CNN reports on the mass shooting in Virginia.
At this point of the investigation many details are still unavailable. The police spokesperson said they don't know the shooter's relationship with the victims. I guess that will be forthcoming. But does it really matter? Whether he was a close relative or a total stranger, I don't see all that much difference, do you?
Three teenagers and a 4-year-old were among the eight deaths in a Virginia shooting, state police said Wednesday.
Christopher Speight, 39, is being held without bond at the Blue Ridge Regional Jail in Lynchburg, Virginia, after being charged with a single count of first degree murder, police said, adding that further charges are pending.
Speight surrendered peacefully early Wednesday morning after an overnight manhunt left him hiding in the woods surrounded by a several-square-mile perimeter set up by authorities, Appomattox County Sheriff O. Wilson Staples said.
Speight was wearing a bulletproof vest but had no weapons when he surrendered, Staples said.
At this point of the investigation many details are still unavailable. The police spokesperson said they don't know the shooter's relationship with the victims. I guess that will be forthcoming. But does it really matter? Whether he was a close relative or a total stranger, I don't see all that much difference, do you?
On the Huffington Post it's reported that some of the victims were his sister and her family.
What I was most interested in, and couldn't find enough information about, is the helicopter. The police spokesperson said he'd shot and hit it. In another report I read that "he damaged it." I remembered all the mocking derisory remarks on the part of the pro-gun crowd when we talked about the banning of .50 caliber sniper rifles because they could shoot down aircraft.
What do you think? Does a man with a rifle shooting at an aircraft pose a serious threat? Could a marksman shoot down a helicopter like they do all the times in the movies?
Please leave a comment.
Please leave a comment.
If you fill the sky with enough lead, you're bound to hit something. We've lost an Apache in Iraq to guys who got off a few lucky shots with AK-47s. It doesn't take much of a marksman to damage or down a helicopter.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know what type of gun he used and what type of helicopter he shot.
The copter landed safely after a bullet pierced the fuel tank.
ReplyDeleteNo info is given about range but any deer rifle could do this, no problem.
Why then was the banning of .50 caliber rifles in California so ridiculed? I wouldn't want to be in an airliner taking off from LAX with one of those suckers firing at it. Would you?
ReplyDeleteOf course most rifles can take down a helicopter. They can also take down light fixed wing aircraft.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just fuel tanks and lines--it's the avionics. Most modern aircraft, like most everything else, are heavily dependent on computer-based avionic systems. Of course, if you hit a pilot--you have big problems as well.
A .50 cal could easily take down an airliner at takeoff or approach.
--JadeGold
"A .50 cal could easily take down an airliner at takeoff or approach."
ReplyDeleteYet, still no accounts of it actually happening have yet been cited in this thread. Odd that.
Why then was the banning of .50 caliber rifles in California so ridiculed?
ReplyDeleteSpoken like someone who's never held a 50 caliber rifle. They are heavy. Too heavy, really, to shoot accurately offhand.
If you shoot one at a plane or helicopter, and hit it, it'll put a hole in it. Just like a 30-06 would. Does it really matter if the hole is a few millimeters bigger?
"Yet, still no accounts of it actually happening have yet been cited in this thread. Odd that."
ReplyDeleteOdd that Ruff apparently believes the only way something is possible is for it to have happened.
Of course, Ruff probably isn't well-acquainted with physics. By the use of physics, we can model, simulate, analyze such events. In fact, in 1995, the RAND Corp, performed such a study for the USAF looking at the threat posed by .50 cals against USAF aircraft. They concluded .50 Cals could easily bring down USAF aircraft.
It's not difficult to research if you're an engineer. For example, it's fairly easy to model the kinetic energy of a .50 cal projectile at various ranges. You also have aircraft specs. It'd be pretty easy to see the damage that could be caused to aircraft critical systems such as avionics, pilots, electric generators, power cables, hydraulic systems, etc.
--JadeGold
Why then was the banning of .50 caliber rifles in California so ridiculed?
ReplyDeletePerhaps because they have NEVER been used in a documented case of terrorism and have only been used in ONE CRIME EVER (by a police officer)
But hey, gun banners never let facts get in the way of banning guns.
"Odd that Ruff apparently believes the only way something is possible is for it to have happened."
ReplyDeleteI never said it wasn't possible. It's just not probable. And seeing as it hasn't happened yet, despite the wide availability of the .50 weapons I see no reason to make legislative prohibitions on the weapons.
Just a guess by someone else who's never fired a .50 caliber rifle (or anything bigger than an M-16). Why on earth would anybody want one if they weren't far superior to most other rifles for knocking things down at long range?
