OMG---GAO, Brady Campaign apparently fall for ".50 BMG for $29.95" hoax.

[benEzra]

Oh, the perils of fearmongering about subjects one knows absolutely nothing about...

I found the following excerpt from a fairly recent (post-2005) Brady Campaign report via a gun forum I frequent:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/50caliber/

Although primarily used by militaries around the world, the .50 caliber sniper rifle and its various types of ammunition are readily available to the public. Forbes Magazine has noted that the number of manufacturers of these sniper rifles for sale to civilians has increased from one in 1987 to possibly as many as 24 today. The boom in interest in the weapon propels this increased number of manufacturers. Drastic reduction in price of the .50 caliber rifle has stimulated increased sale and access to the weapons.21 A government study found that a used .50 caliber BMG sniper rifle can be purchased online for just $29.95.

(emphasis added)

One's BS Meter should be going off right now, since $29.95 is cheaper than a child's pellet gun, or a good Super Soaker. BUT, maybe this was a typo, and the Brady Campaign meant to say "$29.95".

No such luck.

If you follow the Brady Campaign footnote, you reach the following GAO report, which was also written by someone(s) utterly clueless about firearms except for what they read on "teh Intrawebz":

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040830102114-68327.pdf

C. Costs of the Weapon

The cost of a new fifty caliber sniper rifle can range from about $4,000 to $7,000. The retail price for a new Barrett model 82A1 with two ten round magazines and an air and watertight case is approximately $6,800. On the other hand, the cost of a modern second-hand fifty caliber rifle is only about $3,000. An Internet search conducted by the minority staff revealed the sale of one used fifty caliber sniper rifle for only $29.95.

III. CURRENT DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY OF THE WEAPON

Since the Gulf War, fifty caliber sniper rifles have become widely available in the civilian market. The minority staff was able to find multiple advertisements in newspapers, magazines, the Internet, and other sources offering fifty caliber weapons for sale. The advertising techniques used to promote these weapons are highlighted in a report by Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., which is scheduled to be released on the same day as this report.

At the time, the only $29.95 .50 BMG rifle on the 'net existed in an "ad" by "Birdman Weapons Systems", a series of irreverent spoofs, sometimes of questionable taste, by an anonymous Photoshop artist. But anyone who knew anything about firearms should have seen that the "ad" in question was satire; the photo showed a "gun" made of a piece of pipe; a rock, secured by a rubber band and a plastic spork, served as both "breech" and "firing pin". I seem to recall that there was a great deal of duct tape involved as well. If nothing else, the plastic spork securing the breech should have been a dead giveaway. Not to mention the other page on the same site advertising the "Nuke .50" .50BMG pistol with special nuclear ammunition, which should also have been a dead giveaway to pretty much anyone:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_XX2lIT1tQ

The domain www.birdman.org is no longer "Birdman Weapons Systems," but now appears to be a bird-care supply company. But the Youtube "Nuke .50" video gives you a sense of the flavor of the site.

Yes, these are the people who want to rewrite U.S. firearm laws. But at least now you know why they think scoped precision rifles can shoot down airplanes...

:rofl:

[villager]

1. so, you're using the usual rightwing tactic of seizing on a single potential typo

to avoid talking about the larger issue at hand?

The question is: should .50 caliber rifles be freely available, completely unregulated -- as NRA-madated wet dreams would dictate -- or not?

What is in society's larger interest?

[ingac70]

3. ...

If someone is legally allowed to purchase a weapon, then what's the problem? The actual cost of these things is regulation enough.

How many of these things are used in the commission of crimes annually?

If you got a Repuke President ordering ass rape and torture of Americans, then I say we all need at least one.

[gullwing300]

7. I can't help noticing there are some insane DUers who hate the government but think

they should be the only ones allowed to have guns. Actually it's worse than insane.

[benEzra]

9. Fear, ignorance, and gullibility are not progressive traits...

I firmly believe that ignorance, fear, and gullibility are not progressive traits, and legislation based on same is not progressive in any sense.

[ingac70]

10. Jefferson had the likes of Bush in mind...

when he said this...

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

[iverglas]

53. so ... you disagree with Jefferson?

If you agree with him, when exactly are you going to do your duty and save yourselves and the rest of us out here in the world from this tyranny?

Armchair revolutionaries do come in all stripes, don't they?

[gorfle]

61. When.

If you agree with him, when exactly are you going to do your duty and save yourselves and the rest of us out here in the world from this tyranny?

On November 4th, 2008.

Armchair revolutionaries do come in all stripes, don't they?

All colors except yellow. That's reserved for people who refuse reject the possibility of revolution.

[iverglas]

64. hello? ingac70?

[benEzra]

4. Not a typo at all. Gullibility.

$29.95 wasn't a typo for $2,995.00. There was indeed an "ad" for a $29.95 .50 BMG rifle on the web, but it was a hoax. The authors of the report knew so little about firearms that they couldn't tell that a rifle with a rock, rubber band, and plastic spork securing the breechblock wasn't a functional rifle.

.50 BMG rifles are just as regulated as .30-06, .338 Lapua, .408 Cheytac, .577 Tyrannosaur, .700 Nitro Express rifles and .729 caliber shotguns are. Considering that not one murder has been committed in the USA with a .50 BMG precision rifle in the quarter-century they've been on the market, and that they can not shoot down airplanes or shoot through tanks and APC's, that is entirely reasonable.

[villager]

14. so... .50 caliber machine guns should be allowed?

Or should we allow .50 caliber weapons to proliferate -- like, say, among gangs here in L.A.?

