rapid response to emails.

Getting back to the original point of all this, California has banned further sales of the Barrett rifle. Many other states have tried but -- to this point -- failed. This disturbs the media to no-end and they are letting their blathers be heard...

Here's one From the Daytona Beach News:

A .50-caliber sniper rifle can hit a target at 4,500 feet, shatter bulletproof limousines, penetrate sandbags, earth berms, armored vehicles, commercial planes, and drill through the walls (and living rooms) of 10 suburban houses lined up one after another. The Geneva Conventions don't prohibit .50-caliber weapons' use against military personnel, and army manuals describe its usefulness in battle. But the weapon's use on civilians and in civilian areas is prohibited.

Oddly enough -- or maybe not so oddly in the twilight zone of Second Amendment zealotry -- you can buy a .50-caliber weapon from your friendly mail-order gun dealer. The Barrett line of .50-caliber sniper rifles, patented in 1987, is the "One Shot One Kill" enthusiasts' gun of choice. After its introduction and wide use in the first Gulf War, it made some famous cameos in the arsenals of infamous separatists in the 1990s (Timothy McVeigh owned one, the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, had some). The .50-caliber weapon is also used by civilian police forces, although not by the area's largest forces -- the Daytona Beach Police Department and Volusia's and Flagler's sheriff's offices.

Since the United States isn't at war with itself, I'll ignore the silly "Geneva Convention" comment. And I suppose that if those "10 suburban houses lined up" are straw and grass huts located on an island in the South Pacific, then this editorial might be correct.

Instead, I'll use his own words to debunk the writer! If, as he (un-named) says, this [.50 caliber gun] is as dangerous as he claims, then what or why are civilian police forces using them? Since the police are not trying to take-out mutants from two miles away, and since their primary concern (or at least it should be their primary concern) is to minimize collateral damage and loss of life to innocent bystanders, why would they employ such a powerful and dangerous weapon?

You know, there's a blurb on the box of Remington .22 ammo in my closet warning that bullets can travel a mile and a half. That doesn't mean that they do. Please don't misunderstand me; I am not trying to down-play the force of the .50 caliber rifle, just some of the hype that opponents of it use to describe it. Folks, it's still just a rifle. And for those who enjoy owning and target shooting or big-game hunting rifles, it's a cool gun. It is NOT the type of firearm that your average mutant or terrorist could easily afford or carry undetected.

To claim that the gun has only one purpose -- to kill humans at a distance -- is as specious as declaring that high-performance cars such as Porches and Ferraris are designed only for breaking speed limits and driving recklessly and therefore should be banned...

I would also point out, aside from the previous comments I've made that there are many ammos that travel far distances and can pierce the walls of a house, that half-inch bullets are nothing new. Muskets have been firing .50 ball rounds for three hundred years. No, they don't have the travel force of modern ammo but recent attempts in New Jersey didn't even make that distinction in [failing] attempts to ban the caliber.

Which brings us to the CBS 60 Minutes report last night by Ed Bradley. I didn't see it because I don't receive a CBS station where I live. And while the video isn't yet up on their site, CBS has provided a semi-transcript. Here's some of it:

This past week, a new law went into effect in California banning that weapon. It's the .50-caliber rifle, the Rolls Royce of sniper rifles. It's a big gun, a favorite of armies around the world, and it's still available in 49 states in this country to anyone over 18 with a clean record.

It is, without a doubt, the most powerful weapon you can buy. And, as Correspondent Ed Bradley reports, it's powerful enough to kill a man or pierce armor from more than a mile away.

A Senate report said that a bullet from a .50-caliber rifle, even at 1.5 miles, crashes into a target with more energy than a bullet fired at point-blank range from Dirty Harry's famous .44 Magnum.

Well! An introduction like that is sure to have liberals watching the show crapping in their pants. In point of fact though, if we consider any item that could cause death, this rifle doesn't even come close to the destructive force of such legally available things such as several pounds of common fertilizers or your average propane tank used to fire-up the old bar-be-cue. Indeed, firing a common everyday round of ammo into the gas tank of your car could probably cause a significant explosion that would make the .50 caliber rifle bullet pale into insignificance.

The difference is that while the examples of everyday items have indeed been used as weapons here in the US, the Barrett rifle hasn't. But apparently Ed Bradley forgot about the destruction of the federal building in Oklahoma City (or the first attempt on the World Trade Center) and has also forgotten that the original plan by the Columbine mutants was to set-off propane tanks by shooting at them in the school cafeteria.

The CBS segment went on (at least according to the transcript) to interview rather extensively, gun control advocate Tom Diaz:

It's not convenience store robberies that worry Tom Diaz, a gun control advocate who was an expert witness in the California campaign to ban the gun.

Diaz says the .50-caliber rifle made by Barrett and other manufacturers is a menace in the hands of terrorists. "This gun is designed and built to smash things up and to set things on fire," says Diaz. "It's a battlefield weapon. Yet it is sold as freely on the American civilian market as a .22 bolt action rifle."

What's wrong with Barrett's product?

"I'm glad Ronnie Barrett makes his rifle for our military forces. I think it's a great thing on the battlefield," says Diaz. "I just think that there are certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety, and in this case, our national security, we will not allow it."