ReplyDeleteA little bit of googling indicates that not only does the .50 slug weigh two or more times that of the .30-06, but that it's also available in a number of variations including Armor Piercing Incendiary--that's gonna be handy to know if you want to bag your deer AND cook it, with the same shot. I'm sure that no responsible .50 caliber rifle owner would ever dream of using one for anything but target practice or defending the U.S. Constitution.
"including Armor Piercing Incendiary--that's gonna be handy to know if you want to bag your deer AND cook it, with the same shot"
ReplyDeleteArmor Piercing Incendiary is not available to the public and therefore has nothing to do with this conversation.
"Why then was the banning of .50 caliber rifles in California so ridiculed?"
ReplyDeleteBecause the whole "ZOMG you can shoot down helicopters" hysteria was only focused on .50 caliber rifles, when in fact nearly any caliber of rifle can "shoot down helicopters".
In fact, there are smaller caliber rifles that will do just as much if not more damage than a .50 caliber rifle and they are still legal in California. That's why the ban is ridiculed.
"A .50 cal could easily take down an airliner at takeoff or approach."
So can a .308 Win, .338 Lapua, .300 WinMag, etc... Anything is possible under the right lab conditions.
"I see no reason to make legislative prohibitions on the weapons."
The gun controllers see a good reason though; .50 cals a good starting point for their incremental approach to banning guns.
Of course if demo knew anything he'd understand that the AP/incendiary rounds aren't the kind of thing you can go out & get on the civilian market.
ReplyDeleteYou guys don't see a difference between shooting a hovering helicopter and a jetliner moving at hundreds of miles per hour? Ever shoot skeet with a rifle? You're not going to hit it. 50BMG is great for long range bench shooting, but try aiming a 38lb gun up in the air and hitting a moving target at 1000+yds (and apparently you have to aim at the pilot, hydraulic lines, or computer chip...)
ReplyDeleteOh, and I'm an engineer. Does that give me cred?
A reminder:
ReplyDeleteGun control advocates want to ban 50 cal pistols too, even though they use a much smaller and weaker cartridge that can do none or almost none of the things claimed for 50 cal rifles.
It's really all about finding excuses to ban more guns.
Sebastian said, "Spoken like someone who's never held a 50 caliber rifle."
ReplyDeleteActually, I have, or at least I think that's what it was they let us shoot during basic training. You'd probably know better than me what that machine gun was the Marines used in 1970.
Yet, that wouldn't be exactly what we're talking about anyway. The sniper rifle is too heavy, agreed.
FishyJay said, "It's really all about finding excuses to ban more guns."
ReplyDeleteI don't know about that. There must be a line beyond which civilians cannot own it. We're arguing about where to draw that line. The gun control movement is aptly named. It's not called the gun banning movement because despite what you keep saying, most of us don't advocate the banning of all guns, nor is our intention to incrementally achieve that goal.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThat line is already drawn and has been for years. Generally, with the exception of a few muskets and rifles made before 1898, you cannot own anything bigger than 50 caliber without serious paperwork and government permission. So we have had line since 1934 and now you want to move it. Is that not incrementalism? Or is that just "compromise"?
This thread is typical of the gun banners though. A man shoots some people with a handgun so we must ban 50 caliber rifles. Maybe we could get that gun runner Colin Goddard to make a video about how he was shot with a handgun so we must ban 50 caliber rifles.
This:
ReplyDelete"Barrett Firearms Manufacturing was founded by Ronnie Barrett for the single purpose of building semi-automatic rifles chambered for the powerful 12.7x99mm NATO (.50 BMG) ammunition, originally developed for and used in M2 Browning machine guns."
and this:
"The M82A1 is known by the US military as the SASR — "Special Applications Scoped Rifle", and it was and still is used as an anti-matériel weapon and EOD (explosive ordnance disposal) tool. The long effective range, over 1,500 metres (4,900 ft),[2] along with high energy and availability of highly effective ammunition such as API and Raufoss Mk 211, allows for effective operations against targets like radar cabins, trucks, parked aircraft and the like."
are from Wiki. Of course they could be complete fabrications.
This website:
http://www.50bmgsupply.com/
offers ammo that, according to them, will fit a Browning .50 caliber machine, fully automatic, high rate of fire, machine gun. If both wiki and the BMG website are honest and accurate then it would follow that the .50 cal ammo they offer would fit the Barrett rifle of the same caliber. Perhaps both of those things are untrue. But, if they are not, then perhaps it's because newer versions os the Barrett are chambered for a different diameter or lower energy cartridge/projectile combination.
