Another bad gun ban
16 September 2004 - Los Angeles Times

Letter-writer Stephen C. Lee suggests that opposing the .50-cal rifle ban on the strength of the lack of crimes committed using this weapon is specious. What’s specious is his comparison of this rifle with a nuclear warhead – also known as reductio ad ridiculum. The reasons neither .50-cal rifles nor nuclear warheads are used in crimes are that both are too expensive, too unwieldy to use, and not very easily concealed. If criminals aren’t using them, what problem is allegedly solved by banning them?

What’s also specious is his argument that gun bans are justified because owners are careless about storage. Using the vaguest of statements about reports of stolen firearms, he would have you believe that criminals have already stolen .50-cal rifles and are just waiting for the chance to use them. There are already very strong firearm storage laws on the books, which responsible law-abiding citizens follow. What makes anyone think that the owner of a $3000+ rifle will be less responsible than the owner of any other firearm? Use logic and common sense to answer that question, not emotional histrionics.