Right now we're down to so few firearms that it would be rather pointless to keep track like this. But soon, soon...
Mel
Showing posts with label Gun Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Culture. Show all posts
Thursday, January 03, 2013
After We Get Back on Our Feet...
I want to make the back window of the truck look like this:
Right now we're down to so few firearms that it would be rather pointless to keep track like this. But soon, soon...
Mel
Right now we're down to so few firearms that it would be rather pointless to keep track like this. But soon, soon...
Mel
Monday, December 24, 2012
Treaties, Executive Orders, and the NRA
So... It seems that a lot of folks understand that the electoral math of the question makes any significant federal gun control in the near future unlikely.
Unfortunately, many still hold the idea that somehow, the Obama administration doesn't need congress to implement gun control; that they could do so by executive order (or that the ATF would do so without congressional action, at Obamas direction), or by signing the UN arms treaty; and that they would of course, do so at their earliest opportunity.
... I guess because Obama is the living earthly incarnation of satan or something?
Comics from the new and so-far very good web comic Failure to Fire.
Finally, these same folks mostly seem to believe that the NRA is useless, or worse, actively conspiring with the evil one to take away our guns etc... etc...
All three of these ideas are entirely incorrect, as I have written here and on other blogs many times before (as this is a commonly held mistaken idea that has come up often).
Before we get get into the legalities of the first two ideas, let's talk about the politics for a second...
For those that do, please tell me... Why do you believe so strongly that, against all evidence, gun control is the hill the democratic party wants to die on?
Because, make no mistake, that's what it would be; even if the gun control was Obama and his administration alone, without the action of congress.
If Obama really cared that much about gun control, he would have done it already.
If you think that "He was just waiting for his second term. Now that he doesn't have to be re-elected, you'll see, he'll do all the things we've been saying he was going to since 2008"...
...You're an idiot.
Oh it's absolutely true that Obama will be more liberal/progressive/socialist etc... this term; and will get more aggressive about what he wants etc... (or perhaps more to the point, his far more radical appointees, who he can sacrifice if necessary, will do so).
It's this ridiculous argument that somehow Obama is special, specially evil etc... and that by virtue of this he has some magical ability to completely ignore the realities of law, the constitution, government, politics... physics... that makes these folks idiots.
Perhaps there are some rational arguments to be made that perhaps Obama want's gun control bad enough to commit politicial suicide, or to have his party do so; but I haven't seen them being made. Just this idiotic "because he's Obama, that's why" crap.
Yes, Obama want's more gun control (though not to the extent that some seem to think), but in order to do so, he needs to deal with CONGRESS.
Obama wants a lot more things, a lot more than he wants gun control; and he isn't going to waste any political capitol whatsoever on a subject he doesn't really care about that much.
Why do you think he put Joe Biden in charge of the "special comission"?
If he was serious, he'd be leading the charge himself. He'd be on television twice a day with specific ideas, and demonizing opponents etc...
If it works out, hey, great, he can claim credit. If it fails (and it will), he doesn't get any of the blame.
What Obama really wants is to raise taxes, cut the military, increase social spending etc... He's not stupid, he knows that he's going to need congress to do it.
What Obama absolutely does NOT want, is to see Obamacare repealed (for which he's going to need to have at least the senate stay under democratic control); and that trying to shove gun control down our throats would just about guarantee all the vulnerable Democratic senators would lose their seats.
There are maybe a dozen truly committed, truly anti-gun senators, and maybe two dozen in the house... plus another dozen completely safe seats in the senate and maybe 50 or 60 in the house. No-one else is going to put their seat on the line over an issue that they either don't care about all that much, or that they don't see any major advantage in supporting.
Now, on to the legal question
Neither treaties nor executive orders can violate the constitution (including the court decisions interpreting the constitution).
First, treaties:
Some seem to believe that a double evil combination will occur, where Obama signs a treaty that will unconstitutionally ban small arms; and by doing so while congress is in recess, he can immediately implement the provisions of the treaty to do so.
If you believe this, let me say to you, right now, without any hesitation...
YOU'RE A MORON
Or, at the very least, you have no business having an opinion on this subject, since you have no idea how our government works, or anything about law, or the constitution.
Treaties cannot be implemented without the approval of congress. They must be ratified by the senate, and their implementation must be enabled by house legislation (approving the funding for implementing the provisions of the treaty).
If a treaty is signed, but never ratified, the executive branch cannot implement any of its provisions.
However, that's entirely irrelevant because...
Treaties don't trump the constitution, nor do they override court decisions interpreting the constitution.
Ever, under any circumstances.
Treaties can supersede state and federal law, but not the constitution.
Any provision of any treaty that would do so, is automatically null and void.
Here are the relevant supreme court decisions:
Amaya v. Standard Oil:
Reid v. Covert (which is controlling in this question):
The ratification of a treaty is an act of congress, and no act of congress, or its effects, may supersede the constitution. Article II and Article VI are mostly clear, and what ambiguity there is has been clarified numerous times by the supreme court.
Treaties CAN AND DO trump previous federal laws, and both state laws and state constitutions; which was clarified in Gibbons v. Ogden.
...And on to the executive orders...
Now, there's some important language I quote above:
The substance and authority of the government exists solely in the constitution; therefore no agency of it may act outside of its authority.
Because great power and discretion are given to the president (and by extension the executive branch) in foreign affairs, executive orders can ignore the constitution outside the borders of the country and when acting on non-citizens; but they cannot ignore the constitution inside our borders, or when dealing with American citizens.
"It doesn't matter if its unconstitutional, Obama is evil and doesn't care, and he's going to do it anyway"
Yeah...
Rather than address this whole thing again on the politics side, I'll just refer you back to the politics section above, and say...
YOU'RE A MORON
Or at the least, without any knowledge or understanding, you're parroting misinformation spread by either morons, or by those who are deliberately manipulating you (most likely for fundraising purposes).
But since we're in the legal section, let's get back to that...
I can see that there are some arguments (other than the "but he's evil" one that is), where its plausible the Obama administration might decide to attempt some blatantly unconstitutional garbage...
But...
Why do you believe that if the Obama administration suddenly decides to do various clearly and obviously unconstitutional things, that they'll actually be allowed?
That they'll have funding to do so?
That they won't be stopped by the courts?
That there won't be a million lawsuits?
That the various officials of the executive branch will go along with it?