Then again, there are some very crafty reloaders out there. A former next door neighbor was a sniper in Vietnam and now shoots a heavy barrelled 5.56 or .223 at matches. He loads his own rounds and tweaks the propellant charges according to conditions. Maybe he's lying to me about that, but I doubt it.
If the Barrett will not chamber the cartridge, but will fire the projectile on, for instance, the BMG .50 API round, what's to keep a sharp guy from reloading them in the cellar armory of his suburban redoubt?
I will be perfectly happy to be wrong on this. I will also, of course, require that the "You're full of shit, you hate guns and you don't know what you're talking about to be accompanied with some specific information and the citations to back that information.
Actually, you can get 50 BMG API (Armor Piercing Incendeary). The round you can't get is the HEAP (high-explosive armor piercing) round. The HEAP are the highly effect rounds that can punch through light plate armor. API is not materially more dangerous to a plane than standard ammo, as planes aren't armored. The incindiary portion could theoretically light fuel on fire, but jet fuel is an oil, and there's suppressant in it to keep it from burning except at high temperature.
ReplyDeleteBut either way, you can get it. The federal laws on armor piercing ammo are highly convoluted. Even I can't remember the details without looking it up, and I can usually rattle this stuff off. But IIRC, there's some calibers which have grandfathered API ammo. It's not all that common, but you can get it, and if you can get it, it's lawful for a civilian to own. Federal armor piercing ammo laws tend to worry more about what can be fired from a handgun than a rifle.
The sad thing is that democommie is worried about a threat (guys with50 BMG Barrett rifles shooting down planes) that is essentially non-existent.
ReplyDeleteThey've never been used in a crime by anyone other than law enforcement, yet you folks want them banned. If that's not paranoia and fearmongering I don't know what is.
You could probably take down a plane by releasing a large flock of birds into it's path at take-off, yet no one is calling for private ownership of birds to be banned due to this "threat"
mikey:
ReplyDeleteAre you really such a simpleton that you don't understand the difference between the possibility of a flock of birds flying into the path of an airplane (a natural occurrence) and the possibility of some twisted sicko shooting at an airplane with a rifle that is apparently available, along with it's ammunition to a number of people who might want to do so?
Oh, but, wait; that's not what you meant at all. I see.
This:
"Of course if demo knew anything he'd understand that the AP/incendiary rounds aren't the kind of thing you can go out & get on the civilian market. January 22, 2010 1:05 AM"
indicates that there is no way for this to happen. And since you are the only person who knows anything about the subject you must be right.
BTW, moron, I didn't ask the state of CA to ban ANY guns. In fact, I've never asked ANY jurisdiciton that I live in to ban ANY guns. I've never suggested here or anywhere else that guns should be confiscated from those who legally own them. You seem to think that I am, somehow, responsible for all of the things you fear will happen to you as a gun owner. Grow up.
"are from Wiki. Of course they could be complete fabrications."
ReplyDeleteBe careful democommie. You are treading on the extent of Laci's gun experience. She is quite the wiki warrior don't you know.
Mikeb: "I don't know about that. There must be a line beyond which civilians cannot own it."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's really all about finding excuses to ban more guns.
If it was just 50 cal rifles, maybe. But they want to ban 50 cal pistols too, even though they use a much smaller and weaker cartridge that can do none or almost none of the things claimed for 50 cal rifles.
They want to ban big guns AND they want to ban small guns.
They want to ban guns that lack accuracy AND they want to ban ultra-accurate guns.
It doesn't take long to figure out what's going on.
democommie, how about gun control advocates wanting to ban 50 cal pistols too, even though they use a much smaller and weaker cartridge that can do none or almost none of the things claimed for 50 cal rifles?
ReplyDeleteBy the way:
ReplyDeleteBarrett is starting to make their guns in 416 cal and Steyr is starting to make their guns in 460 cal. Both companies are claiming performance close to the 50 cal.
OK; you've banned 50 cal rifles. Now what?
I don't know why everybody denigrates Wikipedia. Some articles I've referred to are well footnoted and read like academic papers. Aren't all writings going to reflect the biases of the author?
ReplyDelete"Actually, I have, or at least I think that's what it was they let us shoot during basic training. You'd probably know better than me what that machine gun was the Marines used in 1970."
ReplyDeleteYou'd have be The Terminator to hold a .50 caliber machine gun. That's why most of them are mounted to trucks or aircraft.
"I don't know why everybody denigrates Wikipedia. Some articles I've referred to are well footnoted and read like academic papers. Aren't all writings going to reflect the biases of the author?"
