The new ban on 50 caliber guns is, as far as I can tell, silly.
I’ve discussed it before, “here”:http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000106.html and “here”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/003004.php – in summary:
This is a legislative photo-op; it doesn’t solve a problem, because today no meaningful problem exists. We have a real problem with violent crime in this country in no small part because those who govern confuse legislation with action, and waste their time on actions like this instead of identifying and tackling the tough issues that would produce results.
The best guess I have seen is that there are so few .50 caliber shooters this costs him nothing. It allows him to be seen as ‘working with’ the legislature and keeping a campaign promise – because before he was elected, he did say he would sign it.
A.L. —
The problem with .50 rounds — at least, as manufactured for the M2 or M1919 MG and any other weapons chambered for it — is that it is capable of very long range and very deep penetration. I believe that the standard .50 or 12.7 mm round can penetrate some AFV armor plate.
The worry about .50 rounds in the Bay Area is that we have a lot of petrochemical plants and if a round fired from a long distance penetrates certain metal containers or refining apparatus …
I’m not a Republican but I do believe that Arnie does make sense at times, and we do have a homeland security issue here. You don’t need a round capable of 1000 yards’ effective range to take down an 8-point deer.
Do you?
Bob —
Where do you stop? What can you do with a .50 that you can’t do with a .338 Lapua, a .450 Marlin or .480 Ruger rifle or a .458 Winchester Magnum?
All the ‘bad’ things one can do with a .50 caliber weapon are *already illegal* and can also be done with *other firearms*. What’s the point of singling out the .50?
I don’t think the answer is ‘if other weapons will do the job, buy one of those’, but rather ‘so long as we allow other weapons which will do the job, why worry about one more?’
And the hunting/deer argument is something of a red herring, don’t you think? Long distance shooting, IMO, is a valid sport on its own, as much as, say, golf (golf courses are a waste of space which could be used for shooting ranges).
In your comment on the AWB you seem to be happy with the idea of banning all semiautomatics. That does have the elegance of simplicity, but it obscures the point: why ban -any- guns unless you ban -all- guns?
Timothy Wheeler talked about ‘Goldilocks Gun Control’
_Once upon a time, a congressman learned about .50 caliber target rifles. “Those guns are too big!” the congressman said, and so he introduced a bill in the Congress to outlaw them. But soon he found out that some people owned tiny little guns. “Those guns are too small!” the lawmaker warned, and he introduced another bill to outlaw them, too._
I really prefer my politicians to tell the truth, not temporize, not pussyfoot around. They’d never get elected that way, but it would be nice…
Dunno, A.L., .50 cal rifles do seem to have some capabilities around range and power that would give me pause on the homeland security front.
“golf courses are a waste of space which could be used for shooting ranges”.
ROFL! I’ll never look kindly at a golf course again! (I don’t play…)
Kirk, John, Why not have both?
TBP and I have been joking about creating “paintball golf” for some time now, with security teams of 5 assigned to protect each golfer and small groups of 2-3 “assassins” each who can rack up points by nailing golfers or each other. The golfer’s goal is to finish the course, of course.
We always break out laughing when we imagine the drive-by paintball shootings on golf carts.
John S’s comment is exactly on point…there are a host of other existing calibers that have enough energy to approach the effects of the 50 caliber; and what happens when someone necks down 50-caliber brass to .480? It’s just a silly law.
I actually pitched my brother on ‘trap golf’; it’s a team sport, with one golfer and one shooter on each team. The golfer from team 1 tees up, and the shooter from team 2 tries to hit the ball in flight.
…haven’t been able to figure out how to do putting yet, and in spite of our honest and open inquiries, no golf course has been willing to let us play…
A.L.
what happens when someone necks down 50-caliber brass to .480?
We call it the .480 CPS (“Clueless Politician Special”). Necking down is a popular thing to do and has give us many, many of our most popular calibers, yet I’ll bet no anti-gun politician even knows its possible.
John S. — I’m not sure I buy the entire slippery-slope metaphor; there is a 2nd Amendment and I am mindful of that. I’m not sure it precludes regulating, e.g., schlocky weapons or certain ammunition types — what purpose does a .50 AP round or KTW/teflon round serve? Ditto for background checks or waiting periods.
My objective in all this is — someone come up with cogent proposals, please — how to maintain citizens’ rights in this area and deny terrorists an effective arsenal.
