Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias...

"The manufacturer of a .50-caliber sniper rifle boasts that it can bring down an airplane with a single shot, and that's just one of the things about it that worries local lawmakers."

That's the opening paragraph of a story in today's NY Daily News. It's "boast" is from a brochure put out by Barrett Rifles, claims the writer of this piece.

Ronnie Barrett of Barrett Rifles

Not having seen the brochure I have to go out on a limb and presume it was a brochure aimed towards the military market, for one of Barrett's military models, and used an explosive round (which I DO know) is not available to civilians. The .50 caliber ammo that ordinary folks can purchase is a simple bullet about 2 1/2" long. I could show you a lot of popular hunting caliber cartridges that fire something equal in length (and almost in width) that could NOT bring down a plane. And if I hear one more gun-grabber claim that, "well, it could puncture the skin of a plane sitting at rest on an airstrip" I'll... Well, I'll point out that your dad's deer-hunting rifle can do the same.

Back to the article:

"There is no reason to have this [sniper rifle] in a civil society - in our society," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), who compared the rifle to a Humvee, saying that it is "the best of the best" in terms of sniper rifles.

She and other Democratic lawmakers are hoping to outlaw the rifle with a proposed state law called the Anti-Terrorism and Aviation Act. They say the gun could also be used to wreak havoc on chemical plants or oil storage facilities.

McCarthy, an outspoken gun-control advocate, appeared with the bill's sponsor, Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington (D-Medford), in Garden City yesterday. They urged state lawmakers to pass the bill, saying it would further protect Americans from terrorism.

Folks, this is division-by-zero. The .50 caliber firearm has not been implicated in any terroristic attacks in this country since -- actually, never! The sponsors of this NY legislation might as well claim that banning pretzels will "further protect Americans". Sure, a pretzel has never been used for terrorism but a mutant could take one a couple-days-old, set it on fire, and drop it into a bag of fertilizer...

The Daily News writer, E.W. Blankenbaker, wasn't able to produce a single quote from any makers of .50 guns, or from anyone who might provide some balance to McCarthy's claims. In fact, this piece is so biased that I had to check twice to be sure it wasn't an editorial.

For a lot more discussion on Barrett and the .50 caliber rifle, see my post here and also the comments here, both from this past January.

UPDATE: Ronnie Barrett responds. I sent off an email this morning to Ronnie Barrett asking for his comments on the allegations -- something the NY Daily News reporter apparently didn't bother doing. He wrote back:

Jeff,

Those are all VPC mis-quotes, Barrett had a Military brochure about 18 years ago that read;

“Heavy Firepower for light infantry:

This revolutionary Light .50 allows sophisticated targets to be destroyed or disabled by a single soldier. Armored personnel carriers, radar dishes, communications vehicles, aircraft and area denial summations are all vulnerable to the quick strike capability of the Barrett 82A1.”

After the first gulf war the Marines added SCUD missiles to the list. Of course all of these would have to be on the ground.

No military in the world is training its soldier to use the Barrett rifle to engage flying platforms of any kind. One would be quite foolish to suggest it, and more the fool to believe it, and regretfully, more to print it.

Barrett has information for civilian sport shooting and another for military uses and another for police. The VPC covers this up and represents to the lawmakers that we are irresponsibly marketing our product to the law-abiding citizen with these tactical scenarios.

This is the smoke that the VPC uses to deceive the legislators that don’t do their homework on topics they will be voting on.

Ronnie

So we see clearly now that Rep. McCarthy is simply mouthing the propaganda of the Violence Policy Center fundraising lobbyists. We also see that I make a better journalist than Blakenbaker!

On the other hand... Just when you thought you'd heard all you ever wanted to about missing or found fingers, we get a pointer from WFSB TV (CT):

Joel Gonzalez is bringing cutting edge equipment to the Internet. Literally.

Gonzalez, who cut off the tip of his finger outside the state Capitol in 1994 to protest efforts by the gun lobby to scuttle tougher firearms laws, is selling the homemade guillotine and hammer used in the severance on eBay. The bidding begins at $50,000.

"When I did it, people said I was crazy," said Gonzalez, a former Bridgeport city councilman. "I wonder what they are saying now."

Gonzalez told the Connecticut Post that he wants to sell the items to raise money needed to continue his activism in causes including bringing prayer back into schools, finding more money for education, abolishing the death penalty and, of course, strengthening gun control laws.

[...]

"States must consider amputating the trigger fingers of anyone who uses a firearm to commit a premeditated crime," he said.

Here's the eBay listing. I would have swiped one of the pictures from it but Gonzalez's digital snaps aren't very good. [Sorry, I should be shot for that one...] Here's a [literal] quote from it:

I as an activist have a different proposal for legislation that is sure to cut gun crime better than any other being considered, without affecting the Constitutinal right to bear arms. I was determined to be heard regarless of how the hearing process was manipulated.

I believe that the best method to send a clear and strong message to a violent society who think that using a firearm is the only way to solve differences. At times Laws must contain strong measures to keep society safe.