That the enforcement agents of the executive branch will implement and enforce these new unconstitutional measures?
Again, I'm not talking about the possibility that they may attempt minor and lesser executive action to restrict guns in some ways (more on that below); just the idea that somehow, because Obama is extra special magic evil; that he can all of a sudden magically seize or ban all our guns (or all our evil black guns etc...)
Ok... the NRA
Right now I'm rather irritated with the NRA.
Not because they are "evil, ineffective, compromising backstabbers", but because of this:
http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf
This statement... Much of it is reasonable, true, good, useful helpful; unfortunately, some is very much not:
Not only is this not helpful, in context it is both idiotic, and actively HARMFUL.
Not intentionally so of course; but in spectacular arrogance and ignorance.
I think the Penny Arcade response to this is appropriate here:
Lord knows, this isn't the first time the NRA was harmfully wrong (their entire history on the Heller case for example)... and it won't be the last.
However, that doesn't mean that I don't generally support the NRA.
I'm a life member, and I won't be resigning my membership over this stupidity (though I will be letting them know how I feel; and unlike most gamers, I know people inside NRA management... I would suggest everyone else who does as well, also make their displeasure known).
The NRA are by far the most effective organization for protecting our rights surrounding firearms and self defense (as I have written many times before, for example: http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2010/06/political-captial-fundraising-mission.html)
The GOA has been promoting the idea for years that the NRA are the bad guy... but frankly, the only thing Larry Pratt believes in is Larry Pratt... And the only thing the GOA is effective at is spreading unreasonable fear, and disinformation, aimed at increasing their fundraising.
Without the NRA our right to keep and bear arms would be fully abrogated by government... and would have been long ago.
Are they perfect? No. But they're the best we've got, and they do the best they can; and they are certainly NOT "part of the problem".
All that said... there's still some potential problems (of course)
I don't mean to suggest that there isn't any possible thing that the Obama administration could do on its own, or headaches, irritation, delays and difficult etc... they could cause.
For example, through executive orders and "administrative procedures", "administrative rules", "executive agency regulations" etc... the import of some firearms... possibly even all firearms, and ammunition... could be accomplished.
That is a foreign policy action, which has what could be interpreted, in principle, as having enabling legislation, depending on interpretation.
The administration couldn't ban the domestic manufacture, sale, or possession of any particular type of firearm; nor could they establish standards through the ATF or DOJ that would have the effect of doing so (there is specific legislation addressing this issue, and executive orders cannot counter that).
...BUT...
That doesn't mean they couldn't make life immensely more difficult; applying maximum scrutiny to every manufacturers, distributor, FFL etc...
Some have suggested they could simply order the NICS system shut down; but there's actually a default out for that. Even if there wasn't, this would clearly be an action intended to ban further sales of firearms, and the courts would be on that in a heartbeat (with the SAF, SAAMI, the NSSF the NRA, and every firearms manufacturer behind it).
...But they could make every transaction go through enough scrutiny to make the 3 day delay/proceed limit; backing the system up, and preventing sales entirely in some gun control states.
They could also go for some restrictions that may be allowed under existing law, and wouldn't be clearly unlawful or unconstitutional... The evil mind can think up lots of scenarios where some restriction could happen...
But again, the politics of the situation militate against it; except possibly in a minor way.
So, to appropriate the meme:
Keep Calm and Carry One... or More... Guns...
Unfortunately, many still hold the idea that somehow, the Obama administration doesn't need congress to implement gun control; that they could do so by executive order (or that the ATF would do so without congressional action, at Obamas direction), or by signing the UN arms treaty; and that they would of course, do so at their earliest opportunity.
... I guess because Obama is the living earthly incarnation of satan or something?
Comics from the new and so-far very good web comic Failure to Fire.
Finally, these same folks mostly seem to believe that the NRA is useless, or worse, actively conspiring with the evil one to take away our guns etc... etc...
All three of these ideas are entirely incorrect, as I have written here and on other blogs many times before (as this is a commonly held mistaken idea that has come up often).
Oh and an aside: anyone who is getting their information or opinions (on any subject whatsoever) from reading things like Alex Jones, Joseph Farrah, World Net Daily, or anything that Larry Pratt or the GOA put out... you should really just stop. They’re about 90% full of it, and the 10% that isn’t, is overblown.
Before we get get into the legalities of the first two ideas, let's talk about the politics for a second...
For those that do, please tell me... Why do you believe so strongly that, against all evidence, gun control is the hill the democratic party wants to die on?
Because, make no mistake, that's what it would be; even if the gun control was Obama and his administration alone, without the action of congress.
If Obama really cared that much about gun control, he would have done it already.
If you think that "He was just waiting for his second term. Now that he doesn't have to be re-elected, you'll see, he'll do all the things we've been saying he was going to since 2008"...
...You're an idiot.
Oh it's absolutely true that Obama will be more liberal/progressive/socialist etc... this term; and will get more aggressive about what he wants etc... (or perhaps more to the point, his far more radical appointees, who he can sacrifice if necessary, will do so).
It's this ridiculous argument that somehow Obama is special, specially evil etc... and that by virtue of this he has some magical ability to completely ignore the realities of law, the constitution, government, politics... physics... that makes these folks idiots.
Perhaps there are some rational arguments to be made that perhaps Obama want's gun control bad enough to commit politicial suicide, or to have his party do so; but I haven't seen them being made. Just this idiotic "because he's Obama, that's why" crap.
Yes, Obama want's more gun control (though not to the extent that some seem to think), but in order to do so, he needs to deal with CONGRESS.
Obama wants a lot more things, a lot more than he wants gun control; and he isn't going to waste any political capitol whatsoever on a subject he doesn't really care about that much.
Why do you think he put Joe Biden in charge of the "special comission"?
If he was serious, he'd be leading the charge himself. He'd be on television twice a day with specific ideas, and demonizing opponents etc...
If it works out, hey, great, he can claim credit. If it fails (and it will), he doesn't get any of the blame.
What Obama really wants is to raise taxes, cut the military, increase social spending etc... He's not stupid, he knows that he's going to need congress to do it.
What Obama absolutely does NOT want, is to see Obamacare repealed (for which he's going to need to have at least the senate stay under democratic control); and that trying to shove gun control down our throats would just about guarantee all the vulnerable Democratic senators would lose their seats.
