![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hoplophobes at it again.
Feb. 6th, 2007 09:10 pmBig Rifle A Terrorist Tool?
Critics Fear .50-Caliber Rifle Could End Up In Hands Of Terrorists
The nutjob anti-gun crowd is at it again with their FUD. This time, using yet another ridiculously overblown, over-hyped pseudo-threat to scare people into giving up their rights so they can look like they're doing something worthwhile. They've just succeeded in California, where the weapon is now banned.
This time, they're targetting the single-shot semi-automatic M82 "Barrett Light Fifty" .50 caliber rifle. It's the usual collection of exaggerations, out-of-context information, and outright fabrications. And their shills in the journalism industry are just regurgitating every bit of the paranoia. They barely touch on the real facts, while giving excessive time to the fearmongers.
It would be nice if they had someone who actually had an idea what they're talking about doing the articles. Someone who not only knows something about the weaponry, but something about basic physical as well.
No, a single-shot .50cal cannot shoot down a plane. It's practically impossible. The military doesn't use them for that. Even the .50cal M2 machine gun has a damn hard time doing it, and it's putting out up to 500 rounds per minute. As the creator of the M82, aka Barrett Light .50, says about his weapon, it's possible to damage a plane with it, but only if it's parked. And you'd have to hit it in just the right spot. Exactly the same thing can be said about any number of other larger-caliber hunting rifles. The .308, the 7mm magnum, .300 magnum, .338 Lapua, and so on.
The author of the article also mentions the capability of the .50cal to pierce armour, claiming that this would be a problem against large unprotected tanks of flammable or toxic substances that are easily seen and targetted. Of course, he neglects to mention that nearly any moderate-sized or better firearm, including many handguns, is capable of piercing such tanks at varying ranges. Nor does he bother to take into account the fact that the damage they'd cause is pretty minimal. A few small, easily patched holes. And it appears to completely escape him that they would not be particularly interesting targets for terrorists, since the damage would fail to be spectacular, and thus not terrifying enough; and such installations are usually located a healthy distance away from population centers to avoid that sort of spectacular damage being caused by industrial accidents. Even if a terrorist did want to damage such an installation, bombs would be far more effective with no real added difficulty; or at the very least, a machine gun that could cause a lot more damage in a much shorter time.
If there's are weapons that would-be terrorist would not be interested in, the Barrett Light .50 is somewhere near the top of the list. The point of terrorism is to kill large numbers of civilians quickly and easily, or damage highly symbolic targets in very showy and attention-grabbing ways. The kind of sophisticated guerilla warfare envisioned by the author exists in Hollywood, not the real world. Like the liquid explosive nonsense, it's the kind of thing that seems frigtening in a big budget action movie; but which simply doesn't work in real life.
Emotionalism runs high, and the author tries to create a spurious link to Waco, despite the fact that the problem that the feds were all up in arms about at the time was smaller-caliber automatic weapons -- machine guns -- not the big .50cals. (Ignoring the fact that the main reason it turned into such a travesty was that the entire operation was a federal clusterfuck of royal proportions.) The author also drags out the Raufoss explosive ammo, but ignores the fact that it's only available to military sources; so a terrorist would have an extremely risky time finding it, and would most likely be apprehended in the process. He claims to have found several sources for it; but provides no evidence of the validity of said sources, or the actual cost of the ammunition. And, of course, ignores the fact that those "sources" could just as easily be federal sting operations. I've also found a few "sources" claiming to be able to provide it, with the lowest cost being US$35 per single round. Considering that a damn good car bomb can be built for about US$50, I seriously doubt that a real terrorist is going to be all that interested.
It's almost nauseating. If nothing else, it really makes me wish I had the money to run out and buy one while they're still legal here; even though I could probably never fire one without injuring myself.
Critics Fear .50-Caliber Rifle Could End Up In Hands Of Terrorists
The nutjob anti-gun crowd is at it again with their FUD. This time, using yet another ridiculously overblown, over-hyped pseudo-threat to scare people into giving up their rights so they can look like they're doing something worthwhile. They've just succeeded in California, where the weapon is now banned.
This time, they're targetting the single-shot semi-automatic M82 "Barrett Light Fifty" .50 caliber rifle. It's the usual collection of exaggerations, out-of-context information, and outright fabrications. And their shills in the journalism industry are just regurgitating every bit of the paranoia. They barely touch on the real facts, while giving excessive time to the fearmongers.
It would be nice if they had someone who actually had an idea what they're talking about doing the articles. Someone who not only knows something about the weaponry, but something about basic physical as well.
No, a single-shot .50cal cannot shoot down a plane. It's practically impossible. The military doesn't use them for that. Even the .50cal M2 machine gun has a damn hard time doing it, and it's putting out up to 500 rounds per minute. As the creator of the M82, aka Barrett Light .50, says about his weapon, it's possible to damage a plane with it, but only if it's parked. And you'd have to hit it in just the right spot. Exactly the same thing can be said about any number of other larger-caliber hunting rifles. The .308, the 7mm magnum, .300 magnum, .338 Lapua, and so on.
The author of the article also mentions the capability of the .50cal to pierce armour, claiming that this would be a problem against large unprotected tanks of flammable or toxic substances that are easily seen and targetted. Of course, he neglects to mention that nearly any moderate-sized or better firearm, including many handguns, is capable of piercing such tanks at varying ranges. Nor does he bother to take into account the fact that the damage they'd cause is pretty minimal. A few small, easily patched holes. And it appears to completely escape him that they would not be particularly interesting targets for terrorists, since the damage would fail to be spectacular, and thus not terrifying enough; and such installations are usually located a healthy distance away from population centers to avoid that sort of spectacular damage being caused by industrial accidents. Even if a terrorist did want to damage such an installation, bombs would be far more effective with no real added difficulty; or at the very least, a machine gun that could cause a lot more damage in a much shorter time.
If there's are weapons that would-be terrorist would not be interested in, the Barrett Light .50 is somewhere near the top of the list. The point of terrorism is to kill large numbers of civilians quickly and easily, or damage highly symbolic targets in very showy and attention-grabbing ways. The kind of sophisticated guerilla warfare envisioned by the author exists in Hollywood, not the real world. Like the liquid explosive nonsense, it's the kind of thing that seems frigtening in a big budget action movie; but which simply doesn't work in real life.
Emotionalism runs high, and the author tries to create a spurious link to Waco, despite the fact that the problem that the feds were all up in arms about at the time was smaller-caliber automatic weapons -- machine guns -- not the big .50cals. (Ignoring the fact that the main reason it turned into such a travesty was that the entire operation was a federal clusterfuck of royal proportions.) The author also drags out the Raufoss explosive ammo, but ignores the fact that it's only available to military sources; so a terrorist would have an extremely risky time finding it, and would most likely be apprehended in the process. He claims to have found several sources for it; but provides no evidence of the validity of said sources, or the actual cost of the ammunition. And, of course, ignores the fact that those "sources" could just as easily be federal sting operations. I've also found a few "sources" claiming to be able to provide it, with the lowest cost being US$35 per single round. Considering that a damn good car bomb can be built for about US$50, I seriously doubt that a real terrorist is going to be all that interested.
It's almost nauseating. If nothing else, it really makes me wish I had the money to run out and buy one while they're still legal here; even though I could probably never fire one without injuring myself.
