OT-gun related Finished research paper

MJM · Post by **MJM** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:35 am

Hello all

Memeber of old site, same name, just finding a reason to post on the new board!

My 12 yo son is doing a research paper on why the 50 cal rifle SHOULD BE legal. I have a friend who owns a gunshop and my son has always loved the Barrett 50 they have on the counter, so he picked the 50 to defend in his project. Of course, he has been able to fine little literature PRO 50 to document, so I thought I'd ask you guys (and gals!) for some help if its out there. If anyone has any suggestions or links could you let me know either here or via email @ MJM1876@aol.com

Thanks a lot

Mark & Jack

505stevec · Post by **505stevec** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:09 pm

There are no "ligitimate" hunting purposes for this rifle to exist. However there is the 2nd ammendment that guarentees our right to be "well armed" I would say the .50 cal. would make anyone well armed

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:31 pm

While long range hunting doesn't hold a great deal of interest to me, it is legitimate. Also, there are target matches held at the NRA's Whittington Center, if I'm not mistaken, and elsewhere. Go to Barret's website and look at their Forum: Using your rifle.

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:54 pm

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:47 pm

Idahoser wrote:Yeah, wrong question. "Shall not be infringed" allows no room for nipping at the edges.

+1. No wiggle room in that phrase.

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:32 pm

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:40 pm

What's so complicated about " shall not?"

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:59 pm

Dr. Edgar Suter did a good article titled "Assault Weapons" Revisited -- An Analysis of the AMA Report. refuting some of the "assault weapon" nonsense http://www.dsgl.org/Articles/aw.htm.
I think it was published in one of the state journals, but regardless, it is thorough. It doesn't go specifically into the .50 though, but in terms of just laying a foundation of "don't assume anti-gun, anti-50-cal stuff you've heard is true", some of our material http://www.dsgl.org/links.htm may be of use - stuff from Guns&Ammo or American Rifleman is usually ignored as tainted (even though the NRA has been praised by the Library of Congress in Congressional Digest as 'one of the most consistently truthful lobbying organizations'). Our stuff is from law journals and medical journals, so is harder to just write off as 'gun lobby' stuff.

Here's a chunk from one of my favorite articles http://web.archive.org/web/200106020917 ... nnmed.html
I refer to this one alot when involved in a 'debate' about whatever anti-gun nonsense is the chatter of the week; the article is very thoroughly referenced (about half of the 83 pages are taken up by the numerous references), and helps establish to the layperson the wholesale lack of credibility of the anti-gun 'studies' that so many of their ideas are based on.

[Copyright Â© 1994 Tennessee Law Review. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994). For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S. Hein & Co., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14209; 716-882-2600 or 800-828-7571.]

GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF
VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?
Don B. Kates,[*] Henry E. Schaffer, Ph.D.,[**]
John K. Lattimer, M.D.,[***] George B. Murray, M.D.,[****]
and Edwin H. Cassem, M.D.[*****]

"[Knowledge is neither good nor evil, but takes its character from how it is used.] In like manner, weapons defend the lives of those who wish to live peacefully, and they also, on many occasions kill [murder] men, not because of any wickedness inherent in them but because those who wield them do so in an evil way."[1]

I. Introduction

........................... (the article is 83 pages long, and nearly half is the footnotes and citations - it is VERY well documented stuff!)
........................... Here's one of the really good parts - pretty strong words for a law review journal .............................

XIII. A Critique of Overt Mendacity

A 1989 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association approvingly quoted a CDC official's assertion that his work for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention involved "systematically build[ing]a case that owning firearms causes death."[258] The CDC official later claimed that JAMA had misquoted him and offered the only repudiation of the anti-gun political agenda we have found in a health advocacy publication, characterizing it as "anathema to any unbiased scientific inquiry because it assumes the conclusion at the outset and then attempts to find evidence to support it."[259]

Unfortunately, that is precisely what CDC is doing. Indeed, this has subsequently been avowed by the prior official's successor.[260] Even more unfortunately, CDC and other health advocate sages build their case not only by suppressing facts, but by overt fraud, fabricating statistics, and falsifying references to support them.[261] The following are but a few of the many examples documented in a recent paper co-authored by professors at Columbia Medical School and Rutgers University Law School.