ReplyDeleteWe all tend to use wikipedia more than we would care to admit. My point was more about degenerating Laci than wiki :) .
Laci knows very little about firearms so she frequently copies and pastes directly from wikipedia. I use wikipedia too when I am looking up something for which I have no real knowledge.
Demmiecommie:
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing out that in Ronnie Barrett’s statement about the effectiveness of his rifle it said “parked” aircraft. Your wiki article may not have been referring to his exact quote, but gun banners have tried to use his own words against him in banning .50BMG by invoking terrorism. At those kinds of ranges, the target needs to be completely still. I don’t doubt a terrorist could set up somewhere and take out an engine of a parked 747 (not that they would get away with it). Folks, we just lost our number 3 engine… we are going to have to ask you to deboard. After killing thousands, I don’t think Al-Qaeda’s next big plan against the USA is to inconvenience hundreds.
The 50BMG is the most powerful cartridge you can buy. That is why gun control types hate it. And if they ban that, something else will be “the most powerful cartridge you can buy”. I predict at some point CA will go after the .416 Barrett. They’ll call it the “.50 Cal Loophole” and claim it was Barrett’s way of circumventing the law with a necked down 50BMG. They’ll haul out testimonials how it is even more accurate/deadly, etc, etc… It won’t happen now, because it is still too obscure, but the more gun owners buy it, the more likely it is to happen. The same thing happened with 50BMG.
-TS
TS, Thanks for the comment. Your idea that in California what they've done is outlaw "the most powerful cartridge you can buy," is another way of describing the incremental banning of guns that many people fear. Am I right? Is that what you think is happening?
ReplyDeleteWhat if it were going the other way? What if the .50 caliber weapons were deemed acceptable, wouldn't we then have to wonder if it's just an attempt to eventually allow the next bigger and badder weapon? And after that the next?
Does this concern work both ways? Where would you draw the line on civilian ownership of weapons?
"What if it were going the other way? What if the .50 caliber weapons were deemed acceptable, wouldn't we then have to wonder if it's just an attempt to eventually allow the next bigger and badder weapon? And after that the next?"
ReplyDeleteSince this is the status quo, you would be seeing this now, correct? I am sure there are individuals out there wanting larger calibers, but as a movement I just haven't seen it. The ban on anything larger has been in place for quite awhile now, so its not like time is a consideration.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. I personally haven’t seen gun rights advocates call for legalizing cartridges more powerful than the 50BMG. Have you seen people claiming the 2nd amendment should cover 20mm cannons? Now there are rounds like the .577 T-Rex, 600 Nitro, and 700 Nitro that are banned under the 1934 NFA, but all of them are less powerful than the smaller caliber 50BMG. Ironically they are specifically designed for hunting. Though we don’t have rhinos in the USA, some rich dude who goes on safari once a year may want to practice with his “elephant gun” at home. Especially considering they are specifically for self-protection against charging dangerous game and not a primary hunting rifle. Now these guns cost tens of thousands of dollars, and the ammo is so rare and specialized that they can cost $100 a round. So your average gun owner isn’t affected and calling for their legality. Likewise, making them legal would have absolutely zero effect on crime even if you believe more guns equals more crime.
The whole notion of banning based on caliber is preposterous. Again, the BMG is more powerful than all the big game rounds, and 5.56mm (.223) is more powerful than 9mm (.38). On top of that, a slug fired from a 12ga with a rifled barrel is essentially a .70 caliber rifle, but it only exists to satisfy hunting laws in states that require shotgun only. To answer your question; I feel that if the cartridge is designed to be carried and fired from an individual (as opposed to mounted), then it should be legal.
-TS
TS, Thanks for the info. I can see how banning based on caliber is problematic. It's similar to the AWB and its ambiguities.
ReplyDeleteSo where does that leave us? What do you say, anything goes? Is it any wonder many gun control folks are for more and more banning?
Calling a slug gun a .70 caliber rifle is "generous". Most of the guys I've talked to who use slug guns or black powder muzzleloaders in .50 caliber do not shoot at deer that are more than a hundred yards out. I grew up in Nebraska and most everybody I knew used something like a .273, .308, .30-06 or the like for deer or other game of that size. Shotguns were for birds and squirrels. I had a housemate a few years back who had six or seven guns, all slug or black powder. He got two or three deer a year with his favorite slug gun and bitched a lot about not being able to use a rifle.
ReplyDeleteI've had a lot of people tell me that they need to keep their right to bear arms for self-defense and defense of their homes and families. I can't really imagine a Barrett rifle being used in a self-defense role--unless you've got one hell of a yard around your house.