There are maybe a dozen truly committed, truly anti-gun senators, and maybe two dozen in the house... plus another dozen completely safe seats in the senate and maybe 50 or 60 in the house. No-one else is going to put their seat on the line over an issue that they either don't care about all that much, or that they don't see any major advantage in supporting.
Now, on to the legal question
Neither treaties nor executive orders can violate the constitution (including the court decisions interpreting the constitution).
First, treaties:
Some seem to believe that a double evil combination will occur, where Obama signs a treaty that will unconstitutionally ban small arms; and by doing so while congress is in recess, he can immediately implement the provisions of the treaty to do so.
If you believe this, let me say to you, right now, without any hesitation...
YOU'RE A MORON
Or, at the very least, you have no business having an opinion on this subject, since you have no idea how our government works, or anything about law, or the constitution.
Treaties cannot be implemented without the approval of congress. They must be ratified by the senate, and their implementation must be enabled by house legislation (approving the funding for implementing the provisions of the treaty).
If a treaty is signed, but never ratified, the executive branch cannot implement any of its provisions.
However, that's entirely irrelevant because...
Treaties don't trump the constitution, nor do they override court decisions interpreting the constitution.
Ever, under any circumstances.
Treaties can supersede state and federal law, but not the constitution.
Any provision of any treaty that would do so, is automatically null and void.
Here are the relevant supreme court decisions:
Amaya v. Standard Oil:
"the treaty-making power does not extend ‘So far as to authorize what the constitution forbids.’"
Reid v. Covert (which is controlling in this question):
“No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.And the summary of the majority opinion:
“The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
(Quoting Article VI, Clause 2…)
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land … ”
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution.
Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.”Treaties MAY NOT supersede the constitution; however, it is important to note that the constitution does not necessarily apply to actions outside our borders and not concerning our citizens (US v. Curtis Wright).
The ratification of a treaty is an act of congress, and no act of congress, or its effects, may supersede the constitution. Article II and Article VI are mostly clear, and what ambiguity there is has been clarified numerous times by the supreme court.
Treaties CAN AND DO trump previous federal laws, and both state laws and state constitutions; which was clarified in Gibbons v. Ogden.
...And on to the executive orders...
Now, there's some important language I quote above:
"The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."As this applies to acts of congress, it also applies to the executive branch and its agencies.
The substance and authority of the government exists solely in the constitution; therefore no agency of it may act outside of its authority.
Because great power and discretion are given to the president (and by extension the executive branch) in foreign affairs, executive orders can ignore the constitution outside the borders of the country and when acting on non-citizens; but they cannot ignore the constitution inside our borders, or when dealing with American citizens.
"It doesn't matter if its unconstitutional, Obama is evil and doesn't care, and he's going to do it anyway"
Yeah...
Rather than address this whole thing again on the politics side, I'll just refer you back to the politics section above, and say...
YOU'RE A MORON
Or at the least, without any knowledge or understanding, you're parroting misinformation spread by either morons, or by those who are deliberately manipulating you (most likely for fundraising purposes).
But since we're in the legal section, let's get back to that...
I can see that there are some arguments (other than the "but he's evil" one that is), where its plausible the Obama administration might decide to attempt some blatantly unconstitutional garbage...
But...
Why do you believe that if the Obama administration suddenly decides to do various clearly and obviously unconstitutional things, that they'll actually be allowed?
That they'll have funding to do so?
That they won't be stopped by the courts?
That there won't be a million lawsuits?
That the various officials of the executive branch will go along with it?
That the enforcement agents of the executive branch will implement and enforce these new unconstitutional measures?
Again, I'm not talking about the possibility that they may attempt minor and lesser executive action to restrict guns in some ways (more on that below); just the idea that somehow, because Obama is extra special magic evil; that he can all of a sudden magically seize or ban all our guns (or all our evil black guns etc...)
Ok... the NRA
Right now I'm rather irritated with the NRA.
Not because they are "evil, ineffective, compromising backstabbers", but because of this:
http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf
This statement... Much of it is reasonable, true, good, useful helpful; unfortunately, some is very much not:
And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.
Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?
Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?
In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with oneanother to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of
every month of every year.
A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000
acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.
And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate
owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not
complicit co-conspirators.
Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.Ahhh yes... it's all the medias fault, especially that nasty TV and those awful video games.
Not only is this not helpful, in context it is both idiotic, and actively HARMFUL.
Not intentionally so of course; but in spectacular arrogance and ignorance.
I think the Penny Arcade response to this is appropriate here:
Lord knows, this isn't the first time the NRA was harmfully wrong (their entire history on the Heller case for example)... and it won't be the last.
However, that doesn't mean that I don't generally support the NRA.
I'm a life member, and I won't be resigning my membership over this stupidity (though I will be letting them know how I feel; and unlike most gamers, I know people inside NRA management... I would suggest everyone else who does as well, also make their displeasure known).
The NRA are by far the most effective organization for protecting our rights surrounding firearms and self defense (as I have written many times before, for example: http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2010/06/political-captial-fundraising-mission.html)
The GOA has been promoting the idea for years that the NRA are the bad guy... but frankly, the only thing Larry Pratt believes in is Larry Pratt... And the only thing the GOA is effective at is spreading unreasonable fear, and disinformation, aimed at increasing their fundraising.
Without the NRA our right to keep and bear arms would be fully abrogated by government... and would have been long ago.
Are they perfect? No. But they're the best we've got, and they do the best they can; and they are certainly NOT "part of the problem".
All that said... there's still some potential problems (of course)
I don't mean to suggest that there isn't any possible thing that the Obama administration could do on its own, or headaches, irritation, delays and difficult etc... they could cause.
For example, through executive orders and "administrative procedures", "administrative rules", "executive agency regulations" etc... the import of some firearms... possibly even all firearms, and ammunition... could be accomplished.
That is a foreign policy action, which has what could be interpreted, in principle, as having enabling legislation, depending on interpretation.
The administration couldn't ban the domestic manufacture, sale, or possession of any particular type of firearm; nor could they establish standards through the ATF or DOJ that would have the effect of doing so (there is specific legislation addressing this issue, and executive orders cannot counter that).
...BUT...
That doesn't mean they couldn't make life immensely more difficult; applying maximum scrutiny to every manufacturers, distributor, FFL etc...
Some have suggested they could simply order the NICS system shut down; but there's actually a default out for that. Even if there wasn't, this would clearly be an action intended to ban further sales of firearms, and the courts would be on that in a heartbeat (with the SAF, SAAMI, the NSSF the NRA, and every firearms manufacturer behind it).
