I saw this come up in the gun control thread, but decided it deserved its own topic. I wrote this last semester for my Argumentation class.
.50 Caliber Rifle Regulation Debate.
After the Charles Whitman clock tower massacre at the University of Texas, after Waco and the DC sniper, after the disgruntled postal workers, LA shootout, and Columbine, America is getting concerned about the regulation of firearms. Gun control laws can officially be traced back to the Sullivan Act of 1911, and on a larger scale, The National Firearms Act of 1934, where the issue was gangsters’ ability to acquire guns (Harwood, “Gun Control: State Versus Federal Regulation of Firearms”). Now the issue has become terrorists’ and disturbed teenagers’ ability to get hold of them. One of the latest developments in the gun control cause is the extra regulation, and sometimes banning, of the .50 caliber rifle. California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Massachusetts have banned the rifle already, and several other states are considering it. So why is all the attention being paid to this one caliber? Why is it being called an assault weapon? Why the controversy? I believe that the .50 caliber rifle ban should be lifted, but with certain legal compromises limiting its deadly aspects, because its legitimate uses outweigh the small breech to public safety they provide.
The .50 caliber round was invented in 1919, under the full name .50 BMG, which stood for Browning Machine Gun. The round was primarily used in the Browning M2 heavy machine gun before, during, and after World War 2, which is the reason for the BMG acronym. This round was larger than most on the battlefield. The bullet’s diameter is .5 inches, significantly larger than the standard infantry rifle round used in the M1 Garand and 1903 Springfield rifles, the .30-06 Springfield. Because of its high power and accuracy, it was ideal for use in aircraft and tank gunner positions. The BMG round has a maximum effective range of 1800 yards, and an accurate range of about 1200 yards. It is one of the few rounds with these remarkable characteristics (History Channel, “Tales of the Gun: Sharpshooters and Long Range Weapons”).
In 1982, gun maker Ronnie Barrett released his M82 rifle system, one of the first rifles to be chambered to the .50 BMG cartridge. The round had graduated from a brute-force rapid fire machine gun cartridge to a more precise sniper tool. In 1986, Barrett released the M82A1 rifle, still by far the most famous of the .50 BMG rifles. In 1990, Barrett received a shipping order for 125 of his M82A1 rifles from the United States Marine Corps (History Channel). The rifle was used in operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield in anti-material operations. Because of the gun’s power, soldiers were not allowed to use it as an anti-personnel rifle, so the targets were mainly enemy radar dishes, vehicular equipment, and computer installations. It was now officially a military rifle. Soon after word spread about the rifle’s success in the Gulf, marksmanship enthusiasts took an interest. With its long range and powerful impact, it’s no wonder why the rifle took on such a following with target shooters. To this day, long range marksmanship matches are organized by groups such as the Fifty Caliber Shooters’ Association, setting targets up to and including 1000 yards from the bench (FCSA.org).
In 2004, California became one of the states that passed a law banning the rifle from public sales. As of January 1st 2005, it was illegal to buy or sell any guns chambered to the .50 caliber round. Under penal code section 12275-12277 (CaseLaw), the rifle was officially considered an assault rifle by the California legislators. The law’s proponents state the public safety issues surrounding the rifle’s range and power. The main selling point to the legislators was the fear that the rifle could be used to take down an airplane (Join Together Online, “Popularity of Military Rifle Prompts new Regulatory Calls”). The proponents stress the question of why someone would need a rifle of such power. They fear that the power and accuracy would be exploited by criminals and terrorists. These are all legitimate concerns that should be thought about, but not put into legislative action without acknowledging the law’s opponents’ arguments.
So what is an assault weapon? A weapon that is primarily used in combat, obviously, but there are certain design parameters that designate it as such also. The design features that designate a gun an assault weapon are features like magazine capacity, stock shape, and barrel attachments. A magazine with a capacity of over 10 rounds, a barrel with a bayonet and/or grenade launcher attachment installed, a flash suppressor, a silencer, a skeletonized stock, and a pistol grip (on a rifle) are all features that define an assault weapon (CaseLaw). A good example of an assault weapon would be the AK-47 rifle.
Many gun enthusiasts question the fact that the .50 caliber rifle was classified under such a designation despite the following differences to the official ‘assault rifle’: most .50 caliber rifles are single shot bolt-action rifles, none have a flash suppressor (in its place is the recoil-reducing muzzle break), they can all be modified to not have a pistol grip, and many don’t anyway, and no .50 caliber rifle would ever be fitted with a bayonet or grenade launcher, as those are short-range use attachments and would have no place on a long range rifle. Jason Davis of the Fifty Caliber Institute shares a similar concern, and in his article “Collateral Damage: How AB50 Affects National Advertising of .50 Caliber BMG Rifles”, he states, “When the California legislature decided to ban the sale of .50 caliber BMG rifles, they could have done what they have always done by creating an entirely new section within the Penal Code as they did with ‘assault weapons’, ‘destructive devices’, ‘short barreled rifles/shotguns’, and ‘machine guns’. But AB50 did not create entirely new Penal Code sections for the restrictions the California legislature placed on .50 caliber BMG rifles” (Davis).
