.50 cal ban
A Hawaiian newspaper editorializes in favor of a .50 caliber ban. More nonsequiturs than I can easily count. The last one is simply, OK, it's not been used in crime, but we should ban it anyway rather than "wait for the carnage to occur."
A big fifty is not something anyone in their right mind would carry on a crime spree...They're heavy, awkward, impossible to conceal, and (correct me if I"m worng) virtually impossible to fire from a standing position...you practically have to sit at a large bench or lay down in order to aim it effectively. I've seen folks shooting them at the range...interesting but not practical for the vast majority of criminal enterprises.
Posted by: Doug in Colorado at February 26, 2008 01:33 PM
re: However, GAO investigators found that some of them "ended up in the hands of suspected terrorist groups, a mentally ill cop killer and drug trafficking cartels." Osama bin Laden reportedly sent one of his operatives to the United States in the 1980s to buy two dozen of the rifles.
I have not seen this report, I thought that I had read that the GAO had never found any evidence of them ending up anywhere but legitimate people.
Does anyone know where this comes from?
Posted by: rich at February 26, 2008 01:52 PM
The IRA apparently got one and shot a British guardsman at some point. The one article I saw said it was at a range "far less" than 1,000 meters.
Some Bosnians or Serbians might have also obtained some during the Balkans War. (Of course, there was an arms embargo that prevented defenders from buying weapons to use against Serbians.)
Of course, I'm not sure what their point is as half a dozen countries manufacture .50 BMG (or above) rifles. I don't know why the VPC picks on Barrett Firearms in particular.
Posted by: Alcibiades McZombie at February 26, 2008 06:06 PM
I think you might find that Osama's .50 BMG's were actually provided by the US Gov. as part of the arms provided through many different channels to the mujahadin in Afganistan when they were fighting our proxy war against the Soviets. I'm pretty sure that it's doubtful that Osama was directly in the loop for that particular procurment. If you remember we also hooked the mujahadin up with Stingers and Oerlikon heavy machine guns.
Posted by: Greg in Allston at February 26, 2008 06:47 PM
"The last one is simply, OK, it's not been used in crime, but we should ban it anyway rather than 'wait for the carnage to occur.'"
That's brilliant! We could also apply it this way: We should start putting people in jail before they commit crimes too. And to be consistent with the reasoning above, we'll start with the people least likely to commit crimes!
What kind of 1d10t comes up with such a position? And is actually serious?
Posted by: Ach at March 1, 2008 08:23 PM