...But they could make every transaction go through enough scrutiny to make the 3 day delay/proceed limit; backing the system up, and preventing sales entirely in some gun control states.
They could also go for some restrictions that may be allowed under existing law, and wouldn't be clearly unlawful or unconstitutional... The evil mind can think up lots of scenarios where some restriction could happen...
But again, the politics of the situation militate against it; except possibly in a minor way.
So, to appropriate the meme:
Keep Calm and Carry One... or More... Guns...
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Stupidity, Politics, and Math
So...
I REALLY didn't want to write anything about the Connecticut school shooting... Frankly, it may sound callous, but we've seen this before, we've seen this worse.
It's truly awful...
...but sometimes truly awful things happen; especially when mental illness is involved.
That's not why I'm writing though... Or even exactly what I'm writing about...
What has basically forced me to write about this, is the outright stupidity that much of the pro-gun side is exhibiting at the moment.
Stupidity, paranoia, histrionics.... whatever you want to call it, it's irritating me enough that I had to write this little 3800 word rant.
The world is not ending.
The sky is not falling.
This is not the "American Dunblane".
No-one is coming to take our evil black rifles.
Why not?
Because, much as abortion is for the right, gun control is something the left talks about to get column inches and screen time, to win the approval (and money) of single issue voters from your own side; and of course, to feel morally superior... It's not something you actually DO.
... If you actually DID it, it would end up hurting you... Again, much like abortion....
Pro gun folks, please stop screaming about how all the fun guns are going to be banned, Obama tyranny, etc... etc...
It's not going to happen.
There will be no new gun control of any kind (except perhaps, at worst a symbolic gesture, though I doubt even that), never mind a new so called "assault weapons" ban, or a magazine capacity ban.
Not that I wouldn't strongly oppose such a thing, but:
I'm sure several bills will be introduced... Carolyn McCarthy, Frank Lautenberg, and Dianne Feinstein need to get their fawning press... and in an attempt to appear "reasonable" some republicans will talk about talking about it... but they'll never be slated for conference. They'll just be symbolic gestures by congresscritters in pro gun control districts.
In fact, there will most likely be several conflicting bills introduced by several different people in each house.... Intentionally so. This allows the politicians in question to pretend THEY were trying to get the GOOD bill passed, but couldn't, so they wouldn't vote for the BAD bill... etc... etc...
Nothing but red meat for the base... Just like every other time this has happened since 1996.
Politics, and Math.
Fox news was reporting that this morning, Rasmussen released a poll conducted after the shootings:
Only 27% of the population support additional gun control. Over 60% believe that additional gun control won't stop things like this from happening. Over 70% believe that this is a mental health issue, not a gun issue.
AND THEY ARE RIGHT.
This IS a mental health issue. A major one. And a cultural issue (the part of the culture that turns guns into a magic rod of power in their heads, and denigrates and degrades the value and nobility of human life).
If you haven't already, you should read Clayton Cramers book about mental illness and how poorly we deal with in this country "My Brother Ron"... We basically have NO way of dealing with the mentally ill at this point, and it's a major problem.
... and a lot of folks know this, and understand this.... Though I don't think anyone has a really good idea what to do about it.
Occasionally, "the people" are not mindless sheep. Occaisonally they're actually surprisingly wise... Especially after decades of obvious garbage being shoved down their throats, is utterly contradicted by just a few minutes of real world experience, or the tiniest bit of basic logic and reason.
... And yes, "the people" can, on occaision, exhibit the ability to reason using facts and logic.
It's rare I admit...
So... as far as "more gun control" goes, the people don't want it, it won't work, and everyone not operating on a predetermined agenda (or through naive idealism, or blind ignorant fear) already understands that...
Because, as any advocate for the legalization of drugs will tell you, banning only stops the law abiding. It doesn't eliminate either the use, or desire, for the banned subject.
Because of course the argument makes sense when it's applied to something you support, but is utter twaddle when it's something you don't support... Of course...
...No, of course not...
Gun control is exactly as good an idea as banning drugs, or alcohol, or knives, or cars, or any other damn thing that requires an adult level of responsibility to manage properly.
Of course, that hasn't ever stopped politicians before.... like, well... for example, prohibition.
And much like prohibition, something like half the households in this country have guns in them.
When you account for the fact that very few of the households in the urban northeast, midwestern industrial cities, or coastal California, are among that number (and that's about 1/3 of Americas households)... and it actually works out to something more like 3/4 of households outside of the big anti-gun constituencies.
...and for the past 8 years, the second most popular gun in America, is what our president has been calling a "Military style Assault Weapon" (which in and of itself is a delberate fraud, but that's another issue entirely).
Since 2004, manufacturers have sold between 500,000 and 1 million AR-15 type rifles a year. While there are certainly lots of folks who have three or four of them, most folks only have the one...
They sell them at WAL-MART now. And not just one model, covered in mossy oak for the hunters... The last time I looked into the WallyWorld gun section a few weeks back, they had FOUR different models, including ones with rails, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, 30 rounds magazines...
You can't demonize the rifle that the guy takes to the range for his 12 year old daughter to shoot. The scare tactics only work on people who don't know any better...
...and more than half the country now knows better.
But I digress...
Basic truism of politics: Politicians never do anything unless they think it is to their advantage.
EVER...
...and outside those few districts that are strongly pro gun control (about 20% of the population, but only about 2% of the area) there is no advantage in gun control.
Plenty of advantage in talking about it... Talking about it helps liberals raise money...
But actually DOING something?
No... that's bad.
Gun control hurts the democratic party. The only places that support it would support democrats anyway, and everywhere else, every single democrat that votes for gun control means thousands fewer democratic voters.
Gun control cost the Democratic party control of Congress in 1996, they know it, and they will NEVER repeat that mistake again.
So, Democratic party politicians will talk about gun control on TV, but they won't actually DO anything that they can get nailed down on, unless they are from one of the (very few) anti-gun districts, or their seat is completely safe (in which case they're playing to the small but wealthy national liberal donor audience).
Hell... there isn't even any money in organized gun control anymore. There used to be big money lobbies behind it, but now almost all gun control is funded out of the Joyce foundations, and they don't have the money to spend on buying either politicians, or media campaigns.