[benEzra]

17. .50 caliber machineguns have been tightly controlled for 74 years now...

and possession of one outside of police/military/government duty is a 10-year Federal felony unless you first obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).

Methinks you have been spun somewhat. The subject is non-automatic civilian (NFA Title 1) target rifles chambered for the .50 BMG cartridge, not .50 caliber machineguns. Most .50 BMG rifles are single-shot bolt-actions, though some are magazine-fed bolt-actions and Barrett makes at least one 10-shot autoloader.

All machineguns are as tightly controlled in this country as howitzers and bombs are.

[villager]

18. right -- are you in favor of such control? Additionally, no muders in the U.S.

have been specifically committed by nuclear weapons, either.

Should we therefore allow them to proliferate domestically?

[benEzra]

20. Yes, I am OK with the restrictions of the National Firearms Act.

right -- are you in favor of such control?

Yes, I am OK with the restrictions of the National Firearms Act. I am not OK with extending those restrictions to guns the National Firearms Act specifically designates as Title 1 civilian arms, whether .50 target rifles or small-caliber carbines.

The line of demarcation between nukes and civilian small arms is set at .51 caliber firearms. Non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed guns under .51 caliber are a NFA Title 1 civilian firearms; guns .51 and up are NFA Title 2/Class III police/military restricted weapons, unless exempted by the BATFE as "sporting" guns. (That's why .700 caliber hunting rifles and .729 caliber shotguns are civilian legal, but .57 caliber/14.5mm tactical rifles are not.)

Additionally, no muders in the U.S. have been specifically committed by nuclear weapons, either.

Should we therefore allow them to proliferate domestically?

The differences here are twofold:

(1) .50 BMG target rifles have been freely available on the civilian market for at least a quarter-century, and guns with comparable capabilities have been available for half a century or more.

(2) If misused, a .50 BMG target rifle puts a half-inch hole in a target. A nuke, if misused, will blast an entire city center into oblivion. The two are not even remotely comparable.

[villager]

21. The point was, simply because a weapon hasn't been used for destructive purposes,

should we allow its proliferation?

Here in L.A., I'd like to see rifles that put half-inch holes in things pretty restricted, thanks...

[benEzra]

23. How about shotguns that punch 3/4" holes in things?

The point was, simply because a weapon hasn't been used for destructive purposes, should we allow its proliferation?

Generally speaking, if a rifle has been on the market 25 years in a nation of 250-300 million people and has never been used in a SINGLE homicide, then it's a pretty fair bet that the weapon is not particularly suited for criminal misuse.

BTW, the fastest way to make a gun, or a book, or a music CD popular in the United States, is to promise to ban it on the basis of abject fearmongering. I suspect that the "50 caliber terror" fundraising has increased .50 rifle sales tenfold.

Here in L.A., I'd like to see rifles that put half-inch holes in things pretty restricted, thanks...

African-big-game hunting rifles will punch .57-.70 caliber holes in things, and a 12-gauge shotgun with slugs will punch .73 caliber holes in things.

Here's a piece of "bulletproof" acrylic, like you'd find in an armored window:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot6.htm

Stopped a .223 caliber bullet from an AR-15:



Stopped a .308 caliber bullet (7.62x51mm), common deer and target caliber:



Couldn't stop a .729 caliber 12-gauge slug:



Still, you ALREADY have a .50BMG ban in California. It's purely symbolic, since .700 Nitro Express, .408 Cheytac, .338 Lapua, and comparable high-powered rifles are still perfectly legal there (and ".499 FUA" with a case length 1mm shorter would be perfectly legal), but since there was no .50 problem to start with, fighting misuse was never really the point. "Doing something" to make people feel protected was the point, as far as there was one.

[ManiacJoe]

25. The market does a good job at those restrictions.

The .50 BMG rifles weigh about 30 pounds, cost over $7000, are about 4 feet long, and fire rounds that currently cost $4.25 per round. This is not something that you are going to see much gang activity with.

[villager]

28. easily obtainable US .50 caliber weapons wind up with Mexican drug cartels:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/26/gun.smuggling/index.html

.

[Tejas]

29. Well, then maybe......JUST MAYBE

that's all the more reason to let US citizens have them, to defend themselves from cross-border raids etc.

[ManiacJoe]

31. When you have money to burn,

assassination weapons are easy to come by, legally or otherwise.

Loved this part:
"A <.50> round fired from 100 yards away tore through a car door and both sides of a bulletproof vest like those used by Mexican police."

Find me any rifle other than a .22 or .223 that cannot do this. There is barely enough metal in a modern car door to hold the paint. All rifles will punch through standard-issue "bulletproof" vests since they are only bullet-resistant to handgun ammo.

[Longtooth]

33. Yep

and of course using body armor designed to defeat 9mm to stop ANY rifle round is just plain silly.

[Longtooth]

32. Yet another reason to build the wall. Wonder how much Mexico will contribute?

[benEzra]

35. Our insane approach to the drug issue gives those cartels $40 BILLION in tax-free income annually...

which is more than the entire defensive budgets of most nations. The cartels have machineguns and RPG's, and if they wanted them, they could have 20mm's. They have .50-caliber machineguns. They recently assassinated the Mexican equivalent of the head of the FBI (with a sound-suppressed pistol), and our own failure to learn the lessons of Prohibition is largely to blame.

