The Violence Policy Center documents 4 actual uses of .50 BMG rifles by criminals as well as 18 additional cases in which a .50 caliber rifle was recovered from the possession of a criminal without the gun having been used in a crime. The General Accounting Office report "Weaponry: .50 Caliber Rifle Crime," GAO Office of Special Investigations letter, August 4, 1999, stated that there was a nexus between the .50 and terrorism, outlaw motorcycle gangs, international and domestic drug trafficking, and violent crime.
The answer is "yes" these weapons have been used and are possessed by criminals. Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network bought 25 Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifles in the late 1980s. We can only guess as to when one will be used by a terrorist. It doesn't take too much intelligence to know how much havoc a sniper can cause. After all, Ten people were killed and three others critically injured in various locations throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area and along Interstate 95 in Virginia during a three week period in October 2002. Don't you think that terrorists would do this again in the US?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
" Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network bought 25 Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifles in the late 1980s."
ReplyDeleteWhat Laci fails to mention is that those 25 .50 cals were sold to Al-Qaeda by the US government.
Where is your shared responsibility argument?
So MikeB, are these rifles a threat to public safety?
ReplyDeleteIf they are you surely have statistical evidence to prove it.
A VPC link BTW is not evidence.
I've not seen anyone denying that criminals sometimes possess .50 BMG rifles.
ReplyDeleteI skimmed through the list of VPC articles. Because of their vagueness and lack of cites, I can't tell which of these incidents are supposed to show "use" of a .50, rather than mere possession or brandishing.
More importantly, which of these incidents shows use in some way that could not be accomplished equally with an ordinary rifle or shotgun?
How would you define the upper limit of rifles acceptable for civilian ownership? (In general terms, I'm not asking for exact measurements) If a criminal or terrorist uses a rifle at the new upper limit, does that mean the limit needs to be changed again?
"Never" is factually incorrect, but look at the situation rationally:
ReplyDeleteAnti-gun groups have scoured every source they can find for every reference to .50BMG* rifles used in crime. According to the VPC's link, they've found a grand total of 34 connections to any crime whatsoever. Almost all are simple illegal posession by a felon or drug addict. At least one is for failing to comply with state "safe storage" laws, which the Supreme Court has suggested are unconstitutional. Several are cases in which a person commmitted a violent crime, and left the .50 BMG at home.
There are four actual violent uses of .50BMG rifles. In only two of them were the guns actually fired. There's no indication that anybody was killed in either shooting.
And this is for a cartridge that's been manufactured since 1921.
If you truly believe that restrictions on guns can reduce the 13,000 homicides with firearms that happen each year in this country, going after a cartridge responsible for a third of a crime per year and a grand total of zero criminal deaths is a pretty odd policy.
Bans on .50 caliber firearms are really just a foot-in-the-door strategy to be used as stepping stones to further restrictions, like the "assault weapons" ban, or the "partial birth abortion" ban. Incrementalism is a strategy used by both pro- and anti-gun folks, and you can't expect us to calmly accept your increments any more than we can expect you to calmly accept small procedural changes in concealed carry policy.
First off, great post Mike. I am a 64 Y/O veteran of military service. You do the math/figure out which "war era". A .50 is a PEOPLE KILLER plain and simple, and those who argue for possession of these things are NUTS. Besides my 6 years military, I have been a hunter and years ago was even a member of the NRA (before they went off the right wing side of the tracks). I have my guns, and will keep them, but to argue that one NEEDS to own a .50 or other sniper rifle is ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteI think i'll buy myself a .50 cal for Christmas.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the suggestion.
Mr. Natural, I think I might buy some guns so I can be a gun owner who favors gun control. Do you think that would increase my credibility?
ReplyDeleteElmo, You're right obviously. If the numbers are like that, I'm not too concerned with the .50s.
"Mr. Natural, I think I might buy some guns so I can be a gun owner who favors gun control. Do you think that would increase my credibility?"
ReplyDeleteIt didn't work for Laci the Dog. It won't work for you.
"I have been a hunter... but to argue that one NEEDS to own a .50 or other sniper rifle is ludicrous."
You do realize your hunting rifle is a sniper rifle?
"Laci the Dog posted a very informative article the other day on the .50 caliber sniper rifle."
ReplyDeleteWhere is the "very informative" part? I must have missed that.