Private individuals rarely donate very much to the gun control cause, if anything; and that has always been the case. A few very rich ideologues, the occasional frothing or crying liberal, and the sad people whose loved ones were killed by lunatics and idiots, and who are now used by the ideologues to put a sympathetic and legitimate face on their actions... and that's really it.
You can almost always get people to donate "for" something... it's a lot harder to get them to donate "against" something; unless you can make people very afraid, and then convince them you will take their fear away.
Well... most people aren't afraid of guns anymore... and of the ones who are, most don't believe that the government is going to be able to do anything about their fear.
There's just no constituency for gun control.
Just 27%, in a poll after a major emotional event...
Certainly less, when the emotion dies down, and they have to actually commit to something, not just say what they think the guy at the other end of the phone wants to hear...
Ok... so maybe no AR-15 bans... but what about magazine capacity limits?
Not a chance. Any real restriction on people doing something they actually want to do... they remember it. A magazine ban would lose the Democrats every remaining rural house and senate senate seat they have left.
There's literally tens of millions... if not hundreds of millions, of "high capacity" magazines out there. Unless they made ex post facto law criminalizing their possession then seized all of them (also a constitutional problem) and destroyed them... Which, never mind the legal, constitutional, political, and economic issues surrounding that, is simply PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE...
It's also just plain stupid... People understand and remember stupid. They remember being irritated, and inconvenienced.
Again, this is the kind of idea that only sounds good to the ignorant or the fearful. Those who have no clue... who just don't know any better... And now, more than half the country knows better.
No... A ban of any kind, of any weapon, of any magazine, just isn't going to happen.
No-one who isn't in a guaranteed liberal pro-gun control seat is going to touch ANY gun control of any kind.
Hell, the NRA has had more than 30,000 new members sign up since the shooting, along with over 80,000 renewals, and who knows how much in additional donations (I'm already a life member); and more are coming in every HOUR.
That's going to take decades, and millions of dollars in legal fees, and there will be setbacks along the way...
But, fundamentally, gun control is dead.
I'm going to say this flat out:
There will not be any kind of meaningful, serious, or significant gun control legislation on the federal level within the next 12 years... possibly not ever again.
I REALLY didn't want to write anything about the Connecticut school shooting... Frankly, it may sound callous, but we've seen this before, we've seen this worse.
It's truly awful...
...but sometimes truly awful things happen; especially when mental illness is involved.
That's not why I'm writing though... Or even exactly what I'm writing about...
What has basically forced me to write about this, is the outright stupidity that much of the pro-gun side is exhibiting at the moment.
Stupidity, paranoia, histrionics.... whatever you want to call it, it's irritating me enough that I had to write this little 3800 word rant.
The world is not ending.
The sky is not falling.
This is not the "American Dunblane".
No-one is coming to take our evil black rifles.
"...But... But.... 26 dead kids.... AHHHHH!!!!!!!.... IT'S DIFFERENT THIS TIME, I DON"T CARE ABOUT ALL THE OTHER TIMES, IT"S DIFFERENT THIS TIME... AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!"No... It's not.
Why not?
Because, much as abortion is for the right, gun control is something the left talks about to get column inches and screen time, to win the approval (and money) of single issue voters from your own side; and of course, to feel morally superior... It's not something you actually DO.
... If you actually DID it, it would end up hurting you... Again, much like abortion....
Pro gun folks, please stop screaming about how all the fun guns are going to be banned, Obama tyranny, etc... etc...
It's not going to happen.
There will be no new gun control of any kind (except perhaps, at worst a symbolic gesture, though I doubt even that), never mind a new so called "assault weapons" ban, or a magazine capacity ban.
- I'm pretty sure such a thing would never get voted on at all.
- I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even get debated in committee.
- I'm pretty sure if it was, it wouldn't be voted on in committee.
- I'm pretty sure if it ever made it to the floor, it wouldn't get a floor vote.
- I'm pretty sure that if it did, it wouldn't pass...
- Actually, I'm pretty sure such a thing wouldn't get more than about 25% behind it... 40% at worst
- I'm pretty sure if it did somehow pass in one house, it wouldn't get through both houses.
- I'm pretty sure if it did, it wouldn't make it through conference or reconciliation.
- I'm pretty sure even if it did, current jurisprudence would prevent such a thing from ever being implemented.
- If there were any kind of "ban" passed, and it were to somehow make it through the courts, it would have to be so restricted, narrow, and limited as to be meaningless
I'm sure several bills will be introduced... Carolyn McCarthy, Frank Lautenberg, and Dianne Feinstein need to get their fawning press... and in an attempt to appear "reasonable" some republicans will talk about talking about it... but they'll never be slated for conference. They'll just be symbolic gestures by congresscritters in pro gun control districts.
In fact, there will most likely be several conflicting bills introduced by several different people in each house.... Intentionally so. This allows the politicians in question to pretend THEY were trying to get the GOOD bill passed, but couldn't, so they wouldn't vote for the BAD bill... etc... etc...
Nothing but red meat for the base... Just like every other time this has happened since 1996.
"...But.... But.... How can you possibly say that? Awful media screaming.... Gaaahhh!!! SCARY BLACK MILITARY STYLE RIFLES!!!!!, Dead CHILDREN!!!! PELOSII!!! FEINSTEIN!!! OBAMA!!!! GAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!"Simple.
Politics, and Math.
Fox news was reporting that this morning, Rasmussen released a poll conducted after the shootings:
Only 27% of the population support additional gun control. Over 60% believe that additional gun control won't stop things like this from happening. Over 70% believe that this is a mental health issue, not a gun issue.
AND THEY ARE RIGHT.
This IS a mental health issue. A major one. And a cultural issue (the part of the culture that turns guns into a magic rod of power in their heads, and denigrates and degrades the value and nobility of human life).
If you haven't already, you should read Clayton Cramers book about mental illness and how poorly we deal with in this country "My Brother Ron"... We basically have NO way of dealing with the mentally ill at this point, and it's a major problem.
... and a lot of folks know this, and understand this.... Though I don't think anyone has a really good idea what to do about it.
Occasionally, "the people" are not mindless sheep. Occaisonally they're actually surprisingly wise... Especially after decades of obvious garbage being shoved down their throats, is utterly contradicted by just a few minutes of real world experience, or the tiniest bit of basic logic and reason.
... And yes, "the people" can, on occaision, exhibit the ability to reason using facts and logic.
It's rare I admit...