I believe that a strong,effective and necessary panishment for anyone commiting crimes with guns is long overdued. States must consider amputating the trigger fingers (index) of anyone who use a firearm to commit a premeditaded crime.

Well, I don't know if such a law would help us get a grip on gun crime but I have to hand it to Gonzalez, I'd support a similar measure for sex offenders.

Yesterday I mentioned a Chicago Sun-Times editorial lambasting a bill passed by the Illinois House that would close the supposed "gun show loophole" but also require state police to destroy records of firearm purchases. I won't repeat what I said, you can scroll down to it below. The Times-Press (IL) reported without bias:

“Somebody that is a law-abiding citizen should not have a problem with having a background check,” Police Chief Bill Hawbaker of the Silvis Police Department, said. “But once you know that somebody doesn’t have a criminal history, I don’t see a need to keep those records.”

The Illinois State Police keep gun transaction records for an unlimited amount of time, according to Rick Hector, a State Police spokesperson. The information includes date, time, the person's Firearms Owner’s Identification Card number, the federal firearm licensee number, a transaction number and whether the request was approved or denied.
“These records protect law enforcement officers when they serve a warrant or arrest a suspect at home,” Hector said. “It is important for officers to know whether a suspect is potentially armed.”

Chief of Police Brian Zeilmann, of the Ottawa Police Department, said he is in favor of the measure which will “keep guns out of the hands of criminals.” Although keeping records for an unlimited amount of time doesn’t really have a big impact in solving crime, he added.

“I never understood why gun purchases at gun shows don’t always require background checks,” Chief of Police Joseph Beard of the Bourbonnais Police Department, said. If records come up clean, there isn’t a need to keep records but he added that some sort of measure should be in place to track sales to people who may be providing guns to criminals.

So three police chiefs questioned didn't really see the need to hold onto records. That's good. Because keeping them would be tantamount to a gun registry and we all know where THAT leads.

I (along with many readers here) have to wonder about the fourth cop, Rick Hector from the Illinois State Police saying that officers need to know "whether a suspect is potentially armed". Shouldn't an officer always ASSUME that a suspect is armed? Isn't that just standard training?

Turning to non-U.S. stuff for a moment, I stumbled across this story from the Philipines:

MAYOR Rodrigo Duterte [of Davao City -js] is planning to buy 150 shotguns that he will distribute in the barangays [neighborhoods -js] frequently faced by problems on hooliganism.

In his weekly television program Sunday, Duterte said he will arm barangay tanods with shotgun so they could put a stop on gangsters in their respective barangays.

The mayor then reiterated his earlier warning to parents of youngsters involved in hooliganism to better buy coffins for their children now while it is still cheap.

He warned that if these children will not reform, then they will probably die sooner or later.

Duterte admitted that he is alarmed by the incidence of gang wars in several barangays especially in the city proper.

He said he would be forced to fight violence with violence just to put a stop to these riots.

"We have to terrorize the terrorists, kidnap the kidnappers, kill the killers just to stop these criminals," Duterte said.

Sounds like a lovely place to visit but seriously, while many in the US think that an unarmed populace will eliminate crime, this is a city where the unarmed have been at the mercy of gang mutants. Mayor Duterte "gets it" and knows that the police can't (or won't) be everywhere. He's going to fight fire-with-fire and give community leaders the chance to defend their neighborhoods. I think his words say it all. I also think his advice to parents of these thugs ought to be heard by parents here in the US who are letting their kids run wild.

San Francisco take note!

And from the department of Here's how it's done, the story of another fool who tried to rob a gun store, from the Tennessean:

A confrontation over stolen guns in Greenbrier's Guns and Leather store yesterday led to a man being shot twice in the back by a store worker, injuries that later proved fatal, Police Chief Richard Hatfield said.

"At 1:30 (p.m.), we were called on a gunshot call," Hatfield said. "A person named Courtney Hall II was injured, shot twice. He had come into the store and taken weapons out and re-entered the store. An employee recognized what was going on and a confrontation happened. That led to him being shot by the employee."

Hall was obviously a resident of Darwin's Waiting Room (thank you Dennis Miller).

Here's what's being chatted about elsewhere:

James R. Rummel has thoughts on the M16 and the XM8 for you military buffs or anyone interested in the developement of modern weapons.

Bruce at mASS BACKWARDS shows the reason why folks need to arm themselves: Because revolving door justice puts the mutants right-back-out on the street!

I was going to mention the Christian Science Monitor editorial about the DC gun-rights push but instead I'll just direct you to Say Uncle, who takes it apart.

Denise at The Ten Ring writes about blue states lost to folks like us. It was inspired by Kim du Toit's post here. Fortunately, for those who like the region itself, there's still NH and Vermont.

Geek With A .45 is carrying way to much!

Blogonomicon reports on a challenge to the Brady Bunch.

Time to get this posted. I'll be doing it live, as usual, on the Cam Edwards' Show during his first hour (3 Eastern) later today. Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at May 24, 2005 08:58 AM