As for shooting at "parked aircraft"--
This:
"The vulnerability to 50 caliber sniper fire of other aircraft in flight depends on
a number of factors, including altitude, speed, and angle with respect to the sniper.
Aircraft landing are particularly vulnerable, as illustrated by the testimony of Ronnie
G. Barrett as a government expert witness during a 1999 criminal trial. On crossexamination,
Barrett was interrogated about the relative difficulty of hitting a
stationary target and a moving target, such as a motorcycle or an airplane. Asked
whether it was harder to shoot an airplane “coming in to land...descending over 120
miles an hour” he testified:
If it is coming directly at you, it is almost as easy. Just like bird
hunting. But yes, it is more difficult if it is horizontally, or moving from
left to right, yes."
and this:
"Barrett was also asked whether having two rifles in different positions
increased the chances of striking any given target, to which he replied, ”By twice, I
would say, yes.”
from here:
http://www.vpc.org/graphics/birdhuntingstudy.PDF
are sourced from the following endnotes of the report.
Apparently Mr. Barrett's "sporting rifle" could shoot down a plane before it couldn't.
62. Testimony of Ronnie G. Barrett, United States v. Angel Manuel Alfonso et al.,
November 30, 1999 (U.S. District Court, P.R.), transcript in files of VPC, p. 35.
63. Testimony of Ronnie G. Barrett, United States v. Angel Manuel Alfonso et al.,
November 30, 1999 (U.S. District Court, P.R.), transcript in files of VPC, p. 53.
MikeB, I don’t understand why me wanting something to be legal would create a desire for more gun bans. Can’t you just oppose what I want? I live in CA, so I am coming from a place where I feel like I have rights that should be restored. Honestly I’d be happy if CA were like the rest of the country. My “anything goes” comment is that it is pointless to ban guns for being too powerful, when they are less powerful than the legal BMG. No need to worry about the next bigger and badder gun- the BMG is pretty much at the limit of what a human being can handle. I’m not the expert on “cannons”, but I believe the increments above 50BMG are monstrous.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I have been reading your blog for a few months and this is my first time butting in. You are my favorite anti-gunner because you seem to actually listen instead of plugging your ears, and you’ll actually acknowledge good points/logic. Basically I disagree with 98% of what you say instead of 100% like Helmke and Sugarmann (and that's a complement!)
-TS
Thanks TS for the compliment.
ReplyDeleteAll the prohibiting based on caliber or aesthetic features is a waste of time, I agree.
Good old handguns are the problem. The dilemma is how to diminish their availability to the criminals without interfering with your life.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that Ronnie Barrett was not perjuring himself when he was in the courtroom, or simply lying when he was on "60 Minutes".
ReplyDeleteDemocommie: “Asked
ReplyDeletewhether it was harder to shoot an airplane “coming in to land... descending over 120 miles an hour” he testified:
If it is coming directly at you, it is almost as easy. Just like bird hunting. But yes, it is more difficult if it is horizontally, or moving from
left to right, yes."
So now the sniper has to be camped out on the runway… Got it.
Democommie: "Barrett was also asked whether having two rifles in different positions
increased the chances of striking any given target, to which he replied, ”By twice, I
would say, yes.”
Sure. From 0.0001% to 0.0002%. That’s not perjury. There is one fundamental problem with that report. It is from the VPC.
Yes, slug guns are used to restrict the range of hunting rifles in states that don’t have large swaths of wilderness. Agreed, hunters prefer traditional rifle rounds rather than be handicapped by shotgun only laws. Funny that gun controllers don’t mind “large caliber” when it’s the gun owners that are complaining.
-TS
TS:
ReplyDeleteOf course it's NOT the .50 bore of the Barrett that bothers me. It's the fact that it can be used by an experienced marksman to shoot at a man sized target at distances of over a mile with lethality. As has been demonstrated the rounds available for the Barrett, to the general public, include armor piercing and incendiary ammo. No slug gun, ordinary shotgun or muzzle loader, afaia, has any hope of hitting a deer sized target at much over 100 yards--approximately 1/15th or so of the proven distance for both accuracy and lethality with the Barrett.
I live in upstate NY and despite what might be perceived as an obsessive zeal to ban or confiscate guns, here, there are many thousands of unlicensed and unregistered shotguns, muzzleloaders and rifles. Why? well, I guess it might be because most of us up here don't, actually, obsess about such things.
