Anti-Gun Group Targets 50 Cal in New ‘Study’

A formerly prominent anti-gun group has set its sights on the .50 BMG. The group released a so-called “study” that fingers United States’ gun manufacturers as a culprit in the Mexican violence epidemic.

The Violence Policy Center released their latest study, “Long Range Terror: How U.S. 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles Wreak Havoc in Mexico.” The release, as noted in VPC’s email “comes the day before the U.S Supreme Court will hear oral arguments by the government of Mexico in its lawsuit against gunmaker Smith & Wesson, another manufacturer of military bred weaponry utilized by the cartels.” The group calls for the banning of the 50 BMG in the U.S.

In the report, VPC states that, “The U.S. gun market doesn’t just make gun trafficking in military-style firearms easy — it practically compels that traffic because of the gun market’s loose regulation of the distribution and sale of firearms and the gun industry’s design choices over the last several decades.”

The 34-page report goes into detail on how – allegedly – “the firearms industry in the United States has introduced progressively more lethal weapons into the civilian marketplace.” As with former allegations from VPC, they’re unable to specify how the firearms industry keeps making “more lethal weapons.”

The report on the 50 BMG further states:

As the industry searches for ways to maintain and increase gun sales, its deadly innovations have become more widely available. These range from next-generation semiautomatic pistols, including so-called “pocket rockets” (small, high-powered handguns marketed primarily for concealed carry), to a wide range of military-style assault weapons, including assault pistols, rifles, and shotguns. In each of these cases, the gun industry used increased lethality — increased killing power — as a principal selling point for civilians.

“Small, high-powered handguns” are not defined. Looking at the history of firearm cartridge design over the last few decades, there’s no stand-out cartridge that’s more deadly than what’s been in common use this century. Nor has a frame or body style come out that’s any more or less lethal. VPC does not define or provide evidence to support their claims. 

Sugarmann does peg “pocket rockets” though.

The tactics of the VPC need to be discussed. Their reporting and how they utilize nomenclature is relevant. VPC’s executive director Josh Sugarmann revealed his modus operandi in an early study.

The 1988 VPC publication, “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America,” highlighted what Sugarmann really thinks about the American people [emphasis added]:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

Sugarmann’s studies end up getting Congressional attention. The group will purposefully paint a picture that the American public would fear, or not understand – their own admission. Are pocket rockets the new “assault weapon?”

This latest attempt at putting out a study should be looked at similarly.

Within the report, VPC focused on the trafficking of arms into Mexico. They placed blame on American gun manufacturers. Absent from the report is Operation Fast and Furious.

Fast and Furious was an Obama-era “gunwalking” operation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives oversaw and allowed the trafficking of firearms from the U.S. into Mexico. The known straw-purchase of firearms was encouraged by the ATF and traffickers made passage across the border.

The report on the 50 BMG should be called into question. The study relates that a 2021 report found that the “ATF reported that .50 caliber rifles account for about 0.5 percent of weapons recovered in Mexico and traced to the United States that were recovered within 3 years of initial purchase.”

One half of a percent of the most recent trafficked arms.

Violence Policy Center has some policy recommendations that they made. Those recommendations, in part, include:

Ban the future production and sale of 50 caliber and similarly powerful sniper rifles except for use by military and police. Require that all 50 caliber rifles currently possessed be registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

And

Exempt 50 caliber sniper rifles from the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The group also advocates for changes to the National Firearm Act, expanded background checks, and other measures for possessors of 50 BMGs.

The Violence Policy Center is laser focused on blaming the industry, as pointed out in the introduction of their report. Sugarmann’s email also mentions their jointly filed amicus brief in Mexico v. Smith & Wesson.

Reading between the lines and looking at VPC’s recommendations, very little conjecture is left on the table. That amicus makes the claim that the firearm manufacturers are “engaged in coordinated criminal activity,” a statement that fortifies their view.

A question deserving exploration is; are these efforts scholarship, or an attack on what they consider a disfavored industry? That’s for the reader to decide. Regardless, we’ll be watching the progress of VPC’s own coordinated activity, as well as any other assumed attacks on the Second Amendment.