CBS's 60 Minutes on the 50BMG chambered rifle

A

alan

New member
I received the following via e-mail today.

From John Burtt of FCSPI:

Jolynne

----- Original Message -----
From: jb50bmg
To: 01John Burtt
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 9:01 AM
Subject: 60 Minutes


I realize most of us don't watch 60 Minutes normally, but if you're not busy
this weekend one of their "Issues" will be the .50 caliber rifle. I received
this email from Ronnie Barrett, owner of Barrett Firearms, Inc. A lot of the
program by 60 Minutes was filmed at Barrett Mfg and Ronnie Barrett served as
the spokesman for our sport and industry. Might be worth watching. Responses
from the sport shooting community might also be appropriate afterwards.

John Burtt
FCI


Subject: Barrett on 60 Minutes


60 Minutes says, barring any breaking news, the piece on .50 cal rifles will
air this Sunday.

This evening, in the course of a "tease" for the 60 Minutes broadcast this Sunday evening, saw reference to same subject matter. Who knows what sort of presentation they will offer, however with the likes of Dan Blather still retaining power, a reasoned, dispationate discussion or a factual presentation strikes me as less than likely. We shall have to wait and see what is broadcast. Might be worth the time to view, and to offer such comment as then seems appropriate. By the bye, it might turn out to be that letters to SPONSORS would have more impact than do letters to the network web site.

As I said, it depends on the nature of CBS's coverage. We might even end up in a position to COMPLIMENT them. Given their past performances, I very much doubt it, but anything is possible.
 
I saw the teaser commercial for this episode just a few minutes ago. The tagline went something like: "This dangerous rifle has been banned in California...but it is still available in the other 49 states."
 
See (the) B.S.

I know Mr. Barrett thought he would take this op. to enlighten folk about the .50 but, CBS will turn it around on you EVERY time. I do not watch CBS nor will I now. Eversince Dan Blather stood in front of burning hooches and "cried" for those poor people.............I wouldn't stop to urinate on him if he were in front of me and on fire.

Sing him the ol well known Marine spritual hym, "him, him, f*** him."

That human checks my gag level.
 
Smart and dumb move on Barretts part....you have to ask the simple question, "do I have more to gain or more to loose doing the interview?"

Negative side: draws more attention and negative publicity from people who may have been indifferent. Other local governments and cities may view this as a new crisis and take further action to restrict ownership. Newspapers and electronic media looking for fresh material will generate more panic and concern where none existed before. Brings future litigation which could affect other types of firearm ownership.

Positive side: Creates a fear amoung gun owners that these may not be available much longer, prices will rise along with demand. Barretts market with the military and law enforcement is still secure, he now creates a greater market on the civilian side akin to what the AWB did, hence panic buying. Making a public stand rally's some gun owners who were previously neutral.

A politician once commented about the publishing giant William Randolph Hearst....."never pick an arguement with someone who buys ink by the barrel".
 
So the episode hasn't aired yet and some of you already have Ronnie Barrett catagorized as having screwed up. While I realize you may be right, it would be a lot more practical to wait until you see the episode before making that determination.

And yes, I fully understand that you don't like the media, don't trust the media, and will note that the media will turn things around to make a story as they have a history of doing it. Even so, don't sell Barrett short just yet.
 
and there you have it! Geeeeze, how many times did your momma have to tell you the stove was hot!!!!!!!
 
Offense wins games every time...

Diaz's strategy is to go on the offense using this piece to start a national movement and legislation to ban the 50. Gives him a forum and publicity he never had before.

This now puts Barrett and other gun owners on the defense to stop him. How many points do we put on our score board by doing this interview?
 
Okay, I Am Wrong

Here is a link. I was hopeful that the teaser would turn out to be opposite of what it appeared (as sometimes happens), but even with Ronnie Barreett involved, I don't see this as being a good thing for .50 cal rifles or guns in general...based on the link below.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...ain665257.shtml

Here is text from the page. They are giving more space to Diaz of VPC than to pro gun folks or Barrett ...

(CBS) A military rifle capable of piercing armor from over a mile away is too readily available to civilians, and could end up in terrorists' hands, say critics of the .50-caliber weapon that is for sale in 49 states.

Correspondent Ed Bradley reports on the big gun that was recently banned in California for 60 Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 9, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"I think it's a great thing on the battlefield," says one of the weapon's chief critics, Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

"I just think there are certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety...our national security, we will not allow it," he tells Bradley. "Thousands have been sold to civilians and, as far as federal gun laws go, it is treated like any other hunting rifle."

Diaz argues the rifle can be used to pierce and blow up chemical storage tanks from afar, affording the terrorist an easy escape.

"The point is you can plan your attack from a longer distance. It's the combination of range and power," says Diaz, who fears there will be deadly results from such an attack on containers of toxic or flammable materials.

Diaz also fears the powerful gun could be used to shoot at aircraft that are landing or taking off. The potential danger the .50-caliber poses to aircraft taxiing on the runway or parked at the gate was outlined in a Rand Corporation report on terror vulnerabilities at Los Angeles International Airport. The report saw no way to protect the planes.

The gun's inventor, who sells the weapons to civilians for sport and to armies around the world, says Diaz could be right, but is being reckless.

"Yes it could be [used in those terrorist scenarios], but it's also seeming, begging someone to commit this crime. 'Somebody please commit this crime so I can validate what I've been saying so long,'" says Ronnie Barrett of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing.

"It's kind of a classic gun industry argument," says Diaz. "First they deny there's a problem and then when something happens, they point the finger at people who tried to warn about it."