As for:
"So now the sniper has to be camped out on the runway… Got it."
the statement is disingenuous or condescending, perhaps both. If a sniper were in an industrial park just outside tjhe perimeter fence of an airport, lying concealed in the back of a small truck under a truck (something like the recently excecuted D.C. sniper's tactic) and was working as part of a team with a spotter there's certainly a good opportunity for him to line up a shot and have an opportunity to get off several rounds as the aircraft descends with its nose high on final approach.
You say there is a fundamental problem with the report, because it was done by the VPC. Why is that? Did they misquote Mr. Barrett's expert testimony? Did they fabricate the USAF and Rand Corp. documents? Or do you simply disagree with their conclusions. Saying the report is a problem, without saying why it's a problem is a cop out.
Democommie: "You say there is a fundamental problem with the report, because it was done by the VPC. Why is that?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps the problem is that the VPC has been exposed as using bogus data or making misleading claims, as per articles I have posted links to on this site regarding their "shootings by CCW permit holders" hysteria.
Or perhaps the problem is that the VPC publishes bogus numbers on "assault weapons" by including guns that were never part of any "assault weapons" ban.
Or perhaps the problem is that the VPC has actually admitted in print to promoting public ignorance about "assault weapons" in order to try to ban more guns.
But for me, the problem is exemplified by the VPC wanting to ban 50 cal pistols too, even though they use a much smaller and weaker cartridge that can do almost none of the things claimed for 50 cal rifles. So the VPC then makes up a whole different set of reasons.
If you pay enough attention to the VPC, it's soon becomes evident that they are really all about finding any excuses to ban more guns.
Fishy Jay:
ReplyDeleteThanks, but those answers have nothing to do with the question I posed to TS. He speaks of a specific report that I cited. If the report is inaccurate because of sloppiness or deliberate distortion, point out the errors--relative to the citations that I used.
If the report is accurate in those areas then it would appear that Mr. Barrett is great at building a very powerful gun, but not so great at telling the truth.
That the VPC is opposed to the arming of the civilian populace of the U.S. is not news to me. Apparently they are considered draconian in their proposals, even by other groups that want to regulate firearms to a greater degree than they are currently regulated.
I would have to do a lot of reading to satisfy myself about the VPC's or the Joyce Foundation's motives in their campaigns.
It's another issue altogether, I suppose but why do so many Type 2A's regard those that are trying to regulate guns as evil? I read enough ugly comments about the Brady Campaign, the Joyce Foundation, VPC and other advocacy groups to know that they are vilified by many, many people in the 2A community. And, then, I ask myself; what do the people at places like Brady's group get for their labors, except that vilification and a paycheck (not a large one, in most cases)?
I'm not a gun control advocate. I'm a person who has a hard time equating "patriotism" with owning an arsenal of weaponry. I've never owned a gun in my life, because I've never needed to. There aren't any critters that I've had to kill, except squirrels and rats (the same thing, as far as I'm concerned--one just gets a worse rap) and I've managed that without a gun.
I admit to LIKING the feel of a handgun or the way it feels to look downrange over the barrel of rifle, but I don't need to do those things. I have no objection to you or anyone else who is of sound mind doing those things. Otoh, the notion that weapons like the Barrett rifle are necessary for the defense of one's home is, in a word, silly.
democommie,
ReplyDeleteWhen people hold deep convictions about their Constitutional rights, there will inevitably be villification of those they perceive to be attempting to attack those rights.
This situation is greatly magnified by the fact that gunowner activists often recognize the bogus claims, distorsions, contradictions and false promises thatare made by gun control activists. The VPC is particularly bad in this regard.
I am sure that gun control activists make factual claims, but since they issue so much garbage there is a tendency among gunowners to assume that it's all BS.
Also, my experience is that the VPC is not so much Draconian as they are honest or perhaps just ahead of the curve.
democommie: "the notion that weapons like the Barrett rifle are necessary for the defense of one's home is, in a word, silly"
I have not been paying close attention, but was that claim made here? I find the notion of banning a gun by caliber to be silly. When you ban 50 cal guns and 49 cal guns are inevitibly made, then what?
Fishy Jay:
ReplyDelete"When people hold deep convictions about their Constitutional rights, there will inevitably be villification of those they perceive to be attempting to attack those rights.
This situation is greatly magnified by the fact that gunowner activists often recognize the bogus claims, distorsions, contradictions and false promises thatare made by gun control activists. The VPC is particularly bad in this regard."
Once again I must tell you that your answer does not address the specific question that I posed for TS. I was talking about the information contained in one, specific report. If it's false, it should be easy enough to debunk it. If it's true than the argument is with the conclusions drawn by the folks at VPC. Disagreement is inevitable when neither of the parties to an argument are willing to admit to rather obvious truths. As I stated, at least once on this thread, my problem with unrestricted ownership of the Barrett rifle is not the diameter of the bore but it's range and lethality. I don't hear a huge hue and cry going up from most quarters about .50 muzzleloaders and shothguns for precisely that distinction.