I would not be surprised if a few enterprising and gullible souls believed the ".50 caliber super weapon" hype and smuggled a few .50's south of the border, even though a .338 Lapua or .408 Cheytac (never mind the 14.5mm ex-Warsaw-Pact weapons floating around the world arms market) will do pretty much anything a .50 will. And any deer rifle will punch through a car door and both sides of a Kevlar vest at 100 yards; the CNN reporter was played, it seems.

A good read on the roots of Mexico's decent into narco-anarchy, and why it's our fault:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/billmcclellan/story/643247EDB3F578C28625744C001AB995?OpenDocument

Corporations or cartels? A choice of ink over blood
By Bill McClellan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/18/2008

One week after Edgar Millan Gomez was killed in Mexico City, Anheuser-Busch announced it was giving up the right to import Grolsch, a Dutch beer. "The time is right to end our importation," said David A. Peacock, vice president of marketing for Anheuser-Busch. Analysts said the announcement was no surprise. In February, London-based SABMiller, the parent of Miller Brewing, bought the Dutch brewery that makes Grolsch. So it made no sense for Anheuser-Busch to use its considerable muscle to import a beer that is now owned by its chief rival.

Perhaps you're wondering what that has to do with the death of Millan Gomez. He was Mexico's federal police chief, and he was gunned down outside of his home by assassins who are assumed to have been working for a drug cartel. The cartels have been targeting government officials because the government has been trying to crack down on the cartels. The government is making this effort because the violence between the cartels has gotten out of hand. Authorities estimate more than 2,500 people have been killed in the last year as the cartels have battled over the control of the cocaine traffic from South America to the U.S. In other words, importation and exportation rights.

There was a time when we had cartels fighting over the booze trade. Perhaps the most famous booze cartel leader was Al Capone. In 1929, some members of his cartel killed seven members of a cartel headed by Bugs Moran. That incident became known as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. The dispute that led to the massacre had to do with importation rights from Detroit. The Capone cartel had the rights to whiskey from Detroit, but the Moran cartel had been hijacking some shipments. Largely because of incidents like that, the feds made a real effort to stamp out the booze cartels. But they couldn't. There was too much demand. People liked to drink. Call it a weakness, if you want, but as long as people wanted to buy booze, somebody was going to provide it. For a long time, it was guys like Capone and Moran. Eventually, law-abiding people got tired of the killing and the bribery. Prohibition was ended. In essence, we traded Al Capone for August Busch. So now, when there is a conflict about importation rights, we have an announcement from a vice president of marketing.

...

Because these drugs are flowing through Mexico, that country runs the risk of becoming a narco-state. The illicit drug trade creates such immense profits that public officials can be bought or assassinated. Plata o plomo. Silver or lead. Millan Gomez was the 10th federal police official to be murdered in the past two months. The week before he was killed, Roberto Velasco Bravo was killed. He was the head of the organized crime division in the public security ministry. Local police officials are being targeted, too. Earlier this year, the commander of public safety for Juarez was murdered, and before him, the police chief of Tecate was murdered. On and on it goes. It is always clear who gets the lead. It is not so clear who gets the silver.

(Continued at link)

[derby378]

37. So that means law-abiding Americans must be punished?

Not only that, but punished for something that non-Americans have done?

You do know that the Texas Democratic Party just affirmed that the Second Amendment speaks of an individual right to keep and bear arms, right? If not, now you do.

[krispos42]

39. Yes, people have been arrested with them

Most notably the Branch Davidian seige at Waco. The Branch Davidians had a variety of weapons, including several .50 BMG rifles.

What you must understand, villager, is that the range at which a person can shoot and hit something is largely independent of the caliber of the rifle. Nearly all rifle cartridges introduced in the last century will travel far further than most marksmen are able to accurately shoot.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that if you gave me a good-quality .30-caliber deer rifle with decent ammuntion and a decent scope, I could take it down to the range and put three shots in a 2" circle at the 100-yard line from a prepared position. Which is pretty good rifle shooting, actually.

Now, if you replace that medium-powered deer rifle with a .50 BMG rifle with a decent scope and decent ammunition, I'm still going to shoot a 2" group!

The caliber of the gun does not make me a better shot. Practice does, the quality of the rifle does, and the quality of the ammunition does.

The size of the average human's vital area is 8". If I can shoot a 2" group at 100 years, you could reasonably extrapolate that I could consistantly hit within that vital area at up to 400 yards, regardless of rifle caliber.

Now, a really good marksman, like a SWAT sniper, can shoot groups less than 1" across at 100 yards, which means they have a potential lethal range of 800 yards or so, which is the accuracy limit of your standard .30-caliber rifle.





This is aside from the inheirent difficulties of long-range shooting. Because a bullet's downward trajectory become exponentionally steeper as range increases, knowing the exact range to your target becomes increasing important.

As an example: Let's say your .50 BMG rifle is zeroed to 500 yards. You estimate your target is 1,000 yards away and adjust your scope accordingly, otherwise the bullet will hit 135 inches below your crosshairs. That's over eleven feet, by the way.

Now you shoot, but your target was actually only 975 yards away, a mere 2.5% error in judgement. Now your bullet hits the target 11" too high.

And if you make your 2.5% error the other way, now your bullet is hitting 11" too low.

And God help you if you're 10% off. If it's closer, you're bullet is 40" high, if it's further away your bullet is 50" low!


And we haven't even discussed the wind drift, but you can imagine similar problems. For example, a 10mph wind will blow the .50 BMG bullet about three feet to the side by the time the bullet gets to your 1,000 yard target.




With all these variables, only the most skilled shooters can actually take advantage of the greater capabilities of the .50 BMG. I couldn't. I'm not a good enough of a shot.