So... as far as "more gun control" goes, the people don't want it, it won't work, and everyone not operating on a predetermined agenda (or through naive idealism, or blind ignorant fear) already understands that...
Because, as any advocate for the legalization of drugs will tell you, banning only stops the law abiding. It doesn't eliminate either the use, or desire, for the banned subject.
Because of course the argument makes sense when it's applied to something you support, but is utter twaddle when it's something you don't support... Of course...
...No, of course not...
Gun control is exactly as good an idea as banning drugs, or alcohol, or knives, or cars, or any other damn thing that requires an adult level of responsibility to manage properly.
Of course, that hasn't ever stopped politicians before.... like, well... for example, prohibition.
And much like prohibition, something like half the households in this country have guns in them.
When you account for the fact that very few of the households in the urban northeast, midwestern industrial cities, or coastal California, are among that number (and that's about 1/3 of Americas households)... and it actually works out to something more like 3/4 of households outside of the big anti-gun constituencies.
...and for the past 8 years, the second most popular gun in America, is what our president has been calling a "Military style Assault Weapon" (which in and of itself is a delberate fraud, but that's another issue entirely).
Since 2004, manufacturers have sold between 500,000 and 1 million AR-15 type rifles a year. While there are certainly lots of folks who have three or four of them, most folks only have the one...
They sell them at WAL-MART now. And not just one model, covered in mossy oak for the hunters... The last time I looked into the WallyWorld gun section a few weeks back, they had FOUR different models, including ones with rails, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, 30 rounds magazines...
You can't demonize the rifle that the guy takes to the range for his 12 year old daughter to shoot. The scare tactics only work on people who don't know any better...
...and more than half the country now knows better.
But I digress...
Basic truism of politics: Politicians never do anything unless they think it is to their advantage.
EVER...
...and outside those few districts that are strongly pro gun control (about 20% of the population, but only about 2% of the area) there is no advantage in gun control.
Plenty of advantage in talking about it... Talking about it helps liberals raise money...
But actually DOING something?
No... that's bad.
Gun control hurts the democratic party. The only places that support it would support democrats anyway, and everywhere else, every single democrat that votes for gun control means thousands fewer democratic voters.
Gun control cost the Democratic party control of Congress in 1996, they know it, and they will NEVER repeat that mistake again.
So, Democratic party politicians will talk about gun control on TV, but they won't actually DO anything that they can get nailed down on, unless they are from one of the (very few) anti-gun districts, or their seat is completely safe (in which case they're playing to the small but wealthy national liberal donor audience).
Hell... there isn't even any money in organized gun control anymore. There used to be big money lobbies behind it, but now almost all gun control is funded out of the Joyce foundations, and they don't have the money to spend on buying either politicians, or media campaigns.
Private individuals rarely donate very much to the gun control cause, if anything; and that has always been the case. A few very rich ideologues, the occasional frothing or crying liberal, and the sad people whose loved ones were killed by lunatics and idiots, and who are now used by the ideologues to put a sympathetic and legitimate face on their actions... and that's really it.
You can almost always get people to donate "for" something... it's a lot harder to get them to donate "against" something; unless you can make people very afraid, and then convince them you will take their fear away.
Well... most people aren't afraid of guns anymore... and of the ones who are, most don't believe that the government is going to be able to do anything about their fear.
There's just no constituency for gun control.
Just 27%, in a poll after a major emotional event...
Certainly less, when the emotion dies down, and they have to actually commit to something, not just say what they think the guy at the other end of the phone wants to hear...
Ok... so maybe no AR-15 bans... but what about magazine capacity limits?
Not a chance. Any real restriction on people doing something they actually want to do... they remember it. A magazine ban would lose the Democrats every remaining rural house and senate senate seat they have left.
There's literally tens of millions... if not hundreds of millions, of "high capacity" magazines out there. Unless they made ex post facto law criminalizing their possession then seized all of them (also a constitutional problem) and destroyed them... Which, never mind the legal, constitutional, political, and economic issues surrounding that, is simply PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE...
It's also just plain stupid... People understand and remember stupid. They remember being irritated, and inconvenienced.
Again, this is the kind of idea that only sounds good to the ignorant or the fearful. Those who have no clue... who just don't know any better... And now, more than half the country knows better.
No... A ban of any kind, of any weapon, of any magazine, just isn't going to happen.
No-one who isn't in a guaranteed liberal pro-gun control seat is going to touch ANY gun control of any kind.
Hell, the NRA has had more than 30,000 new members sign up since the shooting, along with over 80,000 renewals, and who knows how much in additional donations (I'm already a life member); and more are coming in every HOUR.
People on the left keep saying "We need to have a conversation about gun control"...
Well, guess what, we've been having that conversation since 1968; and as of 2008, it's over.
They lost, and we won.That doesn't mean there isn't still work to do of course; there's 150 years of racist, bigoted, fascist, legal kruft to get rid of.
That's going to take decades, and millions of dollars in legal fees, and there will be setbacks along the way...
But, fundamentally, gun control is dead.
I'm going to say this flat out:
There will not be any kind of meaningful, serious, or significant gun control legislation on the federal level within the next 12 years... possibly not ever again.
"...but... but... the Republicans are caving... they're stupid, venal cowards... but.. but... they ALWAYS sell out and screw up. I just KNOW they're going to cave on this like they do everything else and they'll go along with a ban...
...but.... but... DUNBLANE!!!! STOCKTON!!!! AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"
... OK...
Why would they do that?
Republicans certainly do a lot of dumb stuff... just look at who they ran for president the last two times... but they do it for a reason.
Like all politicians, they only do that which they believe is to their own advantage.
Any vote on gun control at all, never mind a vote FOR gun control?
To what advantage, and for whom?
There is no rationale under which any remaining Republicans (now that Chaffee and Snowe are gone) would vote for any kind of gun control legislation; nor would better than half the democrats.
It's a losing issue for democrats, it's an even worse losing issue for republicans, AND then the dems get to lord it over the republicans... There's no WAY they'd let that happen.
However, to avoid fundraising issues, giving the press talking points, or being nailed down on the record, rather than vote yay or nay, they'll just make sure that it never comes to a floor vote.