When you and others accuse the other side of exactly the tactics that are engaged in by your side it is very difficult to take your arguments anymore seriously than you take theirs.
democommie: As I stated, at least once on this thread, my problem with unrestricted ownership of the Barrett rifle is not the diameter of the bore but it's range and lethality.
ReplyDeleteYet most of the proposed laws against .50 rifles deal with the diameter of the bore, NOT the "range and lethality." In fact, I do not recall any of the .50 banners who have been willing to specify the "range and lethality" that they think is necessary to ban. Interesting, no?
The consequences of this should be obvious: When .50 rifles are banned, gun banners will assuredly find MORE guns to ban on the basis of "range and lethality." As usual, a .50 ban would not be the end but rather just another beginning.
democommie: "I don't hear a huge hue and cry going up from most quarters about .50 muzzleloaders and shotguns for precisely that distinction."
Interestingly, some of the laws to ban the "bad" 50 cal rifles would indeed ban .50 muzzleloaders too. Some banners have been willing to address that -- but some have not.
Fishy Jay:
ReplyDeletePlease give me a link for those laws (proposed or enacted) that seek to ban muzzleloaders.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteTS here- First of all I would like to apologize if I came off condescending. I found the notion of a terrorist having to get in position for the airplane to be “coming right at you” laughable, so I had some fun with it. I do stand by my statement that the runway is the only place where the plane is “coming right at you” (unless you are not on the ground). If the shooter is outside of the landing strip, then the plane is not “coming at you” it is flying over-head. The bullet would not be on the same path as the plane and therefore the shooter would have to lead the plane by shooting into empty space. When you are talking about speeds of 150+ MPH and distances of thousands of yards, and hitting something vital on top of that- the notion gets absurd.
You mentioned the .50 has no use for home defense. As Fishy Jay said, no one here has made that claim (at least on this thread). Well, I’ll go ahead and make that claim. Sure it is not the best tool for a home invasion, but if there is an invasion from a foreign country or our own government turns against us, then the 50BMG will have its merits. I am sure at this point you are scoffing at my ridiculous scenario. Now you know how I feel. It is arguing against someone’s imagination and whatever I say you can still imagine whatever scenario you want. Both scenerios are “in a word, silly”.
[more]
Now onto the VPC. Sugarmann’s “bird hunting” report does not contain his usual amount of lies because his whole argument revolves around “this gun is really powerful”. No gun advocate or Ronnie Barrett himself denies that. So he can publish lots of testimony from Barrett and other gun experts about how powerful it is. In the end there is still no substance for it being a problem. We have four incidents in this country of it being used in a crime, none of which someone was killed, and none of which where its high power/range was a factor. Even if he presents valid facts, Sugarmann is The Boy Who Cried Wolf at this point.
ReplyDeleteOther problems I have with the report:
1) Why has no terrorist tried this? Is it because sewing explosives in your underwear is far more effective than relying on a one-in-a-million shot?
2) He hates guns. He wants the public to hate guns too so he uses scare tactics like “terrorism” and words like “Sniper”. What does that even mean? If you read his report on “Sniper rifles” it is any rifle that is powerful and accurate all the way down to conventional .308 rounds. And it reads just like his “.50 Sniper” report.
3) He uses “armor-piercing” because that sounds scary. It is only extra scary if you are made of metal. All armor piecing rounds are less deadly than its ball or soft point equivalent. Sugarmann concludes that we must ban all rounds capable of penetrating body armor, which means all rifle rounds.
4) The report emphasizes its anti-material effectiveness. Isn’t that better than shooting people? Considering his argument that “assault weapons” are designed to kill people, not animals- shouldn’t we go easy on a gun that is designed to kill cars, PARKED airplanes and satellite dishes?
5) It implies Bin Laden bought these up on the civilian market, but I am pretty sure it was the US government that GAVE them to bin laden back in the 80’s.
6) He calls them “one of the hottest selling guns”, then goes on to say there maybe thousands or tens of thousands out there (out of hundreds of millions).
7) He suggests that they should be regulated as if they are machine guns. …The Browning 50 Cal machine gun is highly regulated, why not a bolt action single shot 50?
8) Barrett did not invent the “50 cal sniper rifle”. I personally shot one that was made before the company existed.
9) It was a civilian gun before the military adopted it (regardless of whether he wanted military contracts to grow his business).