It really is a non-issue. Any common deer caliber will shred an automobile or police body armor, so the increased penetration of the .50 is also a non-issue. Modern military vehicles generally have a requirement that they stop .50 BMG ammuntion, so nobody is going to be shooting up armored personnel carriers or anything like that.

[mr_liberty]

51. if you want to live in a free society...

"should we allow its proliferation?

Here in L.A., I'd like to see rifles that put half-inch holes in things pretty restricted, thanks..."


If you want to live in a free society, then you are going to have to learn to reject the notion that all behavior is/should be illegal by default unless society decides to "allow its proliferation." If you're going to go out of your way to restrict someone's liberty, then you'd better have some extremely compelling reasons. This is why we don't just send people to prison arbitrarily -- or at least, we didn't before the Patriot Act.

One of the drawbacks of living in a free society is that you might not like your neighbor's hobbies. It's probably still better than having your neighbor set arbitrary rules for you to live by, though.

[Longtooth]

24. I'd like to see the law that banned them repealed. We can discuss regulating

them if you wish. No, I'm not in favor of weapons of mass destruction in citizen hands but I'm open to discuss it.

[maxidivine]

44. .50 BMG is no different from any other powerful rifle

It is a caliber that uses a large, solid bullet propelled at (for the bullet) high speeds. The bullet doesn't explode, or cause other objects to explode, or anything of the sort. They have never been used in crime, because they are huge. To effectively combat the recoil of the .50 BMG, the rifles need to be very heavy, at least 20 pounds if the shooter is a pro linebacker, and they need highly effective muzzle brakes to redistribute the gas.

[Longtooth]

22. It is unfortunate but .50 machine guns have been outlawed for a long time now.

[WWFZD]

42. They should be allowed,

and they are. To those with no criminal record and the willingness to undergo a thorough background check and pay a hefty fee.

And the stats on the M2 machine gun that's been in service since the 1920's;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun
Weight 38 kg (84 lb), 57 kg (127 lb) with tripod and T&E
Length 1650 mm (65 in)
Barrel length 1143 mm (44⅞ in)
Rate of fire 450–600 rounds/min (M2HB)
750-850 rounds/min (M2 aircraft gun)

You've been informed of the cost of one round of ammo. I suppose one of those LA gang-bangers could mount one on the roof of their Escalades or Hummers, after the appropriate roof and suspension modifications.
I imagine they'll just stick with the .38 or the 9mm Glock in the waistband.
I'd sure hate to run into the pissed off OG who's toting an M2 around.

[maxidivine]

45. Got many gangstarrs packin' .50s?

didn't think so.

[gullwing300]

5. Freely available.

To anybody who can pay.

[benEzra]

8. Any mentally competent adult with a clean record, not subject to restraining orders...

who can pay, that is...

Again, not a single .50 BMG rifle has been used in a U.S. homicide in the last quarter-century. The ".50 Caliber Terror" is about fundraising, not criminal violence or national security.

A .408 Cheytac or .416 Barrett can do anything a .50 BMG can do, and a .338 Lapua can do most of it.

[Longtooth]

34. AND pass the required background check.

[Longtooth]

11. If it happened once, maybe a typo. If it happens twice. . . .

its called stupid. And in answer to your other two questions: Yes, and the following of the law as laid out by the constitution.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. If society had common sense they would realize that they don't have an interest in it.

[krispos42]

40. Interesting way to phrase the question

The question is: should Internet modems be freely available, completely unregulated -- as NAMBLA-madated wet dreams would dictate -- or not?

The question is: should ATM-dispensed cash be freely available, completely unregulated -- as drug-dealer wet dreams would dictate -- or not?

It presents the argument from the viewpoint that things or actions start out prohibited, and the people must sucessfully argue about why the regulations should be relaxed.

[iverglas]

52. you do read funny

It presents the argument from the viewpoint that things or actions start out prohibited, and the people must sucessfully argue about why the regulations should be relaxed.

I'm seeing: should something be X or not X?

Where's the viewpoint?

X could be "regulated" or "not regulated"

So the question could be: should something be regulated, or not regulated?

Or it could be: should something be not regulated, or not not regulated?

And if you see a difference, other than ease of reading, I just don't see where you're seeing it.

[krispos42]

54. The use of the word "unregulated" implies a negative

As in "it's not regulated but should be. Tell me why it shouldn't be".

As a person who deals with legal arguments, which includes the art of debate and proper phrasing, if you don't see the framing method being used to load the question, I'd be mightily surprised.

[iverglas]

55. just not following you here

You'd like some descriptor other than "unregulated"? And this would change the meaning of something?

Two options: regulated, not regulated.

Alternate two options: available, available subject to restriction?

Are you proposing an alternate formulation, or shall I continue?

And if you have one, will you explain how it differs in some meaningful way from the one used?

The question is one of public policy. Public policy commonly involves the issue of whether or not to regulate something. I fail to see how one's personal emotional reaction to the word/concept "regulation" affects that.

[krispos42]

56. I'd like a different question

Considering the original included terms such as "NRA wet dream".



It's like asking somebody "When is the last time you beat your wife?"

Oh, I'm sorry, would you like a different verb? The question is one of actions. I fail to see how one's personal emotional reaction to the question affects that.

[iverglas]

57. well, for the third time: feel free to propose one

[slackmaster]

49. Obviously not a typo

It was a Stupido.