The first instance represents a lamentable exception to our generalization that comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates through the 1970s and 1980s find no place in the health advocacy literature.[262] Some health sages go so far as to overtly misrepresent that murder rates increased over that period, and then correlate this misrepresentation with the same period's steadily increasing gun ownership so as to lend spurious support to their more-guns-mean-more-murder shibboleth. Thus, a 1989 Report to the United States Congress by the CDC stated that "[s]ince the early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the numbers of homicides."[263] We leave it to the readers of (p.577)this Article to judge how a 69% increase in handgun ownership over the fifteen year period from 1974 to 1988 could honestly be described as having "paralleled" a 14.2% decrease in homicide during that same period.[264]

kimwcook · Post by **kimwcook** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:03 pm

I'd send an email to Ron Barrett himself and ask him to weigh in. He's been knee deep in that controversy lately and should have some good insight.

cutter · Post by **cutter** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:20 pm

Are we speaking of the 50 BMG specifically, or 50 caliber in general?

MJM · Post by **MJM** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:15 pm

Thanks for all of the input, I knew this was a place to ask. We have a couple of good articles, some stuff from Ron Burtt at the Fifty Caliber Shooters Assn and now some good stuff from AJMD. Its actually a difficuly topic for a kid I think, there is much reference material for pro vs anti gun, but he wants to specificallydefend the 50 cal. for civilian use. Thanks for all of the input and emails, and if there is any others we'd appreciate anything we can get. He will be utilizing the 2nd Amendment as background, but remember, this is a research paper in which he has to document sources, so emotion and personal beliefs, no matter how strong, arn't a good footnote!

Thanks again

Mark

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:56 am

He shouldn't have to defend the Second Amendment, but others wanting to infringe on it should need to advocate their position. Given that would be the ideal, but not the real world, where we ignore "shall not be infringed" routinely (as well as other Consitutional restrictions), here are a few lines of thought to pursue:

Civilian military arms advancements have been a major source of R&D for military small arms. The Barrett .50 is an ideal example. The US military and others adopted the .50 sniper after the civilian development of this for long-range hunting and target shooting.

How many people have used the .50 in a crime? a $5000 28+lb rifle is just not going to be used in many crimes, so if the argument for banning it is to stop crime, banning the automobile would end up reducing more crime than banning the .50 BMG.

How many people have died in the US from .50 BMG weapons? Again, I doubt it is more than 1 or 2 - if that - ever. Some research would be needed, but I can guarantee the 5-gallon pail kills more monthly (kids drowning) than the .50 ever has, in total, in domestic criminal or accidental deaths. Ban the 5-gallon pail, or swimming pools, or lakes, or the ocean... you get the drift.

Banners use the terrorism threat, fearing a 50 could shoot down a plane. So can many other small arms with the correct shot placement. Are we going to ban all of them? Are we going to use the fear of terrorism to ban anything and everything else that could potentially be used against us? If so, let's start with what they have used in the past, and ban all airplanes, delivery trucks, and box cutters.

The last argument seems to hinge on the question of "need". The Constitution does not dare to define the "needs" of the individual other than "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If we assume the state can define what we need as individual, and ban things it thinks we don't need, are dangerous, or are not "useful", than we no longer live in a free society. In such a world it is not a large leap to envision the banning of music or art, as they serve no "real" use and can be inflammatory - leading to all kinds of societal problems. See the problem when one person defines the needs for another?

Just a few quick thoughts before starting work this morning. Hopefully it will give your son an avenue or two to explore. Good luck! We'd be interested in seeing a post on his paper when he is done!

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:54 am

MJM · Post by **MJM** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:18 pm

kimwcook wrote:I'd send an email to Ron Barrett himself and ask him to weigh in. He's been knee deep in that controversy lately and should have some good insight.

Thought this was a great idea so I gave it a try. Sent an e-mail to info@Barrett, Im sure it never got to Mr Barrett and I got a very disappointing response saying "Im not aware of any web sites with that information, but we can send you our newsletter...thanks for your interest in Barrett Firearms"...

