Under the headline STOP SCARY GUNS Pathetic Earthlings writes:

When I commit a crime, I like to use ten thousand dollar rifles and four dollar bullets. Fortunately, California has put a stop to me.

The next time you see a shady character at the bus station, watch out! He might be packing a BMG .50 calibre rifle. You know how crackheads are: they're all the time carrying $3,000 guns that are four feet, two inches long and weigh 25 pounds. These guns are perfect for today's new breed of high-tech, steroid-ingesting supercriminals. (I kid.)

And now to Fisk the San Fran Chron article above.

The Assembly approved a bill Wednesday that would add a high-powered rifle to the state's list of dangerous weapons.

The Assembly could save a lot of time by writing "All weapons are by definition dangerous. Duh."

The .50-caliber BMG rifle is currently classified as a long gun, just as a hunting rifle, but is far more powerful, said Assemblyman Paul Koretz. "This rifle can accurately hit targets more than one mile away," he said.

Brrring. Brrring. Hello?

"I'm a mile away pointing a gun at you. Give me your wallet."

The gun was built for military, not civilian use, Koretz said, and was among the weapons that the Branch Davidians possessed during the 1993 standoff near Waco, Texas.

The Branch Davidians probably had spoons and Pokemon cards, too.

Under the bill, a criminal using the weapon would face up to 12 years in prison.

Why does the weapon used matter? Does bigger caliber mean a bigger crime?

People who already own the gun would be allowed to keep them, but would have to register with the state Department of Justice. "It requires a permit for people to buy them in the future," Koretz said. "If terrorists want to buy them, hopefully we can catch them and prevent that."

Oh, so you mean terrorists as well as criminals are using these guns?

Opponents of the bill said the gun hasn't been used in any crimes in California and is mainly used by competitive target shooters. They said the bill was an attempt to whittle away Second Amendment rights.

So to answer my question: nope, nobody's using these guns for crime or terrorism. This is another case of politicians wasting meeting time and government resources protecting the public from imaginary dangers. The article gives the last word to a member of the Assembly who has some sense.

"There's really no difference between this weapon and any other rifle out there," said Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico. "We're proposing to regulate them because they're scary looking."

I'll trot out my H.L. Mencken quote again: "A politician normally prospers under democracy in proportion ... as he excels in the invention of imaginary perils and imaginary defenses against them."

The bill was approved on a 42-26 vote, sending it to the Senate.

The attempted ban on .50 caliber weapons is another example of what Kim Dutoit calls gun-fearing wussies trying to outlaw weapons because they look or sound scary, not because criminals are using them. Other examples are so-called assault weapons and teflon-coated "cop killer bullets" (that had never killed any cops).

Speaking of Dutoit, he has a great example of the emotional reaction people have to scary-looking guns. From his review of the Ruger 10/22, one of the most popular .22 rifles in the U.S.:

Oh, one last thing [says Dutoit]: if you want to be mischievous, you can substitute a MuzzleLite stock for either of the the above rifles, and make your harmless lil' ol' .22 rifle look like something from Sarah Brady's worst nightmares:

The best part, of course, is that the rifle is no different from its original function, it just looks more scary.