[SteveM]

87. Typo? These anti-gun folks are type-cast (nt)

[gullwing300]

2. I think you meant to omit the decimal point in this

"One's BS Meter should be going off right now, since $29.95 is cheaper than a child's pellet gun, or a good Super Soaker. BUT, maybe this was a typo, and the Brady Campaign meant to say "$29.95".
_______




nu?

:D

[benEzra]

6. No, I did NOT omit the decimal point. They fell for a hoax ad.

Click the links to the Brady Campaign and GAO reports--$29.95.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/50caliber
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040830102114-68327.pdf

They fell for a hoax.

[gullwing300]

12. Yes, I understand that, but both amounts were written identically, so it looked like

the second...............never mind it doesn't matter. I'm on your side anyway!
:D

[benEzra]

13. I wish the Photoshopped image was still around...

It looked halfway realistic until you looked closely. Be sure to watch the video!

I suppose it is possible that a GAO staffer read $2995.00 as $29.95, or wrote it down wrong. But the existence of the "Birdman" hoax ad at around the time the GAO report was written, advertising a .50 for the listed price, strongly suggests that the GAO fell for the hoax.

Either way, whoever wrote the Brady Campaign report accepted it uncritically, as if $29.95 were a reasonable price for a used multi-thousand-dollar rifle.

[Longtooth]

16. "Birdman"? are they the same ones that had the ad

for the Glock sites mounted on the side of the slide?

[benEzra]

19. One and the same.

I didn't like the overtones of that particular ad, but the concept (side-mounted sights to mock Hollywood-style shooting) was funny.

[DonP]

46. Didn't they also do the Nuke 50 ad?

That one showed the guy in the radiation suit firing the $29.95 do it yourself .50 kit and cut to the stock footage of the nuclear tests at White Sands?

I'm surprised Brady and their congressional meat puppets aren't clamoring for banning nuclear (excuse me) nucular ammunition that is obviously freely available at Wally World.

As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a Maroon!"

On another note ... The Brady Bunch is advertising for an intern today and offering $25 an hour for the work. No benefits of course.

[benEzra]

47. Yes. There's a link to that video in the OP, BTW. (n/t)

[slackmaster]

48. Fortunately numerous people have archived the Homeboy Nyte Sytes ad

It's a classic!

[Longtooth]

50. That's the one. IIRC there was a congressman somewhere

that wanted a congressional inquiry about those sites. Seems he didn't get the joke either.

[iverglas]

58. I wondered whether I was alone in seeing the filthy racism in that thing

and found I wasn't.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:sjibtl27iZEJ:www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/negro-marksmanship-174117p4.html+%22Homeboy+Nyte+Sytes%22+racist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=ca

I offer the link to google's cached version so as not to link directly to the place in question and force people to go to the actual site if they wish to see the discussion.

The racists certainly seem to think it's racist.

[benEzra]

59. So do I.

And the whole "shoot the gun sideways" idiocy is NOT an inner-city thing; it originated in Hollywood in the brains of wealthy, white, gun-404 film directors, reportedly so that you could see the actors' faces better in action shots (even if it did make the actors look like clueless dolts), though that reasoning may be urban legend. It falls into the same category of Hollywood gun cluelessness as dual wielding of pistols and shooting rifles from the hip.

[slackmaster]

60. People often see exactly what they want to see, and Google certainly helps do that

The thing is, the Homeboy was created as a parody of a racist cultural stereotype perpetrated by Hollywood, which is supposed to be a hotbed of "liberal" and "progressive" ideology.

Peace, love, equality, and all that except for one small problem: Depictions of violence, perpetrated by negative representatives of minorities, sell. The Homeboy ad presents a reductio ad absurdum of a hackneyed characture of gang behavior, which nobody who knows anything about shooting a handgun accurately would take seriously.

The racists certainly seem to think it's racist.

People who see racism everywhere they look are bound to be able to find actual racists who agree with their own misperception of simple satire as racism. (Hint: just read the text in the fake ad.)

[iverglas]

65. oddly enough

I read the text. What on earth did you think I was talking about?

Your literary criticism is nice. Here's what the artiste himself said -- sorry, can't link it, but you can find it:

Birdman Note: I certainly hope that nobody out there really thinks ANYTHING on my website is "racist" or advocates that one race is better than another. If anything, the opposite is true. I don't think any particular race is any more stupid than another. Many times people are way too fast to play out the race card when they don't have all of the facts. This is an easy way out of having to use their brain. In Richmond VA, this is the obvious case ...and that is a true shame. All I did with this website was to make something that nobody would really know how to categorize, and also point out a few areas in mankind's psyche that need some serious work.

As an artist (oils) I work with ALL colors. To leave any particular color out is to do disfavor to all of the other others. An Artist's job is to mirror what is seen in everyday life in a new, abstract light. Hopefully we see ourselves a little better as a result. What do you see, Richmond?

It woulda been pretty easy to say "satire" / "parody" ... and yet he didn't.

[slackmaster]

67. You're saying it isn't satire or parody because he didn't use the words satire or parody

At least not in the snippet you quoted without even providing context.

Is Birdman's abstraction of everyday life too concrete for your taste?

[benEzra]

68. Not defending the NiteEyes image, but ALL "Birdman Weapons Systems" stuff was parody.

The Nuke .50:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_XX2lIT1tQ


The $28 .50BMG rifle kit:





Both are as obviously satire as any Onion article. And to my knowledge, the Onion doesn't preface any of its spoofs with a "this is satire" disclaimer, either.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29151

[iverglas]

69. dandy

What exactly was this satire / parody of?


The "snippet" I quoted as pretty much what there was. Like I said, a quick google will find it where I found it.