Like many people, the proponents of the ban have concerns with the criminal aspect of the gun. Wouldn’t the allure of so much power and accuracy entice criminals to use this extremely deadly rifle against their fellow man? Would drive by shooters and liquor store robbers in Compton replace their MAC-10 machine pistols with powerful .50 caliber rifles? A writer for the Legal Community Against Violence states, “The rifle's popularity lies not just with target shooters, but criminals, gangs and terrorists as well” (LCAV). These are definitely legitimate concerns, but they are not without some fault. First of all, the .50 caliber rifle is extremely powerful, and produces a very large amount of recoil energy (kick) upon firing. A normal 12 gauge shotgun produces around 16 ft/lbs of recoil energy, whereas a non-compensated (no muzzle break) .50 caliber rifle would produce upwards of 70 ft/lbs of recoil. This heavy kick requires the gun to be extremely heavy. For example, the Armalite AR50 rifle weighs 40 lbs, and it is sleeker than most. This is a far cry from the portable and light MAC-10, which weighs less than 5 lbs.
Also, the rifles that fire the .50 caliber are renowned for their accuracy; the longer the barrel, the more accurate the rifle is. The fact that the rifle companies compete for accuracy in their guns results in some very long weapons. A standard .50 caliber rifle measures in at about 4.5 feet. Again, this is a very far cry from the extremely concealable MAC-10 machine pistol. In short, the .50 caliber rifle is way too cumbersome for the average criminal. A CBS News report quoted rifle maker Ronnie Barrett from an interview for his/her article, “Big Rifle a Terrorist Tool?”, in saying that, “’The .50 has an excellent record. You know, as far as the abuses with .50-caliber rifles, they are so few, if any, that all other calibers ought to aspire to have as good a record as it has,’ says Barrett. ‘And it's a long rifle. When you hear people say it’s a criminal’s weapon, this is 5-and-a-half feet tall, or something like that. This is not a weapon that a criminal would use’” (CBS News). Some exaggeration aside, and it’s not like the other side is completely innocent of that as well, Barrett states the truth. A representative from the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association stated, “Fifty Caliber rifles are not the weapon of choice of the criminal. The fifty-caliber rifle is too large and heavy to be employed in normal criminal behavior, and accessibility to ammo is difficult because of its high expense and the availability through retail sales outlets is limited” (FCSA.org). While the ban proponents’ concerns are well founded and very legitimate, Barrett and the FCSA make good points. The gun’s nearly squeaky clean criminal record is a testament to its uselessness to criminals.
The concern does not stop at ordinary criminals by a long shot. There is the definite concern of terrorism as well. In the time span from February 28th to April 19th, 1993, a standoff between agents of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a radical religious group called the Branch Davidians raged at Waco Texas. One of the guns used by the radicals was a Barrett M81A2 rifle. This fueled the ban’s proponents’ argument against the rifle immensely, and brought up the question of terrorist usage of the weapon. One of the main fears is that terrorists would use it to take down an airplane. A journalist for Join Together Online reflects a concern proposed by Bob Williamson of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence in the statement, “Williamson said he saw an ad for a .50-caliber in a gun magazine and it showed two men operating the bipod-supported weapon on a hill overlooking an airport, where they were taking aim at an airplane on the runway” (Join Together Online). This is a very real and scary thought. The .50 caliber is an extremely powerful round that could easily tear through an airplane’s engine. That is the kind of thing it was originally intended to do back when it was being donned by WW2 Mustangs and Spitfires. A well placed shot to a single airplane engine could trigger a mini 9/11.
But one must think about the possibility of this first. To hit an airplane on the runway would indicate a few things: One, you have gotten close enough to the runway and found a place where nobody will see you. Two, you have gotten there carrying a very large and cumbersome rifle in a suspicious looking case. Three, you have no better way to take down the airplane other than shooting it down. Four, you have an easy escape after the extremely loud report made by the muzzle blast. And five, you are an excellent marksman. It would be pretty tough to get past all those requirements. Airports are very busy places. It would be very hard to get to your stakeout point without being seen or alarming anybody. It would be incredibly hard to stay in that position and not be seen, as runways and the surrounding vicinities of runways are heavily watched constantly by air traffic controllers, airport security monitors, radar, and other kinds of safety precautions. Most terrorists are clever; it would be an impractical and risky way of taking down an airplane, and a competent terrorist would not even attempt it (an incompetent one would fail the first two requirements anyway). The .50 caliber is a big bullet, so it’s safe to say that it makes a big noise, and the noise is made even bigger by the gas-dissipating muzzle break at the end of the barrel; someone would be bound to hear you and alarm bells would start ringing all over the airport. Runways are vast, vast pieces of land. To hit a plane from your stakeout spot would usually indicate that you were far away. Even with a .50 caliber, shooting at a far target is not like it is in the movies or video games. One has to adjust for wind speed, wind direction, and bullet drop, and it takes a skilled shooter to pull it off effectively.
