The Maddow Blog
It's worth pausing to appreciate just what Christie has done with this veto. See that image above? The .50 caliber is the one on the left. As Rachel explained on the show earlier this week, a .50 caliber shell is basically the size of a "carrot," which serves "an effective military weapon against even some armored vehicles. A few years back, 60 Minutes showed .50 caliber rifles making short work of steel plate armor at several hundred yards." It also has the capacity to shoot down an airplane.
Under current law in New Jersey, any adult can legally purchase this weapon. The state legislature decided that's no longer a good idea, and today, Chris Christie vetoed the ban.
Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D) said in a statement, "Banning these battlefield-style weapons was designed to keep these highly destructive firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals and terrorists. Weaponry designed for the battlefield, that serves no legitimate civilian use, should not be landing on our streets. Instead the governor has shunned this notion and bowed to the pressure of right wing conservatives. The governor's vetoes today demonstrate a failure in leadership. Instead of doing what's right for New Jersey, he bowed to the pressures of his political party."
Wow, that's a lot of hyperbole.
ReplyDeleteYou've got everything from the carefully worded statements that make it sound like a tank buster all the way to the "OMG, they can shoot down planes!" line.
It's pretty sad when you have to take the fact that it can breech an airplane's hull (which many or most of the pictured rounds could do--hence air marshals carrying specially designed, frangible pistol rounds) and try to make it sound like the rifle is capable of bringing down planes flying at altitude to try to scare people into banning a gun that is so big, heavy, and expensive that we don't see them being used in crimes (despite Ms. Oliver's implication about how they're "landing on our streets").
It's almost as sad as the funny video with a gun control supporting politician talking about it firing armor piercing, heat seeking bullets.
Yes, it's a big powerful gun--it shoots a lead slug ALMOST as big around as a .72 caliber slug out of a 12 gauge shotgun, but fires it at a much higher velocity. That's why people like them--between the high initial velocity and the large mass, the round is very accurate for very long distance target shooting--something some people are into. In other words, yes, Virginia, it does have a peaceable, legitimate use. In fact, this is THE use we see them put to here in the states by the non-military or police owners.
But it's too big, and so it must be banned.
Next will be the .338 Lapua, and then the .300 Win Mag (the one closest to the .50), or maybe both at the same time. After all, we'll be told that they're used by snipers including those protecting the President, and we must not allow people to out-range the Secret Service! They have no legitimate civilian use! Forget that the .300 at least is used both in long range shooting and big game hunting here in the States--those facts will be ignored.
There's also your side's favorite hyperbole about how all of the rounds pictured except the .22 are "armor piercing" because they can puncture a bullet proof vest! Nevermind that the .308 is the most popular hunting round and has been for decades, or that anything capable of killing a deer (and even some things that won't kill one) can puncture a soft, kevlar vest.
You guys can't win without exaggerations or carefully worded catchphrases that leave out important information.
Well, size and lethality is a factor in deciding where the line should be drawn. The distance that round can travel alone should make it illegal, in my opinion? It's not safe.
DeleteStates are allowed to make those limits. For example, California did this, and Barrett chose to not sell or service any of their products in states that limit the ownership of them to civilians. Of course, there is an exemption allowing the government to own them.
DeleteAny centerfire round will travel a long way. We know what you really want.
DeleteAt the moment, we'll skip over the debate about whether there needs to be a line drawn here or not. So, what's your distance that should render something illegal?
DeleteAnd what are you saying is unsafe about it? The distance it can go? As if it's impossible to shoot it into a backstop and keep it from traveling onward and continuing to do damage?
I draw the line at the .50 caliber round. Christie punked out on this one.
DeleteAh, so it'll be an emotional line then and not something you can actually explain.
DeleteAs for Christie punking out, I guess it's too bad he took you at your word a few weeks ago when you said that .50 cal bans were stupid.
The line was already drawn there. Ordinary citizens are allowed rifle and handgun centerfire rounds up to and including .50 caliber. (There are some exceptions for historical big game rounds like the .577.) Now you want to limit us to .4999... Of course, given the example of New York recently, soon enough you'll decide that .40 is a good limit.
DeleteBut here's the question: What business is it of yours to draw any such line in the first place?
"you said that .50 cal bans were stupid."
DeleteLying again, T?