The initials Eff Are may mean something to you.

[slackmaster]

71. If you don't get it, it's unlikely that anyone on DU can help you

So go on back to reading old posts by anonymous twits on Stormfront and taking their amusement as de facto evidence that Birdman's intentions were racist, if it makes you feeeeel good.

[benEzra]

72. The Nuke .50 and JADED.50 were spoofing the ".50 Caliber Terror" hysteria. (n/t)

[slackmaster]

70. Yes, clearly the entire site was parody as is MILT

http://www.allmax.com/milt/

Of course someone is bound to conclude that the Hispanic identity of the poor girl who got her face Photoshopped off by an imaginary belt sander proves that MILT's author is a racist.

[maxidivine]

75. "and yet he didn't."

And yet he all but spelled the words out...

[maxidivine]

74. I agree, it is a satirical ad

And in the gun culture, people shooting gangstarr style is defintely considered poor form and a booboo. Not something you do around people you aren't already friends with, because if they don't know you they will probably think you are a dolt. There is no shortage of people imitating what they see onscreen and trying to successfully fire like that. Many of them even come up with reasons why that is the proper form, and they are all wrong. It isn't racist, because people of every description are guilty of it, and it is just something that the vast majority of shooters chuckle and roll their eyes at. This ad is in the same spirit.

[Irreverend IX]

63. Racism?

Are you under the impression that criminal subculture terms like "homeboy" and "hood" are associated exclusively with any particular ethnicity? There are white gang members in places like Utah and Minnesota that exhibit clothing styles, dialects and mannerisms similar to those of black gang members in other areas. A friend of mine told me a bunch of stories about the white Crips in Salt Lake City.

Re: the link, you certainly hang out in some interesting places.

[iverglas]

66. strange conclusion

Re: the link, you certainly hang out in some interesting places.

The link was to a page in Google's cache. I hang out at Google quite a bit. Got a problem with that, son?

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Ugh

I can't even read this shit. I can't believe this even exists in this day and age. What the hell

[maxidivine]

77. I got about three-four entries in

And then I had to make a run for the latrine. Interesting though how the google search terms were the title of the object, everything is fine and dandy so far, but then "racist" got tossed in there as well. Clearly if you want to find out what racists take on a piece of satire is, you can search only racist sites. I wonder how far down the search results that horrific site would be if it were just Homeboy nyte sytes that were looked up? And I wonder how representative of the gun culture "stormfront" is? I'm guessing not at all, since no site I frequent tolerates anywhere near that level of scat. It isn't just simmering below the surface either, it is not there on the popular and legitimate firearms oriented sites. Not on The High Road, not on HKPro, not on Glocktalk, Not on CZ Forum, not on The Firing Line, none of them. Out of thousands of threads I have read on those sites not one has thrown out the impression of racism to me.

[iverglas]

78. interesting theory

Clearly if you want to find out what racists take on a piece of satire is, you can search only racist sites.

Funny thing is, if I were going looking for racists, it wouldn't actually occur to me to use the term "racist" to find them. I was amused to see them saying things like "I'm not saying I'm not racist" or however that went.

I used the term to see whether there was commentary on the item in question in which the term "racist" was used -- in my expectation, by people dubbing it racist.

Just like I'll look for, oh "ted nugent" racist. I don't actually expect to find Ted Nugent calling himself a racist. I expect to find other people quoting Ted Nugent's racist words and calling him a racist. And amazingly, that's exactly what I do find.

So that site, and the other one I've mentioned in another post, were just little bonuses. Right-wing racist filth expressing their appreciation for the, er, parody in question.

Yup, sometimes that does suggest they're being laughed at and are too stupid to get it. Sometimes it suggests that claims of "parody" and "satire" are disingenuous.

[slackmaster]

82. Insert gratuitous Dorothy Parker quote here

You choose which one.

[iverglas]

83. oh love is a thing

but if russ will marry me, I will consider giving up my crown.



Here. We're old chums, aren't we? I just have to tell someone my news.

I've just discovered that my first real boyfriend, the hippie classical guitarist with whom I lived many many moons ago, is now one of Lyndon Larouche's right-hand men.

Now tell me you're not impressed.

[slackmaster]

84. What kind of greeting card would you send to a guy in a situation like that?

What Would Lovey Howell Do?

[virginia mountainman]

15. Well, the Anti-Civil rights repukes,

are Intellectually challenged.

[benEzra]

26. OK, finally found a photo of the Birdman rifle...

The version I found listed for $28, not $29.95. Which suggests that either the GAO staffer saw an earlier or later iteration of the "ad" with a different price, saw a different spoof, or mistook $2,995.00 for $29.95 and didn't know enough about rifles to catch the error. Since the Birdman site is no longer up, it's impossible to say.

Here's the fairly late photo I found:



I can't believe the GAO saw THAT photo and mistook it for a real gun, but you never know...

Still, for the Brady Campaign to uncritically repeat the GAO's .50-cal-for-$29.95 boo-boo says a lot about their knowledge of firearms.

[gullwing300]

38. Hey, that 1X Scope has made a believer outta me!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jody]

30. $29.95, I'll take a hundred to go please. That's even better than the rifle picture mix-up with HC.

[iverglas]

36. ah yes; reminds me of the Luxembourg homicide rate

solemnly cited all over every gunhead site on the net, and frequently debunked here by moi.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=luxembourg+murder+rate&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

"Luxembourg prohibits private handgun ownership altogether, yet has a murder rate nine times that of Norway" and the like.