So yes, it would be very hard to hit a plane on a runway, and the odds against it are slim to nil, but what about hitting a plane while it is in the air? A well-placed shot to an airplane over a major metropolitan area fired from a secure location does not seem like a far-flung idea, right? Wrong. Hitting a moving target is incredibly hard. Hitting a target beyond the effective and accurate range of your rifle is incredibly hard. Hitting a moving target that is beyond the effective and accurate range of your target is nearly impossible. And a plane in flight far enough away from an airport where you could fire from a secure area is beyond your effective and accurate range, even with a .50 caliber, and it is obviously a moving target (a very fast moving target at that). So, in brief, to assume that a .50 caliber could take down an airplane is correct. It can take down an airplane. But will it? Let’s just say it’s less than likely.
Along with the concern about terrorists and criminals is the very legitimate and real threat of the lone psychopath; the serial killer or murderer who is not in his right mind. Suppose we are dealing with someone who is not using their mental capacities? A good example was John Allen Muhammad, better known as the DC Area Sniper. This crazed maniac drove around the Washington DC area with a .223 caliber rifle and a nondescript blue Chevrolet Caprice. By the time he was captured, he had killed 10 people with sniper attacks that left the area terrorized for some time (CNN “Ballistics Match Rifle to Sniper Attacks”). The .50 caliber ban’s proponents caution that this could very well happen again, and what more fearsome sniper weapon than the .50 caliber could be used? Muhammad’s .223 was deadly enough; imagine what damage a maniac with a .50 caliber rifle could do.
These fears are very real. It would be much more devastating to a human body to be hit with a .50 BMG round than a .223 Remington round. But what are the indications of needing a .50 to kill people like Muhammad did? The necessity for such a round would indicate range. Once again, we are back to the problem of range. To get a well placed kill-shot from a long range requires many factors: Breathing control, slowed heartbeat, correctly squeezing the trigger, and muscle tension. Plus the factors of wind and bullet drop come back into play, plus the fact that since the target is a living being, it’s probably a moving target. You have to be a skilled rifleman to pull it off. Marnie Eisenstadt of the Post Standard quoted Ronnie Barrett in his article “Group Targets .50 Cal Rifle” with, “Barrett, president of Barrett Firearms, said the .50-caliber rifle is no more dangerous than any other rifle. And the claim that the .50-caliber can fire farther is true, but even the best marksmen would have trouble hitting a target from more than a mile away, he said” (Eisenstadt). But that’s if the guy’s far away. What if he has a .50 caliber for some reason and wants to fire close range (remember, this guy’s not using full mental capacity)? The noise would be so loud and the muzzle flash would be so bright that it would be very possible for someone to identify the shooter at a short range. A .50 caliber means you are either shooting too far away for it to be an easy shot, or you are shooting too close not to be heard and spotted.
Aside from the concerns about crime and terrorism lies the ultimate question: why? Why do civilians need such a powerful weapon at their disposal? This is a fair question. Are the interests of hunters and marksmen more important than the public safety breech, no matter how slight, posed by the .50 BMG rifle? Proponents say yes. Eisenstadt also quoted Andy Pelosi of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence: “’There's no place in civilian society for this gun. This gun is a weapon of war,’ Pelosi said” (Eisenstadt). And a writer for Join Together Online quotes Bob Williamson of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence in the article “Popularity of Military Gun Prompts New Regulatory Calls” with, “’This is a weapon of war, with a range of up to two miles that uses a cartridge the size of a ketchup bottle,’ he said. ‘Selling this as a consumer product is unconscionable’” (Join Together Online). Indeed it was originally a weapon of war. While the round is much smaller than a ketchup bottle (a small-size Tabasco bottle at most), it is big. It is powerful and can fire accurately for a long distance. But is the military the only thing it is good for?
