In some ways, the debate over the 'big 50' can showcase, not just what is wrong with the approach regarding violent crime, but government's approach to... well... really quite a few things.
Consider: The 50 BMG round has been in circulation since just after WWI and has seen extensive service in many different venues. It was initially designed as an aircraft mounted machine gun, but was quickly adapted to ground use as well. They were everywhere in WWII; aircraft, (the P-47 'Thunderbolt' mounted 8, one variant of the B-25 medium bomber sported no fewer than 14) armor, (as the coaxial gun on tanks) with the infantry, light recon vehicles, (remember 'the Rat Patrol'?) in multiple mounts for anti-aircraft work, and heavily utilized by the Navy. In Korea, M2 machine gun barrels were fitted with receivers, sights and manual bolts and used as long-range sniper rifles to engage targets at up to a mile.
That trend continues to this day, with a sniper team from Canada resetting the mark for a long-range kill, using a rifle chambered for the BMG round. (2400 some meters, you do the math) They are still in use in the military, both on the ground and in some few (generally rotary wing) aircraft.
The load is impressive: a 647 grain bullet at roughly 3000 fps muzzle velocity. (750 grain bullets are also used)
Just for reference, there are 7000 grains to a pound, which means that payload is well over an ounce of jacketed lead, moving somewhere around 2000 miles per hour. However you want to figure energy, there's a lot of it.
Now, while this is unquestionably a very powerful round, one should not forget that 'big game' rifles have long been chambered in such things as the colossal 700 Nitro Express round, a full .7 inches in diameter and a very common big-bore for dangerous game is the .458 magnum that can push a 600 grain payload. The reality is that there is no shortage of rifle rounds that have a LOT of downrange energy. They tend to share a few attributes; punishing recoil, a lot of bulk and a very hefty pricetag.
This, then, is the 'big 50'. A few companies have chambered rifles in 50 BMG for the sport shooting market. They are, in a word, massive. While there are so many variations that it's impossible to list even the available range, for the sake of argument, consider that a 'basic' 30-06 'deer rifle' will sport a barrel generally between 18 and about 24 inches. Lighter versions weigh in at 5 1/2-odd pounds, 6 1/2-7 isn't uncommon for many and they can go well up from there. Contrast this to the 'big 50' rifles, with barrels up to 33 inches and beyond, and an extremely light one is 13 pounds. (there are doubtless companies offering variations of which I am not currently aware and I welcome new information, but I sincerely doubt anyone makes a 'little' one) When they first hit the market, they quickly were dubbed the new 'weapon of choice' for those ever-so-useful 'gangers and drug dealers'... until people started looking at the real-world concealability of a 4 1/2 foot long, 25 pound rifle and decided to relatively quietly set that attempt aside.
Fast forward a few years. The 'big 50' becomes more popular at sport shooting venues all over,,, and the ban advocates set their sights on it again. The format is instantly recognizeable, only the names have changed. Like last time, they trot out the 'reason du jour'... Terrorism.
Yep, you guessed it. These rifles, with destructive power unheard of anywhere but the artillery corps are now the 'weapon of choice' for terrorists. (terrorists, you see, are more useful than 'gangers and drug dealers', because you never actually have to catch one doing what you claim they want to do) You remember those terrorists, don't you? They're the ones who were coming to gun shows in the US so they could buy semi-auto 'assault weapons' and ten-round magazines for upwards of $1,000, instead of the full-auto versions and 30 round mags available overseas for $18.50 US; only now they want the 50s. (no one accused them of being bright terrorists)
Out comes the big lie. Actually, there are MANY of them all built into the same incrementalist move. Ronnie Barrett, President of Barrett Firearms has a few things to say on the subject. He has something of a personal interest, since his company is under direct attack by the fabrication machinery of the Brady Bunch and the State of California. Among other things, they like to complain that Osama bin Laden and his gang have 50 BMG rifles manufactured by Barrett's company. They keep forgetting to tell people that those rifles were provided to bin Laden et al by the US Government to help against the Soviets when Afghanistan was invaded, but apparently details are for wimps.
So now 'we' are supposed to be deathly afraid that terrorists will buy these rifles and create havoc at our airports, refineries, power distribution stations, government offices and other assorted critical infrastructure venues. (if certain congresspersons would quit diagramming how to do exactly such a thing on television, the danger might be lessened, but maybe I'm just picky) This danger is apparently so great that law-abiding citizens should be permanently denied the recreational use of these firearms in perpetuity. The danger is so immediate that it should be done now, if not sooner. I have a question...
Am I honestly expected to believe that 'terrorists' are going to walk into a legitimate firearms dealer, fill out the required paperwork, go through a background check and pay $1500+ dollars for a single shot rifle? (they go up to well over $10k)
Well, okay, I was supposed to believe similar stories about semi-auto 'assault weapons'... so I guess they really do think I'm that stupid... but this brings up another point.
... why are we simply trying to (marginally) affect the tools these terrorists might employ? IF the danger is so immediate and so clear, why are we concentrating on the possible tools these terrorists might purchase, knowing that, to do so, they must pass a background inquiry at a federally-licensed dealer? Wouldn't it be much better for the American people if someone actually did something about the terrorists? I mean, I'm no criminal psychologist, but it just seems to me that a real 'terrorist' isn't going to decide to pack up and go home simply because he can't plunk down $8,000 for a rifle.
While we're at it, can someone explain to me why people are so busy trying to get rifles out of the hands of law-abiding citizens that they can't find time to do something about a national border which has shown itself to be remarkably porous? I'm disenchanted enough with the soul-selling grandstanding which is the sum total of the efforts most congresscritters expend that I don't want to look up how many of the people looking to ban 50s are the same ones complaining bitterly about the 'Minuteman' project along the Arizona border. (don't remind me, I know George bitched about them, too; and yes, that annoys me no end)
That, and it annoys the hell out of me that now, we're not only supposed to give up the legitimate sporting use of a class of firearms, due to a few awful, but statistically vanishingly rare occurrences; but of another whole class of them, not because anyone has misused them, but because someone, somewhere, might.
Maybe I'm just easily annoyed... but more likely, the government is showing itself to be very good at not impressing me.