As discussed below, you said that such bans did not concern you because the numbers showed that the guns were not a problem. Maybe saying that you considered the bans stupid is too strong. You considered them a waste of your time that could be better spent doing something else.
DeleteThe only quote I saw was from 4 years ago and it said I wasn't very concerned about the .50 cal. Any embellishment on your part is dishonest, not just "too strong."
DeleteGee, three posts in a row about Christie's veto without any comments from you supporting him. Your new readers might get the impression you support this ban, but I remember you throwing us that bone.
ReplyDeleteIf I ever threw you the bone of allowing the .50 cal., I'll take it back. That round and the rifles that fire it are too much and should be banned. The Gov's rationale for not doing it to me makes no sense. If something should be eliminated from civilian ownership, then there should be no grandfather clause.
DeleteWell, there goes whatever trust in you I had left. Tell us why we should believe what you say now?
DeleteYou tossed us the bone the last time this bill was in the news--when it was about to be passed by the legislature!
DeleteI'd like to hear, from your own rationale, why the .50 cal should be banned, but other rifles should not be. No emotional arguments (e.g. it's as big as a carrot!), but actual reasons such as capabilities (specifics, not broad "can shoot down airplanes and trains" crap), specifications, etc. You keep talking about drawing lines--well, where do you draw it, and how many of our hunting cartridges will we lose too?
Also, your final bit about grandfather clauses is telling. You tried to encourage us to support the AWB because we would be allowed to keep the guns we had, and they would be eliminated by attrition, not by confiscation.
And yet, now, you say that if there's a ban there should be no grandfather clause and there should be a mandatory turn in enforced by confiscations and criminal charges. This shows that we were well within reason to argue that if we let you have your precious AWB, we would eventually be looking at a revocation of the grandfather clause and a confiscation.
Also, your quick turn around on the .50 cal issue shows that we cannot trust you to not touch the rights you claim to not want to touch. You say you don't have a problem with hunting guns, that you want to let 50% of us still own guns, that you don't have an issue with suppressors, etc.
Of course, you also said that about .50 caliber rifles up through the last time we talked about New Jersey when you seemed to be happy enough with the idea of the other laws passing and that law failing.
Moving the goal posts is typical behavior for Mikeb's side. That's why we fight them on everything.
DeleteI think you guys are making that up about my having agreed to allow the .50 cal. I think the only "bone" I threw you was bout the suppressors.
DeleteRewriting history in your mind, just like rewriting your positions huh?
DeleteWe don't need you throwing bones like some ape in a Kubrick film. You have no power.
Delete"your quick turn around on the .50 cal issue"
DeleteYou can't help yourself, can you? It was 4 whole years ago that I made that non-committal remark that I'm not really worried about the .50 cal. round.
I'm evolving.
I don't know where I draw the line. I don't know enough to provide the detailed explanation you asked for about the .50 caliber round.
Mike,
DeleteThe four year old quote was just the example I found in a limited time using Google to sort through your archives.
If we drop the quick part, even your "evolution" on the topic is unsettling. The numbers haven't changed, at least not significantly, from that time. We have not been introduced to some new information on the lethality of the round. It's just a matter of you conforming, over time, to your fellow gun controllers' opinions without being able to point to a rationale for the change in heart.
The bigger issue is the idea of drawing a line and where and how to do it. I appreciate your honesty that you don't know that much detail about the .50 caliber round. I suspect that is a characteristic you share with some of the people proposing these bans.
Because of the ignorance on the subject, we get statements about being able to shoot down jumbo jets, or about the round being able to kill people over a mile away. While both statements are true, both lack significant amounts of context. The airplane line has been analyzed to death, so let's look at the range issue.
Yes, the .50 BMG has some of the longest sniper kills on record, but it is not the only round with such abilities. Sarge has mentioned the .416 which has improved ballistics at certain ranges, but the current record holder is the .338 Lapua which a British soldier used to kill two Taliban fighters at 2,475 meters. The bullet in that round is only a little larger in diameter than the .300 Win Mag, .308, and 7.62x39 in the picture above, but it has a larger powder charge (yet a smaller one than the .50 BMG.
Wikipedia's listing of the longest confirmed sniper kills includes several for the .338 and the .50 BMG, but also includes one for the .308 (7.62x51) and even a surprising one with a black powder .50-90 from the 1800's, so there is no fine dividing line between the .50 BMG and the hunting rounds suitable for big game in terms of usable distance. More important than the size of the bullet is the skill of the shooter. The snipers on that list would outrange my abilities even if you gave them a .308 and gave me a .50 BMG.