- Just like they did after Aurora (2012, 12 dead, 58 injured)
- Just like they did after Seal Beach (2011, 8 dead, 1 injured)
- Just like they did after Giffords (2011, 6 dead, 13 injured)
- Just like they did after Binghamton (2009, 13 dead, 4 wounded)
- Just like they did after Virginia Tech (2007, 32 dead, 18 wounded)
- Just like they did after Columbine (1999, 13 dead, 21 wounded)
Just like they have after every other "Ahhhh!!!! they're going to take our guns now!!!" incident since 1999.
Oh and note... I don't include the shooters in those totals, or mention their names. Just a thing for me...
Let's do some math here....
The last significant piece of gun control legislation to pass at the federal level was the 1994 so called "assault weapons ban". There was a minor amendment that was passed in 1999. The so called "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004, without any kind of serious attempt at renewing or extending it.
Nothing has changed since 2004 to make gun control any easier or more likely... or 1999, or 1994 for that matter.
In fact, post '96, it's a lot harder and a lot LESS likely.
Every significant federal gun control measure introduced since 1999 (and there have been a lot of them. McCarthy and Lautenberg introduce restrictive bills every few months) has not only failed, but I believe they have all failed to even reach a floor vote. Only rarely have they even made it out of committee.
... and the 1999 bit was minor legislation on trigger locks, and only passed as a last second add-on amendment to an anti-crime funding bill (to put more "cops on the street"), 51-50 with Al Gore voting as tie breaker.
The majority of serious pro-gun legislation since 1999 on the other hand has either passed, or come close to passing in one house or the other (usually passing in the house and never coming to a vote in the senate).
Just as an example, the national parks carry bill in 2009 passed 279 to 147, under a democrat controlled house (and just after a couple of mass shootings within a few months). The national concealed carry reciprocity bill from 2011 passed 272-154 (just after a couple MORE mass shooting events).
They couldn't even get gun control after Columbine...
They got a nifty piece of propaganda disguised as a documentary... but no actual gun control.
After losing control of the house and senate after '96 (because of gun control), the Democrats took both the house and senate back in 2007; and had the house, senate, and presidency from January 2009 until January of 2011.
In that time, they didn't even bother trying to advance a serious bill out of committee.
There's a reason for that...
Overall, the Senate has 46 members with an NRA A grade, and another 13 with a B or C. Only 35 get a D or F (6 are not rated).
Of those 35, many can't afford to vote for any kind of gun control right now (no matter what speeches they make in front of the cameras); either because they're in very pro-gun states, or because they're in moderately pro-gun states (or even pro gun areas of generally anti-gun states... look at the map below) and have a strong challenge facing them.
There are 11 strongly pro gun Democrats in the senate, 1 slightly pro gun, 3 neutral, 2 slightly anti-gun... (from a+ to c-) meaning none of them have actually supported major or serious gun control in any meaningful way (otherwise they'd be graded at D or F)... Then there's 2 D's and 36 F's (counting Sanders and King as democrats of course).
Oh, and there's only one strongly anti-gun republican in the senate at this point, Mark Kirk of Illinois; and two neutral to slightly pro-gun (both got C+), Collins of Maine, and Coats of Indiana. Every other republican gets either an A or a B.
So... WORST case, we'd be looking at a 60/40 split...
...But that's before the electoral politics and math come into play.
The Dems know that with the economy going the way it's going (and they're going to be attempting to make it worse) they're going to lose seats massively in 2014. They are desperate to hold on to the senate, or at the very least to prevent a filibuster proof Republican majority
The following democratic senators are up for re-election in 2014:
- Alaska - Mark Begich - Very Pro Gun - very unsafe seat
- Arkansas - Mark Pryor - neutral - very unsafe seat
- Colorado - Mark Udall - neutral - not a safe seat
- Delaware - Chris Coons - Very anti-gun - safe seat
- Hawaii - UNKNOWN (special election to replace Daniel Inouye)
- Illinois - Dick Durbin - Very anti-gun - safe seat
- Iowa - Tom Harkin - Very anti-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
- Louisiana - Mary Landrieu - neutral - very unsafe seat
- Massachusetts - UNKNOWN (special election to replace John Kerry)
- Michigan - Carl Levin - very anti-gun - safe seat
- Minnesota - Al Franken - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
- Montana - Max Baucus - very pro-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
- New Hampshire - Jeanne Shaheen - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
- New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg - very anti-gun - safe seat
- New Mexico - Tom Udall - slightly anti-gun - safe seat
- North Carolina - Kay Hagan - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
- Oregon - Jeff Merkley - very anti-gun - safe seat
- Rhode Island - Jack Reed - very anti-gun - safe seat
- South Dakota - Tim Johnson - very pro-gun - very unsafe seat
- Virginia - Mark Warner - very pro-gun - not a safe seat
- West Virginia - Jay Rockefeller - moderately anti-gun - very unsafe seat
Now... look at that list....
That's 21 Democratic senators up for election, only 9 of which are actually "safe" seats (including Mass and HI), and four of which are very pro-gun.
Of those senators, who is anti-gun, and in a safe seat?
- Delaware - Chris Coons
- Hawaii - Whoever it is, they'll be an anti-gun democrat
- Illinois - Dick Durbin
- Massachusetts - Whoever it is, they'll be an anti-gun democrat
- Michigan - Carl Levin
- New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg (the most anti-gun senator)
- New Mexico - Tom Udall
- Oregon - Jeff Merkley
- Rhode Island - Jack Reed (as bad as Lautenberg)
Al Franken almost lost his last election, and there are plenty of hunters and shooters in Minnesota. He can't afford to lose a single vote, or to have Minnesota uninvolved voters mode involved at all. If it comes to a vote he'll probably vote for it, but he won't be pushing hard for it.
Tom Udall may actually be iffy... He's generally pro gun control, but he's not very outspoken about it; and New Mexico is swingy on the issue, with a slight pro-gun bias. My guess, if it actually comes to a vote he'll be for it; but he'll want to avoid it.
Tom Harkin is another one. He's anti-gun, but he had a serious challenge last time (his opponent wasn't all that strong, and lost by a wide margin, but Harkins negatives are HUGE in his home state right now), he's going to have a serious challenge in 2014 (he's a core target for unseating as part of the GOP midwestern strategy, and he's got some serious weaknesses), and Iowa is generally a pro-gun state (though there's a lot of anti "scary black rifle" shotgun owners... all that great bird hunting and all...). Same guess, he'll vote for it if it comes up, but he'd much rather avoid the issue.
You know who REALLY can't afford to even have something come up for a vote?