10) If the public gets convinced that no one should own a gun that a terrorist owns, then great- we’ve banned all guns.
11) I think Sugarmann watched Diehard too much. Jet fuel doesn’t “blow-up”. A chain reaction of all parked planes at a terminal is laughable. Jet fuel is basically kerosene- you can put a match out in it. It is atomized under high pressure and high temperature to get its potential. There can be fires, but it is specifically designed to not explode if something went wrong.
12) The report opens with an air force ad designed to lure teenage boys. The Marines have ads of soldiers fighting dragons made of flame. They don’t have to be real.
13) It sights that the military shoots down planes with light rounds. Is that with shoulder fired 50 cal semi-autos or mounted 50cal belt fed machine guns using tracer fire? It doesn’t say.
14) It says 50 cal is the same threat to aviation as rockets and mortars. Come on. Not even with Carolyn McCarthy’s “heat seeking bullets”.
15) Finally, I would like to see Ronnie’s whole transcript. It mentions it being on file, but I couldn’t find a link. The VPC will of course pull out selected phrases. He was put on the stand in a criminal trail against a suspected terrorist. Apparently Barrett didn’t sway the jury to a guilty verdict. I am sure there are many factors, but the VPC is not going to mention this fact.
Does that answer your question Democommie?
-TS
TS:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your answer. It will take me a while to digest all that info and, if possible, find a copy of the transcript. I've got to do some work of my own and some volunteer stuff over the next few days, I'll work this in somewhere along the way.
You say there is a fundamental problem with the report, because it was done by the VPC.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but nothing the VPC says should be taken seriously.
As for wanting the Barrett banned due to "lethality" why? Do you have any evidence that such a weapon needs to be restricted?
Ban the Barrett 50 and next you'll be screaming about the .458 Cheytac & .338 Lapua being a menace to society and calling for them to be banned too.
Should large trucks or fast sports cars be banned due to increased lethality when compared to avg. sized passenger cars?
And Kaveman is right, if a .50 could conceivably take down a plane then so could rounds from a whole host of deer rifles.
Are you going to call for them to be banned as well due to this non-existent "threat" that they COULD be used to shoot down a plane, even though they've never been used in such a manner?
Please give me a link for those laws (proposed or enacted) that seek to ban muzzleloaders.
ReplyDeleteNJ's proposed .50 cal ban included any firearm with a bore greater than
.50, which included all manner of flintlocks & muzzleloaders. (many of which were banned by name)
http://blog.nj.com/njv_scott_bach/2008/11/banning_guns_by_the_size_of_th.html
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/12/new-jersey-gun-ban-passes-committee/
And seriously? shooting at an airliner with a rifle has got to be one of the most inefficient ways to take one down.
ReplyDeleteIt'd be easier to just hijack the plane, or use some kind of SAM
democommieZ: "Please give me a link for those laws (proposed or enacted) that seek to ban muzzleloaders."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I meant. While no proposed laws had muzzleloaders as a target, I have seen reports that some 50 cal laws (proposed but not enacted) were worded in such a way that might be used by a prosecutor against .50 muzzleloaders. Such laws that could be so used beyond their stated goal are usually opposed by gunowners.
I will try to hunt for an article on that but it's not my main point, which was that a .50 ban would not be the end but rather just the beginning of "long range" rifle bans.
Fishy Jay:
ReplyDeleteYou can cite this as my going on the record that I have never sought and never will seek the banning of any shotgun, slug gun or muzzleloader that is used for hunting--I think guns like the "streetsweeper" are already banned but I don't know that for a fact.
I don't disbelieve what you say, but the fact that the NRA is well represented in both houses of congress and in most state legislatures gives them the opportunity to change the language instead of just characterizing the laws as wrong.
democommie: I don't disbelieve what you say, but the fact that the NRA is well represented in both houses of congress and in most state legislatures gives them the opportunity to change the language instead of just characterizing the laws as wrong.
ReplyDeleteI am figuring that the reason that the NRA does NOT try to change the language is that it would either make passage liklier or be taken as some sort of resignation to the intended ban. Either would be unacceptable since as I have posted, a .50 ban would not be the end but rather just the beginning of "long range" rifle bans.
Demmocommie,
ReplyDeleteI hear you about not having the time. You called me to the carpet twice about the VPC report, but I hadn’t read it in over a year. So I had to go back and re-read it and compose my list of problems- and that ended up taking a couple hours on a very busy night for me. I thought I was making one little post, and here I am sucked in…
-TS
Do you have copy writer for so good articles? If so please give me contacts, because this really rocks! :)
ReplyDelete