Other arguments have been made against the .50 BMG, but they have their own vulnerabilities. One that is shared by all the sheer size and price of the gun and its ammo. The cheapest, Bolt action .50's I've seen cost $1,500 or more. The least I've seen the rounds for was $5 each for milsurp. Needles to say, the criminals renown for carrying little, concealable, small caliber handguns with cheap ammo would have little practical use for a .50 BMG.
Finally, all of this feeds into how one even draws the line. If you do it by terminal power, or some other characteristic, you need a lot of technical knowledge. If you do it by caliber, you leave the .338 Lapua and get rid of the .50 Beowulf, .50 AE, and the .500 S&W, none of which are nearly as powerful as the .50 BMG.
The complicated nature of these issues is why we don't take kindly to being told which things must be banned and which are ok by people who don't know much about the topic and use emotional appeals like: Look! That's as big as a carrot!
It's o.k. for you not to know. The problem comes when legislators like you who also don't know what they're talking about try to pass laws just to appear to be doing something.
DeleteThat round and the rifles that fire it are too much and should be banned. The Gov's rationale for not doing it to me makes no sense. If something should be eliminated from civilian ownership, then there should be no grandfather clause.
DeleteGood luck getting me to surrender my .50 BMG. And yeah, that's armor-piercing, incendiary, explosive ammo in the magazine--the same round used to kill three goat-f**cking terrorists, from a mile away, through a brick wall, with one shot.
At least here they threw in more rifle rounds for the size comparison. And they keep throwing in potentials because there isn't much real crime committed with such a weapon.
ReplyDelete" It also has the capacity to shoot down an airplane."
Many firearms have that capability, In fact, the Red Baron was killed by rifle fire from the ground. Is it likely? No.
That was a .303 British round, if my memory serves. I think it was a machine gun, but you know the gun control freaks will call my SMLE an antiaircraft weapon, given the chance.
DeleteFunny that they don't show us those size comparisons when they are talking about "high powered assault weapons" and how devastating their rounds are. The narrative from left to right goes like this: bad, good, good, bad, super bad, good. Or in more detail:
Delete1- "shoots down jumbo jetliners out of the sky"
2- "we have a fine tradition of hunting in the country that we want to preserve"
3- "rifles used for legitimate sport are acceptable"
4- "vest busting, cop killing, weapon of mass destruction!"
5- "lock your doors, kill the lights, no one is coming home tonight, the .223 is here!"
6- "perfectly fine, but God forbid you let a supervised child shoot it"
You are correct. And I was taught in the army that if its a helicopter, lead by half a football field, and with a jet, you lead a full football field. Needless to say, precision shooting should be a snap with those guidelines.
DeleteNow that's a bit of bullshit, you guys. Most airports have a place just outside their property where you can park your car and watch the jets pass overhead, close enough that they make your teeth chatter. You wouldn't have to lead by a football field to hit one of them.
DeleteThat would be the Exclusion Zone that they are supposed to secure, according to post 9-11 federal law.
DeleteIn that area, almost any rifle could puncture the airplane causing it to need to land.
Mikeb, you haven't spent much time around American airports since 9/11, I take it. Nor do you know what you're talking about with regard to shooting down an airplane.
Delete"Next will be the .338 Lapua, and then the .300 Win Mag"
ReplyDeleteTennessean, Don't forget the .416 Barrett, a round who's existence can be credited by the anti-gun folk. And looking at the ballistic data, there are some areas where the .416 is superior to the .50. I personally would have been happier if they had made a .499, just to make a point.
Had forgotten about that one. Haven't seen one in person, so it kinda slips my mind.
DeleteOn the other end of things, there's all these calls to totally ban the .50 cal, but I haven't yet heard of any calls to ban the Anzio 20mm that you can legally buy with a DD tax stamp.
But that's our gun controllers: You can have a smaller rifle that can shoot as far as the .50, and you can jump through hoops to get a legal rifle that makes the fifty look like a bb gun, but you cannot own a .50 cal PERIOD.
Ever watch videos of antiaircraft gunners trying to shoot down an airplane? Notice that it takes lots of rounds? Think about it, please. How does a person train for this? An airplane typically is moving at speeds far beyond the ability of someone to compensate for. They are typically at altitudes and distances that are outside the range of even a .50 caliber rifle, unless we're talking about private and piston-engined planes. Airports are the only location where there would be much danger, and those are covered by security.