For honest people, I don’t see it as a ‘slippery slope’ problem. It’s a logical consequence of the position: Gun A is dangerous, because of Reason A; Ban Gun A; wait, Gun B is dangerous because of Reason A – Ban Gun B. So long as -something- provides Reason A, and Reason A is bad, and should be minimized, that which produces A should be removed.
I think ‘all guns should be banned’ is a reasonable, defensible position. I don’t agree with it, for a number of reasons, but I can see how one might arrive at such a conclusion.
I cannot understand ‘ban some guns’. Even air guns can kill people, and “you’ll put somebody’s eye out wth that BB gun!” isn’t an _irrational_ claim, just a low-probability claim.
We already have a societal mechanism which allows us, as a group, to assume some risk. People who would ban guns, to any degree, seldom want to ban automobiles; on an absolute and a per-capita basis, automobiles are far more dangerous to human life than guns. In this case, we don’t think ‘Reason A’ is sufficient to be draconian; we’ve decided that incremental changes such as mechanical improvements of the vehicles and design changes in the motorways, and in some cases some education, in schools and with ‘public awareness’ campaigns, are the way to keep injuries down to a level that we _as a society_ can handle it.
So too are we handling guns – except that we’re arguing about how much of a problem ‘Reason A’ might be. When someone proposes another regulation of guns, I always want to know 1) exactly what problem are you trying to solve? 2) how big is the problem – what is your measurement? 3) by what mechanism will the proposal affect the thing measured? and 4) if the measurements of the thing do not move in the direction you claim for the proposal, will you repeal the law?
Almost all proposals fail to answer any of those questions. If we could get ALL laws to answer ‘how big’, we could rank proposals by expected benefit and let the small-return bills die.
As to terrorists, we *can’t* deny them ‘an effective arsenal’, for two reasons: _anything_, pretty much, can be used to build a weapon, and our borders are so porous. I believe that used fully-automatic AK-47s go for about US$25 in a lot of the world; trying to buy one here isn’t cost-effective through legal channels.
Rented trucks and hijacked airliners were not formerly thought to be weapons (here). Concern over firearms seems to me to be misplaced in this context.
Bob,
As long as you are coming at it from the “prove you ‘need’ it or I’ll ban it” perspective, lots of folks, myself included, are going to resist your arguments like mad precisely because they are a recipie for the slippery slope.
It’s easy to shrink the “need” catagory to fit your political program: no one “needs” to hunt, no one “needs” to target shoot, no one “needs” this or that. Or, to put it in your terms, 9mm handguns don’t “serve any legitimate purpose,” since you can’t use them to hunt (and the gun control movement implicitly regards self-defense as illegitimate, which is a prime reason I oppose it). There’s no logical stopping point.
I say, the burden is on those who would restrict our freedom in any way. Want to ban something (and here I meen anything, from halogen torchiere lamps to handguns)? Then make a compelling case that the ban will 1) effectively cure a social ill and 2) not create a new, possibly worse, ill. (Personally, I think most gun control fails on both counts). Freedom means I don’t have to prove that .50 BMG guns are useful; it’s enough that I want one. You need to prove that I shouldn’t be allowed to have one.
*Guns – Guns – Guns*
Ever since the invention of guns mankind has realized the benefits as well as the draw backs concerning ownership and intent of use. Each gun has taken a development stage to suit a particular need or want. IE Accuracy, reliability, distance and even convenience.
IMO it has never been the gun that is the issue it is the intent of use by the owner. If the owner is a hunter and relies on the weapon for food he will most certainly collect the fire arm that best suits his needs. If the owner is museum curator that has an interest in the history of fire arms his collection will most likely be much more extensive and diverse. Each has a different intent. We can no more understand the intent of the owner by osmosis than we can by simply asking ludicrous questions.
Now that I’ve laid the ground work for intent lets get to the beef of the matter.
Personal experience I was introduced to guns when I was 12 years old. I received as a present from my uncle a Remington .22, single shot, bolt action, long / short round rifle. Not only was I taught how to use it, I was taught what and how to hunt with it. Obviously if your aim is to kill a lion this is not the weapon of choice. Whether you kill the lion to eat it, protect society, or decorate your wall is entirely a different matter.