Thanks

Mark

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:35 pm

Also may want to do a search on how the 50Cal(M2) provides security by private security personnel around the world.

Johnny

MJM · Post by **MJM** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:31 am

MJM wrote:
kimwcook wrote:I'd send an email to Ron Barrett himself and ask him to weigh in. He's been knee deep in that controversy lately and should have some good insight.

Thought this was a great idea so I gave it a try. Sent an e-mail to info@Barrett, Im sure it never got to Mr Barrett and I got a very disappointing response saying "Im not aware of any web sites with that information, but we can send you our newsletter...thanks for your interest in Barrett Firearms"...

I stand corrected on this "complaint". Although it probably never reached Mr. Barrett someone by the name of Kelli Galpin sent my son 2 Barrett magizines and even tabbed pages and articles that had information that could help his project. It was very nice of her and I'll admit I was a bit to quick to to complain! Other than that, project is progressing well.

Thanks

Mark

Scott64A · Post by **Scott64A** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:53 am

Groovy.
http://www.webridestv.com/showvideo.aspx?video=16251

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:24 am

My 12 yo son is doing a research paper on why the 50 cal rifle SHOULD BE legal.

The 2nd Amendment is not about justifying arms for sporting purposes.

We have the right to keep and bear arms for survival purposes, in both personal subsistence and for self-defense application. (Oh, and just in case we have need to form the militia, too.)

The 2nd Amendment was written by men who knew what it was like to live under a tyrannical government that tried to disarm them. When those men wrote "arms" into the Constitution, they meant military arms capable of defending the People from the might of any oppressive government and it's standing army, or from foreign invaders.

Our government wants to deny weapons like the .50BMG to "civilians" not because they are used or might be used irresonsibly or in crime, they want such arms banned because the weapon is powerful enough to stop light armored vehicles or to cause damage to aircraft and structures, ... like the ones the police or military might use or hide in to put down civilian insurrection if martial law were to be declared.

When someone wants you disarmed, they want you disarmed for a reason, and that reason is to control you. There is no other reason.

The .50BMG should be legal for one over-riding reason, and that because some government bureaucrat wants them restricted.

The .50BMG should be legal so that the American People can defend themselves against power mongering government and it's officials at all levels of society.

JMO.

donw · Post by **donw** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:30 am

i personally have no desire to own a .50 BMG rifle but i DO NOT support a ban of them! they have legitimate sporting purposes in spite of our so called "legislators".

perhaps a letter to senator ted kennedy could give insight to the ban he's introduced for the .50 cal long range "sniper" rifles. (i doubt he could, or would, be able to give a RATIONAL explanation.)

why is it legislators are scared to death of the so called "long range" and "assault weapons"? very, very few of them have any understanding of their operation and uses, i believe. it's their own paranoia that motivates them, not common sense. there are even those who are opposed to "precision shooting rifles" in the hands of civilians regardless of caliber.

the debate of the toll taken by swimming pools, lakes, rivers, automobiles, electric shock, falls in the home, disease etc on civilians yearly vs firearms related fatalities yearly means zero, zilch, nada to a legislator...remember...most legislators lack good common sense and knowledge when it comes to firearms legislation.

the cost, feeding and care of the .50 BMG is staggering for the average shooter so it is a built in, inheritant, regulatory factor of having one. for one thing; at somewhere near two dollars a shot...it's not gonna be like a 'brick' of the wally-world .22 rimfire ammo in the economics enviroment of today.

IMHO, it's not the .50 BMG itself that terrifies them, and most legislators, it's fear that they will end up with a hole in THEM! they fear civilians who may oppose them, for whatever the reasons, that may be armed!

WE the gun owners, have the power to control the legislators with our votes! use it or lose it...

Post by **Hobie** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:09 pm

You guys have been talking about the .50 BMG cartridge and guns chambered for it. However, you might also note that several times, laws have been drafted that would have banned anything .50 cal and over including muzzleloaders and shotguns. These are not long range sniper rifles by any means but the ignorance on the subject lumped them together in somebody's mind. However, I think that is what motivated the hunting shooters who are more old Jim Zumbo in orientation to call their reps and the bans were defeated.