But isn't any gun in the hands of a terrorist a threat?

"Well of course any gun is. But it is a gun that is unparalleled by any other small arm available to civilians," says Diaz. "We control every other kind of weapon of war you can think of – machine guns, plastic explosives, rockets. But this thing has flown under the radar for about 20 years."

Let me drag out some old chestnut arguments I've used in the past. Regardless of the reason for the use of something, the final argument is that it can cause death. SO FAR, the .50 caliber Barrett rifle hasn't caused any here in the US. Meanwhile, automobiles have, to the tune of about 45 thousand each year. Swimming pools have, to the tune of a thousand per year. Viagra has, to the demise of 50 horny guys each year.

If Diaz's argument is really that the .50 caliber rifle "is such a threat to our health and safety" then why isn't he advocating banning all things in our world that can cause harm? Do we really want to live in a super-controlled society? Should we all just exist in padded-cells? Will America soon look like the medicated world depicted in movies such as THX-1138?

To Bradley's credit, there were plenty of quotes by the maker of the Barrett rifle, Ronnie Barrett:

Why would you need a weapon this powerful if you're not fighting a war? "It's a target rifle. It's a toy," says Barrett. "It's a high-end adult recreational toy. Any rifle in the hands of a terrorist is a deadly weapon."
[...]
But he scoffs at critics who claim that .50-caliber rifles are too dangerous in the hands of civilians. "The .50 has an excellent record. You know, as far as the abuses with .50-caliber rifles, they are so few, if any, that all other calibers ought to aspire to have as good a record as it has," says Barrett. "And it's a long rifle. When you hear people say it's a criminal's weapon, this is 5-and-a-half feet tall, or something like that. This is not a weapon that a criminal would use."

Then, in another show of bias, the segment showed NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly -- a vocal proponent of gun control -- demonstrating the Barrett rifle. He said:

"Went right through," says Kelly. "It is clearly a weapon of war, a round to be used in a wartime situation. It's appropriate for the military. The effective range is about 2,000 yards. It's a very formidable weapon."

Folks, I know first-hand that a knife with a three-inch blade is a formidable weapon. I had one stuck into me seven times. It's not the gun or the knife or the car. It's how it is used or misused. Let me state again, for the third time, that it is Just A Rifle.

Update 1/11/05: Following the airing of the 60 Minutes report, Ronnie Barrett had this to say in the Daily News Journal:

One day after Murfreesboro-based Barrett's Firearms Manufacturing was featured on CBS' "60 Minutes," the company's owner said coverage went as expected but may provide a toehold for anti-gun activists to push legislation he believes violates the Second Amendment.

"This is only the tip of the iceberg," said Ronnie Barrett, founder, CEO and president of the local weapons manufacturer. "This is a slippery slope for gun control, and I think '60 Minutes' played fairly well into it."
[...]
Barrett agreed that his rifles can be potentially dangerous but added that any weapon is dangerous in the hands of a terrorist. Under federal law, Barrett's rifles are treated no differently than a common hunting rifle.

"I fear Diaz played '60 Minutes' right down where he wanted them," said Barrett. "The effect the segment had is it left people thinking there is a dangerous gun out there that legislation needs to be done against."

In defense of the legality of his product, Barrett cited the media war waged in the 1980s by anti-gun activists bent on banning "Saturday Night Specials," another term for small, easily concealed pistols. When that failed, they attempted to ban assault-style rifles, which held up in the courts but expired in 2004. Now they have a new target, he said, a rifle that has made headlines for its effectiveness and versatility in Iraq and other combat theaters.

"There's other cartridges that would blast through half-inch steel plate," Barrett said, referring to the ability of his rifles to punch through armor at long distances. "What they didn't tell you on the '60 Minutes' interview is there are cartridges right on the heels of the .50-caliber."

Another important aspect of his product Barrett said '60 Minutes' misrepresented concerns records of ownership. Diaz wants Congress to pass a law requiring the names of owners of .50-caliber rifles to be kept on file. Barrett maintains that all firearms transactions and ownership records are already kept on file with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in a 4473 form.

"I feel like (Ed) Bradley didn't know, and that's the answer he got from the VPC, and any answer that usually comes out of them is false," Barrett said. "The only thing they get correct is the spelling of my name."

This edition of my Weekly Check on the Bias is unusual in that I've focused exclusively on just one issue, but I thought it was important.

Anyway, here's what some other pro-2A bloggers are up to:

Say Uncle and team have all sorts of stuff up including more on the CBS report. So does Publicola.

Great post by James at Hell in a Handbasket about pocket guns. To bastardize a commercial, "What's in YOUR pocket?"

Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum reports on a defensive shooting and the unbiased report about it.

Posse Incitatus wants to know your thoughts on Colt vs S&W. I will always come down on the side of Smith and Wesson. My .38 Airweight is a thing of beauty and a trusted carry companion...

Picking up on what I mentioned in my post today, Reasonable Nut reports on hunting vs boating safety. Guess what? Hunting is safer. We knew that...

Alright, let me get this post up. Thanks to all of you for stopping by. I'll be on Cam Edwards tomorrow and I'll be back here soon.

Posted by Jeff Soyer at January 10, 2005 09:44 AM