Given that background when I joined the military there was no doubt in my mind as to the intended use of the M-16 that I was issued. It would be used mainly for the purpose of killing another human being. Training is predicated on the fact that you will pull the trigger and inflict death or incapacitate the enemy (another human). In order to accomplish this one must overcome the reservations or moral dilemmas of killing another human. The military understands this issue only to well. The targets devised are not tin cans or bottles. The targets employed are commonly referred to as dog targets (shoulders and head) or silhouettes (full figure and heads). These types of targets are used to get one used to the fact that an image of a human is just as good as the human itself. Reaction to the figure should not constitute the weapons intended use.
That said my wife and I had a very lengthy discussion when our sons requested paint ball guns for Christmas one year. I was adamantly against it she saw no issue with it. Needless to say they did not get the paint ball guns. Why? The intent is similar to dog and silhouette targets. They are meant to be and constructed for use against human targets. The big difference here is it adds the final dimension of associating pulling the trigger with the goal of hitting a target (that being a live human being).
Now you might think I would be an advocate for guns laws out the whazoo. In fact I am adamantly against gun laws in general simply because we do not and can not control a persons intent. We can however advocate and educate acceptable societal behavior.
As for the .22. Yes I still own it as well as a shotgun and various swords and knives.
If you want to argue that .50 calibre guns should be outlawed, you will need to argue preponderance of risk.
I know people who can shoot 1000 yds with less than a .25 minute of accuracy (i.e. the holes from successive shots are nearly identically placed0 with just .308s. It’s definitely possible with a .300 Win round and the right equipment, plus a little skill.
.50s are used for big game hunting, by the way. If it’s not needed for deer, does that mean it shouldn’t be allowed for bear, moose, or game outside the US?
However — and it’s a BIG however — the more powerful the rifle / calibre / ammo version, the more important it becomes that the shooter understand the ballistics involved. Assuming, that is, that s/he is responsible and does not wish to create harm to 3rd parties.
As I note in the comments to the assault weapon post below, I might be persuaded to acccept an upper limit on bullet energy – somewhere above 50 BMG,, but probably not too much. Robin, Rob, what are your thoughts on that?
AL,
Well, if I were convinced that 1) it was a wise limit, and wouldn’t outlaw normal calibers or their possible future variants (e.g. the .480 CPS might have a lighter, faster, higher-energy bullet) and 2) it wouldn’t be lowered annually by gun-grabbers, then it might make some sense and woudn’t do significant harm. Few people are currently packing 20mm rounds for self-defense.
But, of course, 1) it’s damn near impossible to convince me that the “max energy” wouldn’t be the subject of continual carping/calls for lowering, and 2) right now, today, in the US, calibers larger than .50 (other that shotguns “particularly suited to sporting purposes” according to bureaucrats) are regulated as “destructive devices,” under 26 USC 5845(f)(2), and thus are treated under the law no different than machine guns.
So I’m not sure a bullet-energy limit is necessary.
A.L. mentions a possible limit on bullet energy, which may be one way to go at it: types of ammo, certainly a more useful criterion than trying to ban weapons based on model (AK74 illegal? here’s an AK74A!) or on superficial criteria like flash suppressors or bayonet sockets or pistol grips. For that matter, Rob Lyman has a point: how do we anticipate future bullet types, projectile material innovations, sabot or necked-cartridge improvements, etc.
If I may reverse the ‘slippery slope’ argument, to others on this thread: what types of weapons do you think _should not_ be in private hands? Calibers above .50/12.7mm? Explosive rounds? Fully automatic weapons? If you have no limit in mind, say so, other wise it seems to me we’re arguing level of control here, not whether to.
And for that matter, what about import controls on foreign-made or -designed weapons? I really see no reason to cater to a Chinese gun lobby.
I go with essentially no limits.
I think it’s clear that _where_ such things might be used might be limited: one ought to drive one’s tank with its active main gun in the Nevada desert, not downtown Reno, and your backyard range ought to meet sightline and access restriction criteria before you run your Maxim gun collection out for exercise.
I favor punishing misuse. Simple possession is not usually misuse. I favor punishing negligence that results in harm to others. I favor punishing crimes – where simple possession is not usually a crime.
In short, I go with personal responsibility and innocent until _proven_ guilty: it’s never the fault of my guns, its _my_ fault; when I _do something_ that harms others, punish me, or stop me in the act and punish me for the attempt.