However, if Pulitzer awarded prizes to bloggers and had a category for woulda-shoulda-coulda-maybe-what if articles, Laci would be a shoe-in. Actually, Laci missed their calling, with the way he/she writes about what could be as fact, Laci should be on the Nobel committee.
I really liked the 50 BMG crime wave. A dozen possession charges, a couple of brandishings and a dead foreigner. Yup, there's an epidemic out there. You would think VPC could find one instance of an American victim of that super-badass-ninja-sniper rifle that can do anything.
Hey, maybe that is why all of the gang-bangers pants are always falling down, they have a 5 foot long, 42 pound, $3900 rifle stuck in their waste-band. The 50 BMG is the weapon of choice for all terrorists and gangsters after all.
I'm still trying to figure out the end where the leap is made from the VPC driven drivel about the dastardly 50 BMG to the beltway sniper. Not only was the beltway sniper's weapon of choice not even considered a "sniper" rifle by military or police standards but it also wasn't even banned by the great 1994 assault weapon ban that was supposed to save us all from certain doom.
Laci, please keep reading VPC and others crying wolf over the 50, it is very entertaining.
And as a followup to Kaveman pointing out that the Al-Qaeda 50's came from the U.S. government, more than likely those found in Mexico did as well.
ReplyDeletePlease note that Barrett said that they would trace any of the 50's found in Mexico to see who they originally sold them too but it seems that neither government wanted that help. Guess its hard to run a canard when you put facts into the mix.
Elmo, You're right obviously. If the numbers are like that, I'm not too concerned with the .50s.
ReplyDeleteSo then, if you agree that the numbers compiled by one of the leading anti-gun groups demonstrate that the .50BMG is essentially a non-issue policy-wise, I presume you think Laci and the VPC are mistaken here.
They're arguing that bans on .50BMG rifles are so obviously crucial to public safety that any opposition to them is fanatical and dangerous. Whatever you may think of the NRA, a law restricting a type of gun that's never been used in a murder is exactly the kind of thing a rational gun-rights organization _should_ be opposing, isn't it?
If defending guns used exclusively for recreational shooting, which have literally never been used in an American murder is fanatical, is there _any_ gun rights advocacy you think is reasonable?
Mr. Natural: "A .50 is a PEOPLE KILLER plain and simple"
ReplyDeleteSo if "a .50 is a PEOPLE KILLER plain and simple" and it has been sold in the US for about 20 years, how many people have been killed with one here?
Mr. Natural: "I have been a hunter and years ago was even a member of the NRA (before they went off the right wing side of the tracks)"
ReplyDeleteI am curious: What positions of the NRA do you find objectionable?
AND (most importantly) how were those positions DIFFERENT when you were an NRA member?
It would help if you told us WHEN you were an NRA member and what specifically what was different about specific positions.
Here is some perspective on this issue:
ReplyDeleteIf these .50 guns could not do those awful things, gun control advocates would not want to ban them, right? WRONG. Over 6 years ago, S&W started making a .50 revolver. Did it shoot the same cartridge as the .50 rifles? NO -- the revolver cartridge was nowhere near that size or power, and could do none of the things claimed for .50 rifles.
Surprise! The VPC called it a awful threat and called for banning them. A news article about a politician's ban attempt can be seen here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/845915/posts
(The anti-gunowners politician reveals the usual ignorance by saying "You don't go out hunting deer with a revolver" -- but I digress.)
Have we heard much about banning .50 revolvers lately? NO -- the awful threat did not materialize. I won't be foolish and claim that one was NEVER involved in a crime -- some gun control advocate will find a story that someone ran a red light with one in the car, and claim a debate victory. But as Sherlock Holmes observed, the dog did not bark -- if there had been a serious crime, gun control advocates would have made a BIG fuss. But over six years later, and we hear...what?
What the revolver and rifle have in common is the ".50" designation -- a "hook" for gun control advocates to use to call for more gun bans. And that's what it's really about -- trying to find angles to ban more guns, and trying tp pass gun bans as pecredents to ease the way for more gun bans.
Hell, in NJ the anti's tried to ban ANY firearm with a bore diameter greater than .50, which obviously included many black powder & muzzleloaders.
ReplyDeleteThere's not a single firearm anti's like MikeB don't want restricted.