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when you pontificate without knowledge.
Where are you at on supressors now, Mike? That was another bone you threw us in your "I can be reasonable" post.
ReplyDeleteI think the suppressors was the only "bone" I threw you. I haven't changed my mind on them.
DeleteThey were not, and so we have no way to trust a damn thing you say.
DeleteIf that's your claim to being reasonable, you have failed in a spectacular manner.
DeleteWhere's Kurt Hoffman when you need him? I bet he has the quote at his fingertips. Superman, where are you?
DeleteSo just to be clear, Mike, the .416 Barrett is under your new line, permissible to own, and you will never ever change your mind and move the line down, correct?
I couldn't find the post I was thinking of, but the second result on a google search for "mikeb302000 .50 bmg" brought up this post:
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/12/50-caliber-sniper-rifle.html
In the comments, Mike agreed with a commenter that the best numbers Laci and the VPC could muster showed that the .50 caliber rifles were not an issue and said that he was not concerned with banning them.
I'm tired of wasting time looking for more quotes, but that's enough, at least, to show a change in position on the issue and that we can't trust him not to go after guns that he has indicated are "safe."
In 2009 I said " If the numbers are like that, I'm not too concerned with the .50s."
DeleteI'm still not too concerned about them. They're way down the list of things that need attention. But, they should be banned. If that represents a change in my position, I'd suggest it's a considered and long-term evolution that's taken place after reading about guns daily for four more years, certainly not the capricious contradictory changing of mind that you guys accuse me of.
They're not a problem, but they need to be banned? Why in the hell would you ever expect us to trust you?
DeleteAnd the .416 Barrett? Does that need banned? It is under the line you just drew. Smaller diameter than the .50 BMG, lighter bullet, shorter cartridge, considerably less muzzle energy. This is ok?
DeleteFor the record, I recall you saying something in the comments. It may not have been the main topic of the thread. I made a mental note, not as a future "gotcha" (although admittedly that is often my intention), but because I felt we persuaded you to drop an issue, and I was giving you credit as not being the most extreme of gun banners (which I would think you'd appreciate). Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm not the only one who recalls this.
Where's Kurt Hoffman when you need him? I bet he has the quote at his fingertips. Superman, where are you?
DeleteBetter late than never, TS. Stumbled upon this serendipitously:
That ban on the .50 rifles is probably another one I can do without.
You guys have convinced me. All those long-range sniper rounds should be banned. Those already in possession should be required to be turned in. Any future possession of them should be a crime.
ReplyDeleteSince any centerfire rifle round can be accurate and lethal at considerabe distance, how about you tell us which ones you wouldn't want to ban.
DeleteAnd what qualifies as a "Long Range Sniper Round" to be banned?
DeletePray tell.
I already told you I don't know. You said it's OK as long as I'm not a legislator.
DeleteYeah, Greg should have phrased that better. It's ok as long as you're not proposing legislation on the topic of your ignorance.
DeleteSo, what qualifies as "long range" to you?
You guys have convinced me. All those long-range sniper rounds should be banned.
DeleteAre you going to get as hysterical about the TrackingPoint rifles as the NGVAC ninnies have? They seem especially upset about the 12-year-old girl nailing the 1,000 yard target, and somehow try to link it to the girl in Nevada who accidentally (through no fault of her own) killed a shooting instructor with a submachine gun.
Personally, I want TrackingPoint-like technology applied to something with more power and range than the .50 BMG, maybe the .50 McMillan Bros., or the Anzio 20-50, both of which use the 20mm Vulcan cannon cartridge case, shortened, and necked down to .50 caliber (so there's no need to jump through federal NFA "destructive device" hoops)--thus driving the same bullets that a .50 BMG does to even higher velocities (and greater range, with greater damage potential).
And, when the guided .50 caliber round becomes ready for prime time, the government had damned well better not try to deny it to private citizens.
With the combination of those technologies, the 2,475 meter (1.538 mile) sniper kill range record will fall.
Guess it will make the Secret Service a little jumpy, although I suppose, unfortunately, that there's not enough room in the bullet to fit both the guidance package and the Raufoss Mk 211 armor-piercing, incendiary, explosive capability into the round, so heavily armored limos would probably still be safe at a couple miles range.