Barrett points out that the gun's extreme size and weight make it an unlikely weapon of choice for criminals.

"As far as the abuses with .50-caliber rifles, they are so few, if any, that all other calibers ought to aspire to have as good a record as it has," he tells Bradley. "It's a target rifle. It's a toy...a high-end adult recreational toy."

As for terrorism, Barrett says, "Any rifle in the hands of a terrorist is a deadly weapon."

Diaz is hoping Congress will pass a law requiring that the names of owners of .50-caliber rifles be kept on file.

"No one in the U.S. government knows who has these guns," he says.
 
Diaz is hoping Congress will pass a law requiring that the names of owners of .50-caliber rifles be kept on file.

"No one in the U.S. government knows who has these guns," he says.
Click to expand...
Yup. Let's just register this one gun.... [sarcasm] Big Brother can keep track of all the people who own this dasterdly weapon. Just like they kept track of the visas of the people who perpetrated the 9/11 disaster. [/sarcasm]

Hmmmm, I wonder when the call to ban/register scopes will come?
 
Hahaha!

Yea, the terrorists were training to fly jumbo jets at secure U.S. military bases, but let's have everyone turn in their .50BMG rifles! Makes sense to me!
 
For some reason, I think the Gov't would do a much better job keeping up with us gun owners than immigrant visa's and flying school students. Just a feeling I have.
 
just saw the episode. Sounds like Diaz is trying to stir up support for his absurd cause. How many flight school did he visit after 9/11 to prevent that from occurring again?
 
Just watched the 60 Minutes episode. As much as the interviews were geared against the .50 cal rifles, Ronnie Barrett did an outstanding job of fielding questions and presenting a positive profile.

OUTSTANDING MR. BARRETT!!!!

Of course, Rembrandt had a totally different opinion,
I'm disapointed he participated in this.

Barrett should stick to what he's good at....making rifles and leave the "media battlefield" to those better skilled & qualified. To refer to the rifles as "Toys" shows his inexperience in front of a camera and poor choice of words. He was played as a chump by CBS whose main goal was drawing attention (public & political) to a problem that currently doesn't exist.

This media piece was an "offensive" move by the anti-gun crowd....it now puts Barrett and gun owners on the "defensive" to disprove something that hasn't happened. Anyone familar with battle tactics or sports knows you win with "offense" not "defense".

Barrett clearly admits without civilian sales he would be out of business....makes one wonder why he participated in painting a target on the 50 cal market? Was it intentional to spur sales and panic buying?

The efforts to beat this back in every state will be enormous. Diaz plants the seed, Barrett waters it....now it's up to the rest of us to kill it before it spreads. The DOD and Justice Department refused to be interviewed for the story, they saw it for what it was, another CBS hit piece....dumb move on Barrett's part or was it? $$$$? I'm disapointed he participated in this.
Click to expand...
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159069

Contrary to his comments, Barrett was articulate, assured, and presented a positive gun image. Had he not participated, then who would have represented his product line that would go under if the .50 became illegal as in CA? The NRA certainly has not been and adept supporter. It took them more than 2 years to come to his defense on the LAPD issue and that was only after the .50 was banned in CA.

Barrett's participation was not in painting a target on the .50 cal, but trying to remove or mitigate the target. The target was already there anyway thanks to folks like Diaz.

Were Barrett's comments to spur people into panic buying? Nope. The spur to panic buying is thanks to Diaz. He certainly made that happen in California.

As for the 'toy' comment showing his inexperience and bad choice of words, it was not nearly as bad as some of the things coming from the NRA. Charleton Heston's famous "From my cold dead hands" speech comment really appealed to gun owners, but gave anti-gun folks fodder for suggesting gun owners were unnecessarily violent and willing to e violent. This did nothing to improve the gun owner image to anti-gun people.

As for putting the .50 market on the defensive and the notion that people who know battle tactics and sports knows that you win by offense, not defense, this is not necessarily true. A more apt analogy would be to the court system where the defense often does win being defensive. How so in Barrett's case? Simple, as in court, if the prosecution fails in its endeavor, the defendent returns to society and doing what he would normally do. All Barrett and other gun owners need to do is to prevent anti-gun folks from getting ban legislation passed.
 
Having seen the 60 Minutes presentation, no hatchet job, as widely predicted.

Mr. Barrett did not strike me as the most effective of public speakers, but then that is not what he does for a living.

Mr. Diaz came across exactly as what he is, an anti gun apparachnick and mouthpiece, who lacking new factual material to contribute, played the emotional and fear cards. This is, in the last analysis, what he does. I doubt that he convinced anyone not already convinced.

As for the opening shot of a gentleman firing a Barrett semi-automatic rifle FROM THE HIP, I have no data on the recoil generated by this rifle, so I will merely state that the shooter depicted is "a better man than I". At one point, we were shown a Barrett rifle, and the thing appeared better than 5 feet in length, hardly something used in a "drive by shooting".

Finally, Mr. Barrett plainly stated that absent the CIVILIAN MARKET, something that Diaz and Co. would like to close off, he would simply not be in business, which means that both his customers in the U.S Military as well as those from Civilian Law Enforcement would have to make do without his products. One assumes that this situation could work to the detriment of both the military as well as law enforcement. Of course, this problem hardly registers with the anti gunners, who obviously know so much better than anyone else, what should or should not be "allowed".

Anyone have another take?
 
Is it just me, or...

Is it just me, or is this possibly THE best example of why anti-gunners pick deceptive names like "Violence Policy Center"?

*Pukes at the thought of some uninformed citizen deciding .50BMGs are violent weapons based on the name of a gun-control group...*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top