American Rifleman journalist Stanton L Wormly Jr. States in his article “.50 BMG: The Ultimate Big Bore?” the hunting aspects of the rifle with, “Such power would allow a hunter to harvest any game animal on earth; and indeed, .50 cal. rifles have been used for hunting, primarily for extreme long-range shots. Lynn McMurdo, veteran hunter, .50 cal. shooter and custom bulletmaker, has taken game at more than a mile” (Wormly). Indeed, the rifle could take any game animal on earth with more accuracy and efficiency than other big bore cartridges such as the .458 Winchester Magnum. Wormly also states, “Of course, the first question that may be legitimately asked is, why the .50 BMG? In every performance category, the .50 BMG easily outclasses any conventional rifle cartridge. With 12,000 to 14,000 ft.-lbs. of muzzle energy, the .50 BMG is more than twice as powerful as the .458 Win. Mag. and some 1 1/2 times as powerful as the .460 Weatherby Magnum” (Wormly). So, yes, it is a great hunting round for big game. After all, would it not be a good thing to take the animal down quickly, efficiently, and relatively painlessly, rather than risk a cruelly painful misplaced shot with a less accurate round? The .50 BMG is not only an effective hunting round, but it is also more humane. The animal is going to die anyway, so might as well make it as quick and precise as possible. But is hunting the only other use of the .50 BMG?
A representative from the FCSA writes, “Our primary sport at this time is 1000 yard shooting competition with a mission to advance the art of extreme long-range accuracy shooting with fifty caliber rifles. The FCSA sponsors approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) organized 1000 yard rifle matches per year in as many locations in the continental United States as are available” (FCSA.org). They also state that “FCSA has over 3500 members and is growing steadily. FCSA has members in twenty-two countries including England, Switzerland, Finland, South Africa, Australia & Canada” (FCSA.org). The FCSA is one of a few organizations that embrace the sporting aspect of the round. Others include The Fifty Caliber Shooters’ Policy Institute and the Fifty Caliber Institute. So the group of shooters who like the feel of the .50 caliber is not just a small group of people.
The basic underlying reason for the ban is public safety. This means getting the .50 caliber off of the streets as much as possible. By restricting sales to civilians, they have accomplished this. It is a noble cause, and it is very important to take public safety into consideration. But is banning the rifle going to stop a criminal or terrorist from getting their hands on one if they wanted to (which they most likely wouldn’t, for the aforementioned reasons)? Of course not. In the unlikely case of a bad guy needing a .50 caliber rifle, does it seem plausible for them to go to the store, go through the background check and waiting period, and go and do their naughty deed? Most criminals have records, and would be restricted to what they could buy. They would not go to a civilian gun store. They would exploit that dark little corner of the world that we call the black market. Now, is an ordinary citizen going to go to the black market to get his rifle if it were banned from legitimate sales? Maybe, but it is certainly less likely than a veteran criminal doing likewise. In brief, under a ban, criminals get the gun, innocent sportsmen don’t.
So what about compromise? There must be some ways to make both sides happy. The ban could be lifted with changes to the requirements in design and capabilities. The thing that constitutes an assault weapon more often than not is the weapon’s ability to pump out lead at a high enough rate of fire. A criminal or terrorist would want something with a high magazine capacity to inflict the maximum amount of damage, right? So that could be taken into consideration. A good compromise in that regard would be to limit the magazine capacity in .50 caliber rifles to one shot. Many .50 caliber rifles are single shot anyway, and are really only useful in legitimate purposes such as hunting or target shooting. Marksmen would not mind this compromise at all. Target shooters usually load one round at a time when they shoot, so that they can focus their complete attention to that one bullet, making it fire straight and true. Shooting one shot at a time also can make the ammo supply last longer. I know that when I shoot rifles, I always load one at a time, so as to make my experience last. Also, accuracy is key in rifles like the .50 BMG. It would benefit target shooters and hinder bad guys to require the weapon’s length to be no shorter than 4.5 feet, and weigh no less than 40 pounds. The consistently long barrel would keep accuracy up and limit concealability (Try concealing a 4.5 foot 40 pound metal pole in your clothes without being noticed), and the weight would keep recoil to a manageable level. With these legal restrictions, everybody wins. The target shooters get to shoot the rifle they enjoy and the people worried about public safety have a safer and more people-friendly rifle than before.
In summation, the .50 caliber ban should be lifted in California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts, but with safer capacity and size requirements. Legislators who are fretting over the rifle in other states should just make these design changes a requirement and go on to spend their time on more pressing matters. Both sides of this argument provide sound arguments, but in debates where lives could be at stake with the outcome, it seems to me that more often than not there have been words too strong spoken against each other. I would go so far as to say the debate is hostile, with some sides preferring fighting words to civilized debate. Whether or not legislators will change their minds is unknown, but we should still look forward to the future with optimism and not let such petty differences get in our way. Everything’s negotiable, and there can always be a compromise.
|