Oh Look!! THE NRA FELL FOR IT. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=247&issue=007

We see much the same thing in Luxembourg, where handguns are completely banned and firearm ownership of any kind is rare. Even though its (lawful) citizens are effectively disarmed, in 2002 Luxembourg had a murder rate nine times higher than in neighboring Germany--where firearms are legal and widely owned.

The source, of course, is Kates and Mauser.

And we know what their source was. A typographical error in a Canadian annual homicide study.

Don Kates, a Yale-educated attorney who served as a professor at Stanford Law School, and Gary Mauser, a Canadian university professor and author, have shattered the anti-gunners’ elaborate façade into a thousand fragments of falsehood.

Yeah. Who can't spot a misplaced decimal when they see it, and really really believed that Luxembourg had a homicide rate of NINE PER 100,000.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/0080385-002-XIE.pdf

HOMICIDE IN CANADA, 2002

Table 1
Homicide Rates for Selected Countries, 2002

Country - Homicide rate per 100,000
Russia 20.54
Luxembourg 9.01
United States 5.52
Portugal 2.57
England & Wales 2.01
Denmark 1.99
Hungary 1.99
France 1.88
Canada 1.85
Australia 1.85
Tunisia 1.20
Switzerland 1.18
Germany 1.11
Austria 0.80

Source: National Central Bureau - Interpol Ottawa.

Whether Interpol or Statscan or some Luxembourg agency moved that decimal, Kates and Mauser and the NRA and their fellow travellers have just eaten it up and dined out on it. And based conclusions on it.

At least the old Bradys didn't do that, eh?


html fixed

[krispos42]

41. Well, using Luxembourg as an example is dumb regard less of the murder rate

Hell, there are 19 counties just in Minnesota that are as large or larger as Luxembourg, and about five more that are damn close.

And Luxembourg has less than a half-million people in it. You get a single guy killing his family, the homicide rate triples!

[iverglas]

43. exactly

Even if it weren't an obvious misplaced decimal, it is so obviously anomalous that something like a single mass homicide would be the only possible explanation.

It was just in the Cdn doc in the first place because it appeared in the table for top 10 homicide rates for "selected countries", which were obviously selected for comparability or contrast (socio-politically/economically) with Canada.

I would think the error originated with Interpol rather than Statscan, since Statscan would not likely have selected Luxembourg for comparison purposes had it not had remarkably non-comparable homicide figures. The Statscan researchers should have noticed the anomaly. Kates and Mauser and everybody who's looked at the figures since then should have noticed the anomaly. I and a couple of other internet denizens have noticed the anomaly ...

[gorfle]

62. Which is more preposterous?

Which is more preposterous? That Luxembourg has a murder rate of 9 per 100,000, or you can buy a firearm of any kind for $30?

I wouldn't have had a clue. If a Canadian government-funded study said that Luxembourg had a murder rate of 9 per 100,000, I'd buy it, too. Long before I'd buy that you can buy guns for 30 bucks.

[russ1943]

73. I had a clue.

Even the oft posted OP’s speculation that the referenced “ad” must have been a hoax, is an admitted assumption, noting it doesn’t even match the advertised price of their prime suspect. A May 1999 Minority Staff Report to a couple of congressmen includes an anecdotal comment that they found the sale of a single used fifty cal. sniper rifle for $29.95 in an internet search, was simply that, a minor irrelevant comment. They didn’t say that “one was for sale that they could have bought”,.they only remarked in passing, that their search “revealed” a sale.
Why couldn’t there have been a, banged up, rusty, non-working .50 cal advertised for $29.95? Just because some gun enthusiasts doesn’t think it’s likely? Maybe it was only a reference to someone on line making a claim they had bought one, or maybe a widow with no knowledge of it’s value was selling one.
As the link clearly states, the gist of the description regarding the cost of the .50 cal. refers to a new one in the price range of $4 to 7,000.00. The retail price for a new Barrett model 82A1 with two ten round magazines and an air and watertight case is approximately $6,800. On the other hand, the cost of a modern second-hand fifty caliber rifle is only about $3,000. The claim wasn't made that there was any kind of small or sizable market of used .50 cal avail on the internat for $29.95.
From that, the quibble, the OP’s BS meter is tripped by a secondary reference to the internet search?


The first time I saw Luxemburg referenced (and repeatedly reproduced and quoted ad infinitum) on gun discussion boards as an example of it’s large and leading murder/death rate, I checked as many sources as I could find and within minutes realized someone was bullshitting. But then I find the use of accurate statistics helpful in making decisions about policy in general.

The issue of gun regulation, policy and laws is loaded with statistics. The issue is one I’m interested in so the Luxemburg statistic was relevant. As is frequently the case, the folks most opposed to gun control are consistently the side that find it appropriate to repeat false knowledge and distort.

I knew the Luxemburg statistic was a distortion and checked it out. The internet revelation of a single .50 cal sniper rifle sale was and still is, irrelevant in the context of the rest of the accurate information, which was to give general info about the cost of .50 cal rifles sometime prior to May of 1999.


Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
It is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics.
Both quotes George Bernard Shaw

[iverglas]

79. if things don't work out with the offer currently under consideration

will you marry me?

Only so you can get landed immigrant status, you understand.

[gorfle]

80. Pot, meet kettle.

Even the oft posted OP’s speculation that the referenced “ad” must have been a hoax, is an admitted assumption, noting it doesn’t even match the advertised price of their prime suspect. A May 1999 Minority Staff Report to a couple of congressmen includes an anecdotal comment that they found the sale of a single used fifty cal. sniper rifle for $29.95 in an internet search, was simply that, a minor irrelevant comment.