MJM · Post by **MJM** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:36 pm

To all that helped or are interested.

Attached, hopefully is my sons paper on why the 50 cal should be legal, or better yet why it should not be illegal. Please remember that he is only 12 and not yet ready to argue the point in Washington by himself yet, and the ideas are his with only minor editing by his mother and/or I.
AJMD, although I read and enjoyed the literature you forwarded, it was a bit complicated for my son and he wasn't able to understand it enough to put it in his own words. Thanks again for all of the ideas, emails and help.

Mark

There are pics but i couldnt figure out how to attach them with the report

The .50 caliber rifle:
Helpful or Hurtful

By: Jack

Since 1983 every other American sport has suffered a fatality or a catastrophic injury besides 50 caliber shooting. Today, some states are trying to ban the gun from citizens of the United States. The 50 cal should not be banned because they are great for competitive shooting, the gun has never been used in a crime, and itâ€™s not as destructive as you might think.

The 50 cal should not be banned but some people think other wise. Some critics fear that terrorist might get their hands on one. They think that terrorist could use it to start another 9/11, or mentally ill killers could get one. Others however, fear that the 50 caliber rifle could be used to take down an aircraft. Although it all seems possible with a 5 inch bullet and a range of 4 miles, there has been extensive research that proves this could never happen. Also the odds of shooting a plane are unrealistic; trying to hit a moving target 2 miles away is highly doubtful for anybody. Ronald J. Hindenberger, Director of Aviation Safety for Boeing, (perhaps the worlds leading manufacturer of commercial aircrafts) ranked the threat to aircraft from rifle fire lower the threat of colliding with a duck.

A lot of people love to shoot in competition with the 50 caliber rifle. The FCSA is a shooting association that holds 50 caliber shooting competitions. With a range of 4 miles, they use the 50 caliber for long range shooting events. Since 1983 every other American sport has suffered a fatality or a catastrophic injury except the recreational use of 50 caliber rifle shooting. Shooting this weapon is a privilege and a very unique experience. Many people love to shoot the 50 caliber rifle in competitions and nobody has ever gotten killed from it.

The 50 caliber rifle is not as destructive as critics would like you to think. Tanks and chemicals railcars are tested to stand up to heavier artillery than a 50 caliber rifle, like missiles, grenades, and bombs. Even the strongest 50 caliber rifle couldnâ€™t shoot through any of these machines at any distance. According to Tom Darymlpe, the senior vice president of engineering for trinity rail group, they have tested their cars against almost every kind of firearm including the 50 caliber and larger. When asked what would happen if a 50 caliber rifle hit one of their chemical rail tanks Mr. Darymple stated â€œ It would bounce off.â€

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:54 pm

I think he deserves an "A". Do we get to vote?

JerryB · Post by **JerryB** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:11 am

Thank you for posting this. Your son did an excellent job,you should send a copy to the NRA.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:01 am

Great job! He might want to say "5 inch 'cartridge'" though instead of 'bullet' - just to be proper.

Nice to see some kids are learning how to find out truth about a topic, rather than just go with what the NY Times or their teacher says.

MJM · Post by **MJM** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:29 am

Thanks guys for the kind words. I found some minor typos and such after reading it on here, you can never proof read something to much. A lot of people posted or emailed me great points but many were based on emotion and not documented in writing somewhere. His teacher reviewed his rough draft and told him that his last line was a GREAT line and not to change a thing there.

We are a 4th generation LE/hunting/shooting family, and although I am a regular voter, we are not a very political family and we do not have many/any political discussions around the house. I mention that because I was bringing my son and some of his friends home from practice the other night and somehow the kids started talking politics and I heard my son say "democrats rot, they're the ones that make gun laws and want to take guns away!" Now I'm sure they're not teaching that in the schools...anyway thanks again for all of the help and suggestions

Mark

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:41 am

If he's going to quote the 2nd Amendment as a closing statement, he should be encouraged to quote it completely and correctly.

Further, whether he expresses it in the body of his report or not, it should be explained to him that the right to keep and or bear a .50 or any other firearm has nothing to do with sport-shooting.

12 years-old is not too young to be exposed to the truth.

JMO.