Ironically within a week of Dan Rather retiring from the CBS Evening News because of the fiasco over the 60 Minutes Memogate scandal, this weekend 60 Minutes was at it again, this time stirring up fears about how terrorists would use 50-caliber rifles to attack Americans.
Last year the big fear was over the semi-automatic assault-weapons ban just before it expired. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D., N.Y.) claimed the ban was one of "the most effective measures against terrorism that we have." Of course, nothing happened when the law expired last year. There was nothing unique about the guns that are banned under the law. Though the phrase "assault weapon" conjures up images of the rapid-fire machine guns used by the military, in fact the weapons covered by the ban function the same as any semiautomatic hunting rifle; they fire the exact same bullets with the exact same rapidity and produce the exact same damage as hunting rifles.
Back in the mid-1980s it was the hysteria over "plastic guns" when the Austrian company Glock began exporting pistols to the United States. Labeled as "terrorist specials" by the press, fear spread that their plastic frame and grip would make them invisible to metal detectors. Glocks are now common and there are good reasons they are one of the favorite pistols of American police officers. The "plastic gun" ban did not ban anything since it is not possible to actually build a working plastic gun.
Now it is the 50-caliber rifles' turn, especially with California outlawing the sale of these guns since the beginning of the year. For years gun-control groups have tried to ban 50-caliber rifles because of fears that criminals could use them. Such bans have not been passed -- these guns were simply not suited for crime. Fifty-caliber rifles are big, heavy guns, weighing at least 30 pounds and using a 29-inch barrel. They are also relatively expensive. Models that hold one bullet at a time run nearly $3,000. Semi-automatic versions cost around $7,000. Wealthy target shooters and big-game hunters, not criminals, purchase them. The bottom line is that only one person in the U.S. has been killed with such a gun, and even that one alleged case is debated.
The supposed link to terrorism provides a new possible reason to ban 50-caliber rifles. 60 Minutes darkly warned of ".50-caliber rifles, a gun that can kill someone from over a mile away and even bring down an airplane" and that "the bullets blew right through the steel plate." But the decision to demonize these particular guns and not say .475-caliber hunting rifles is completely arbitrary. The difference in width of these bullets is a trivial .025 inches. What's next? Banning .45-caliber pistols? Instead of protecting people from terrorists or criminals, the whole strategy is to gradually reduce the type of guns that people can own.
Sniper Central, a site for both military snipers and law-enforcement sharpshooters, claims that "For military extreme long-range anti-personnel purposes, the .338 Lapua is king. Even the .50BMG falls short. (Due to accuracy problems with current ammo)." The .338 Lapua round simply has what is called a better bullet coefficient, it produces less drag as it travels through the air.
With a 50-caliber rifle it is possible for an extremely lucky and skilled marksman to hit a target at 1,800 meters (versus 1,500 meters plus for the .338 Lapua), though most marksmen say that the effective range for any of these guns is around 1,000 meters. The reason is simple: to get these maximum distances, you can't fire directly at the target but must arch the shot at a 45 degree angle. Bringing down an airplane with a semi-automatic rifle is improbable.
Fighting terrorism is a noble cause, but the laws we pass must have some real link to solving the problem. As Dan Rather would say: "Courage."
John Lott Jr, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2000) and "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery, 2003).
I saw a TV piece this week on 50 caliber rifles, but the thrust of the piece was that they were being legally purchased one at a time, and exported 3 and 4 at a time by large numbers of teams to arm rebel soldiers in another country (can't remember which I was pretty tired and had a long productive week.
The range and powerful potential of the rifle was highly emphasized and the questions were loaded and leading, meant to incite and sensationalize.
I guess there's a difference between the US government making the profit on the sale of arms and foreign buyers cutting out the politics and the middleman.
60 minutes just doesn't ahve that much credibility. Unfortunately, many people will swallow their lies whole and not do any critical thinking ofr themselves.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
There was an interesting letter from Ronnie G. Barrett President of Barrett Firearms in the January 2005 issue of American Rifleman magazine on page 22. The letter was in response to the Chief of the LAPD after his grandstanding demonstration to the anti-gun press and the VPC late in 2004. Apparently one of the Barrett .50's owned by the LAPD was in the shop for maintenance at Barrett HQ and Mr. Barrett was letting them know that perhaps, due to the stance of the management of LAPD they could in effect get stuffed. His exact words are:
"Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms."
An interesting letter, if you have the Rifleman from January, I suggest you read the entire thing. I will try to find it on the net and if I do will post it here.
"Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms."
Interesting tactic, I wonder if it could have a more wide spread effect. There are always stories about police organizations speaking out against gun ownership. I wonder what their stance would be if ALL the gun manufactures took Mr. Barrett"™s stance and refused to sell firearms to police officers who favored disarming the public. Congress passes a gun ban, no more guns for the military. Hmmm, just thinking aloud there"¦
__________________
There's no such thing as truth, only perception
Congress passes a gun ban, no more guns for the military.
More to the point, congress passes an anti-gun law, manufacturers refuse to sell weapons to those that provide personal protective services to those members of congress supporting the bill. This could also be apply to those selling body armor.
I am not refering to the rank and file officer or secret service agent or uniformed secret service officer but rather the personal body guards that most MC's seem to have. Especially the likes of kennedy and schumer.
60 Minutes, Terrorists and Guns