Funny that the Brady Bunch would seize on that one, "minor irrelevant comment" as the showcase of their paragraph bemoaning the "drastic reduction" in the price of such rifles, eh?

They didn’t say that “one was for sale that they could have bought”,.they only remarked in passing, that their search “revealed” a sale.
Why couldn’t there have been a, banged up, rusty, non-working .50 cal advertised for $29.95? Just because some gun enthusiasts doesn’t think it’s likely?

Yeah, I'm sure that's why the Brady Bunch included it as a point of reference. 'Cause they're just all up in arms about all those banged up, rust, non-working guns out there.

Maybe it was only a reference to someone on line making a claim they had bought one, or maybe a widow with no knowledge of it’s value was selling one.
As the link clearly states, the gist of the description regarding the cost of the .50 cal. refers to a new one in the price range of $4 to 7,000.00. The retail price for a new Barrett model 82A1 with two ten round magazines and an air and watertight case is approximately $6,800. On the other hand, the cost of a modern second-hand fifty caliber rifle is only about $3,000. The claim wasn't made that there was any kind of small or sizable market of used .50 cal avail on the internat for $29.95.
From that, the quibble, the OP’s BS meter is tripped by a secondary reference to the internet search?

That's an awful lot of tap dancing to simply say someone was a moron for thinking you could buy a gun for thirty bucks.

The first time I saw Luxemburg referenced (and repeatedly reproduced and quoted ad infinitum) on gun discussion boards as an example of it’s large and leading murder/death rate, I checked as many sources as I could find and within minutes realized someone was bullshitting. But then I find the use of accurate statistics helpful in making decisions about policy in general.

Well good for you and your specialized knowledge. Like I said, which one is more preposterous? That someone would not recognize valid murder rates in Luxembourg, or that someone would think you can buy a gun for $30? Shit I bet most Americans couldn't even point out Luxembourg on a map, but I bet just about anyone would be surprised if you could buy a .50 caliber rifle for thirty bucks. I'd certainly expect the author of an article specifically about such weapons to know better - unless, of course, they were pushing an agenda. Hmmm.

As is frequently the case, the folks most opposed to gun control are consistently the side that find it appropriate to repeat false knowledge and distort.

Oh yeah, like the anti-gun folks NEVER do that. Like perhaps this line from the very Brady report under discussion:

Drastic reduction in price of the .50 caliber rifle has stimulated increased sale and access to the weapons.(21) A government study found that a used .50 caliber BMG sniper rifle can be purchased online for just $29.95.

Talk about repeating false knowledge to distort!

The internet revelation of a single .50 cal sniper rifle sale was and still is, irrelevant in the context of the rest of the accurate information, which was to give general info about the cost of .50 cal rifles sometime prior to May of 1999.

Oh bullshit. This little gem was cherry picked for the Brady page to give the impression that you can buy .50 sniper rifles for as little as thirty bucks. This isn't about trying to provide general info about the cost of .50 cal rifles, it's about fearmongering by the Brady Bunch by cherry picking the most scary, and as it turns out wrong, data, plain and simple.

[iverglas]

81. "someone"?

That someone would not recognize valid murder rates in Luxembourg ...

The "someones" who started it were:

Don Kates, a Yale-educated attorney who served as a professor at Stanford Law School, and Gary Mauser, a Canadian university professor and author

Mauser is a professor of business at Simon Fraser University (which has obviously slid way down the right-hand slope of the academic hill since my day), whose whole oeuvre is statistical analysis. Both men put themselves forward as experts in the field of firearms policy. The false information was published in a study of which it was an integral part, not a side note.

The NRA-ILA isn't actually a slouch when it comes to having expertise available to it.

So:

Like I said, which one is more preposterous?

I'll go with:

That Gary Mauser, even if not Don Kates, would not have immediately suspected either an anomaly or an error when seeing the Luxembourg figure.

That two academics would not go to the primary source for any figures they plan to cite and draw conclusions from, instead of relying on a secondary source whose figures are prima facie suspect.

That two academics would discuss and draw conclusions from a prima facie suspect datum without investigating it to determine whether it was an anomaly or an error.

That anyone, let alone a wealthy organization with loads of expertise available to it, would cite the work of the two academics in question, and the prima facie suspect figures cited by them, without doing any of the above.


On the other hand, what I might not find preposterous is that any of these people and organizations and their glee club would use these prima facie suspect figures, and the shoddy analysis derived from them, to influence public policy.

I might not even find it preposterous that Mauser, Kates, the NRA-ILA and at least some members of the glee club have all been perfectly aware of what they were doing and were intentionally spreading what they knew to be disinformation, or at least ought to have known was disinformation and could only deny knowing was disinformation because they had failed in their duty -- formal duty as academics or civic duty as advocates in the public policy arena -- to ascertain the truth or falsity of the information they were spreading.

[gorfle]

85. prima facie! prima facie!

Sorry, still pales in comparison to people who believe in $30 sniper rifles.

[solinvictus]

86. Do you know what?

Back in the day, the military developed a vehicle mounted anti-aircraft weapon. It was called a Quad-.50; four Browning M2 machine guns that were rigged to fire in tandem at air targets. The system would fire 3K rounds/minute at targets. You know what? It wasn't effective at shooting down aircraft.

Now, if a machine gun system was ineffective at taking down aircraft, why is a single-barreled .50 rifle such a threat? Geez, think things through people.