VPC on .50 caliber rifles: a historical analysis

The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today offered its strong support for legislation sponsored by New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assembly Member Patricia Eddington to ban 50 caliber sniper rifles. Fifty caliber sniper rifles can penetrate armor plating, pierce rail cars carrying toxic chemicals, and destroy aircraft. Currently being used by U.S. troops in Iraq, 50 caliber sniper rifles are accurate at distances of more than a mile, yet under federal law are sold in the United States with fewer restrictions than a standard handgun. The guns have already been banned in Los Angeles, CA, and Contra Costa County, CA.

Well, it seems the Violence Policy Center wants to get behind a ban on .50 caliber rifles. They have their usual parade of lies and omissions in support of the ban. Just so we're on the same page, I will examine them briefly:

Penetrating Armor Plating

This claim arises from the fact that a .50 rifle will penetrate the armor plating used in early tanks -- very early tanks. We're talking vintage WWI stuff here. And that only worked at close range. There's nothing special about the bullet that lets it do that; just a matter of ballistics.

The fact is, concerns about armor piercing bullets are silly when there is no evidence that criminals or terrorists use these firearms to attack the US.

Pierce rail cars carrying toxic chemicals

This is really just a restatement of the "armor piercing" issue. Toxic chemical rail cars were not designed to have people shooting at them. Let's face it: In the US, terrorism is easy. We'd do better arming people with handguns so they can shoot back. Israel has tried this strategy and it works.

Arming Terrorists with .50 rifles

The government arranged that sale, and at the time, Osama bin Laden was going to use them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Remember the Cold War? But since he's has these rifles for at least 10 or 15 years, why hasn't he attacked the US with them, if they are so effective?

For that matter, since he already has the rifles, how will one state (plus a country in California) banning them make any difference whatsoever?

Destroy Aircraft

Sure; for values of "destroy" that involve poking a small hole in the aircraft while it's sitting still on the ground, for which just about any rifle will do. Or a hammer, for that matter. Shooting aircraft in flight with anything short of a computer-guided projectile or a gun mounted on another aircraft is a ballistics problem that humans just aren't able to solve quickly enough, and that's assuming the plane is actually in range.

Making accurate thousand-yard shots, even with a .50, is something of an accomplishment. Very few airplanes cruise under 10,000 feet. The plane is moving at several hundred miles an hour at an unpredictable vector and there is no way to judge wind currents across the whole distance.

All that, and yet the .50 is practically never used in crime...

Go ahead: name one incident of criminal activity with a .50 rifle. I dare you.

But that's not the real point...

We've seen what the Violence Policy Center thinks of the .50 rifle today. Let's take a stroll back in memory lane and see what they thought of the Assault Weapons Ban when it was passed:

Assualt Weapons Are "COP-KILLERS"

The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released "Cop Killers: Assault Weapon Attacks on America's Police," a study documenting the significant threat assault weapons pose to law enforcement personnel. The 55-page study was released at a 1:30 PM press conference held on Tuesday, September 12th at the House Triangle with Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee's Crime Subcommittee.

"The assault weapon ban has finally turned off the spigot that for more than a decade has flooded the nation's streets with these weapons of war. This study confirms that the ban on assault weapons must remain in place if our nation's police are ever to be safe from the threat posed by these firearms," adds Rand.

OK, so the Violence Policy Center was heavily in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban back in 1995. What do they think about it now?

"This bill merely continues the badly flawed 1994 ban, which is a ban in name only," states Kristen Rand, VPC legislative director. "The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994. [...] Reenacting this eviscerated ban without improving it will do little to protect the lives of law enforcement officers and other innocent Americans. Now is the time for Americans to demand that Congress and the Bush Administration roll up their sleeves and enact a truly effective assault weapons ban."

Now, in 2004, it's "badly flawed", a "ban in name only", an "eviscerated" ban that does "little to protect the lives of law enforcement officers and other innocent Americans".

Compare and contrast. Study the before-and-after statements about the assault weapons ban, then study the 'before" statement about the .50 rifle ban. Take a minute or two to think about it.

I'll bet that if they pass that ban, they'll be back shortly thereafter with a call to ban "sniper" rifles... by which they mean hunting rifles. And they'll be talking down the .50 ban just like they are presently talking down the assault weapons ban. And your hunting sniper rifle will be on the chopping block.

Remember, the gun prohibitionists are busy trying to set precedents. What they are really scared of is the 2nd Amendment. They know that they will never get enough support to repeal it, and that if by some means they did, it would touch off a revolution. So they try to pass laws that set precedents; in 10 or 20 years they can look back and say "Well, the assault weapons ban was constitutional, so why can't we ban this other type of gun?"