John Simutis,
You’ve good a very good list of criteria there, but I think you left off another important one:
Seeing as how we do have limited resources, what are the opportunity costs incurred by this restriction? E.g. more children drown in an average year than die by accidental shootings–so should we spend more money on gun control or even education, or will we save more lives by campaigning against swimming in wild, non-lifeguard-protected beaches and rivers?
Dude, speaking of gratuitous firepower, I included u in my pajama atlas of the blogosphere. U might want to verify ur profile, altho I did run it past my CBS fact checkers
And for that matter, what about import controls on foreign-made or -designed weapons? I really see no reason to cater to a Chinese gun lobby.
Well, I’m fond of my Glock, my Anschuetz, my Taurus, and for that matter of my Honda, too. Protectionism will be bad for American consumers: it gave us crappy cars form Detroit, and it would probably give us crappy guns, too. So no, I wouldn’t support it.
On Highroads awhile back there was a really good discussion about limits that involved, first, fully automatic weapons and then got around to the “joy of ordinance.” From the perspective of the Second Amendment, both in terms of the wording itself and some of the letters between the founders it was clear that they did not mean for the ownership of canon to be a “right,” although private ownership of canon and other ordinance was been perfectly legal at times.
In the discussion we had to deal with questions about what the founders knew about weaponry, and what they intended, but it was clear that they did have at least some upper limit in mind, that was basically expressed in the phrase “to bear.” In the least complicated terms, the Second Amendment refers to a right to own sidearms, rifles, muskets, etc. That is, you’ve a right to keep any arms that you can lug around without a mechanical assist. That was simply the language that they used to exclude canon.
But, of course, the problem is that as time marched on we miniaturized ordinance, so the modern equivalent of a canon can be carried and fired from the shoulder without mechanical assist, and the Founders’ language no longer covers it. What to do?
Well, there’s another standard that one can use that covers canon, and other ordinance, but excludes sidearms, shotguns, and rifles (including fully automatic rifles, pistols and “assault rifles”). The basic idea here is that one must be able to aim the device and limit damage to the person targetted. Because damage from exploding shells causes injury that can’t reasonably be limited to a single person… then it doesn’t quulify as “arms” that individuals have a right te bear.
Clearly exploding shells are excluded, but a trebouchet would also probably be excluded as would non-exploding shells, because of the secondary damage caused by falling masonry, and the like.
I can se how one might begin to make an argument that either high powered rounds or automatic weapons begin to skirt the grey area, because of overpenetration, the spread of automatic fire, etc. But the fact is that both probably can be aimed in such a way that the damage can reasonably be limited to a single targetted person, especially by an experienced shooter. So ultimately I came to the conclusion that devices in this so-called “gray area” can’t be excluded from the right granted in the Second Amendment even though there are probably good reasons for wanting to do so. And that includes .50 cal. weapons.
Besides, yah never know when you might need a Desert Eagle.
Er, sorry. That’s “cannon” and “ordnance.” I must have been rule fixated.
I think that most folks in this discussion thread are missing the “forest for the trees”. Argueing about caliber equivalancy “ban this, but don’t ban this…which produces the same MOA results” is NOT what you should be concentrating on. The GFW’s are following their master game plan…ultimate banning by doing it in increments. First it was the 1934 ban on full assulat rifles, then the SKS’s (in CA), now its the .50 BMG’s. If they try to do it in one fell swoop, of COURSE we’re gonna blow a gasket.
But…do it in INCREMENTS, and we waste time argueing about appearances and calibers. At least until the next “horrific weapon” gets targeted.
Guys – just remember, gun control was NEVER, EVER about the guns. Its about CONTROL. Period.
Bob, you mean control? or “well-regulated militia?” I would add that what causes the spasms of gun-control regulation are not “horrific weapons” but horrific massacres: a McDonald’s in San Ysidro, a schoolyard in Stockton, an office highrise in San Francisco. FWIW.
I suppose — see thread above — the debate is over whether there are any limits or none, not at what caliber or rate-of-fire to stop at. The alternative, I suppose, is no limits on weapons, and reliance on the criminal courts to sort it out.
It may not be about the weapons, but the consequences. No controls on weapons sale and possession? Could be a big bonanza for the personal-injury lawyers.