Harry Reid.
You know... the Senate Majority leader?
The guy who controls the senate agenda, and what comes up for a vote when?
If he presides over gun control legislation of any kind, he loses his gavel in 2014, and his seat in 2016; and he knows it.
No if's ands or buts about it, he's gone, it's that simple.
Reid isn't going to let that happen.
... and that's just for 2014, never mind 2016 and 2018. Gunnies have long memories on this sort of thing, as does the NRA, never mind the SAF, JPFO, GOA, the various state rifle and pistol associations....
The numbers are even worse looking for gun control in the house. House members have to run every election; and of the 435 members of congress, 242 get an NRA "A" rating, and another 30 get a B or C. Only 146 get a D or F (17 are unrated).
Take a look at this chart:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/19/us/politics/nra.html
Of those 146 congrescritters, 37 of them are in STRONGLY pro-gun states (though not necessarily pro-gun districts). Another couple dozen are in moderately pro-gun states, or in pro-gun areas of anti-gun states.
Basically... I doubt they'd get 100 votes in the house if it went to a floor vote.
They might do it if they could... but they just don't have the votes.
Every left wing political show, talking head, blog, columnist etc... has been talking all day long about how they don't think anything is actually going to happen. That the politicians will talk big, and do nothing.
There's a reason for that.
But the biggest reason I'm sure this is all noise? A nice distraction for Obama and the democrats from the upcoming "fiscal cliff"?
Obamas special blue ribbon action committee on gun control, is chartered to "come back with advisory recommendations by the end of January"... and Joe Biden will be in charge of it.
Seriously... If they actually meant to do anything, would they have appointed BIDEN to run the effort?
Seriously...
Monday, November 05, 2012
Firearms Basics - Part 1: Introduction
I've been a shooter for almost 30 years, and a competitive shooter off and on for about 15 years. I'm an engineer by education and experience; and I'm a professional gunsmith, and firearms trainer. I've sold guns at the retail level, repaired them, customized them, modified them, even built them from the bare metal.
Firearms are one of the strongest pursuits and passions in my life.
God knows, I've written literally millions of words on firearms over the past... almost 20 years I guess (I started writing about guns on the internet in forums and newsgroups starting around 1993). I've been running running or co-running firearms forums for over 10 years. The last 8 years (well... 8 years in February) I've been writing on this blog (3600 or so posts so far; probably half of them about guns, and most of those over 1000 words).
I'm published on guns and shooting both online and in print; and I'm one of the most referenced and quoted sources on the technical aspects of firearms online.
I think I'm justified in calling myself a firearms expert; without others having to put scare quotes or "self proclaimed" around that.
I say this not for self aggrandizement, but to explain to those who don't know me, the context of the rest of this post.
While I'm a great'big'ol gunnut; guns are by no means my only personal or professional pursuits or interests; and I'm involved in several different interest centered "cultures" and social circles.
Generally speaking, outside of my "gun culture" social circles, I'm "the gun guy"; or at least "one of the gun guys" in any group.
And of course, I write a lot about firearms basics, mythbusting, basic equipment etc...
All of this leads to me getting a lot of questions from people who are entirely new to firearms, or who are just casually into them...
... or me hearing conversations (or seeing internet threads) just completely full of (generally well intentioned) utter crap. Bad advice, "received wisdom" (which may have been true at one point, but may or may not be now), opinion and myth passed off as fact; even sometimes truly stupid, illegal, or potentially dangerous advice.
That's unfortunately the general level of discourse on most websites that aren't specifically gun related (and sadly, many that ARE... but that's another story entirely).
The good thing is though, being recognized as the "office expert" so to speak, in such groups; I can generally speak with some authority, and maybe give some GOOD advice, that maybe someone will take.
I figure, as a representative of "serious" gun culture, and "gun experts" etc... I kind of have a duty to do so when I can; and I enjoy doing so... at least when we can keep the general level of stupidity to a reasonable level.
Often these questions, and these discussions, fit into the post categories I already have (and have had for years now); "so you want to write about guns" or "firearms mythbusting".
Sometimes they don't however, and for those things, I'm starting a new series, "Firearms Basics".
I expect I'll be covering some of the same territory I've done with mythbusting etc... But mostly this series will be focused specifically on providing a foundation of basic firearms knowledge; and to answer questions that firearms beginners, or casual firearms owners/shooters might have.
I'll be posting the first in this series in a few minutes; but I want to put this out to my readers, and to the readers of THEIR blogs...
What basic firearms questions and issues would you like to see covered? Technical, political, legal, historical... model specific, ammo specific, whatever... so long as it's a relatively specific question, that won't take a full book to answer...
...Or maybe even then, if it's a good enough, interesting enough issue; that I know enough about to answer that comprehensively.
What basic or common questions would you like answered?
What pieces of received wisdom, or or common firearms advice would you like to see explained, verified, or corrected (this is where we overlap with the mythbusting bit)?
I figure I'll collect them all, and just start writing the posts to answer the folks, as the time is available and the inspiration strikes; with a goal of doing at least one a week.
So please, give me your questions; and those of you with your own blogs, if you feel it would provide value to your readers, link or repost this, and/or gather your readers questions.
If there's an area I don't know enough to cover properly, I may bring in a guest poster, or guest contributor to a post; and if you are an expert in a particular area and would like to help with this, drop me a line.
I've got a list of possible ideas myself of course, but I want to see all your ideas first.
...this could be kinda fun...
Firearms are one of the strongest pursuits and passions in my life.
God knows, I've written literally millions of words on firearms over the past... almost 20 years I guess (I started writing about guns on the internet in forums and newsgroups starting around 1993). I've been running running or co-running firearms forums for over 10 years. The last 8 years (well... 8 years in February) I've been writing on this blog (3600 or so posts so far; probably half of them about guns, and most of those over 1000 words).
I'm published on guns and shooting both online and in print; and I'm one of the most referenced and quoted sources on the technical aspects of firearms online.
I think I'm justified in calling myself a firearms expert; without others having to put scare quotes or "self proclaimed" around that.
I say this not for self aggrandizement, but to explain to those who don't know me, the context of the rest of this post.
While I'm a great'big'ol gunnut; guns are by no means my only personal or professional pursuits or interests; and I'm involved in several different interest centered "cultures" and social circles.
Generally speaking, outside of my "gun culture" social circles, I'm "the gun guy"; or at least "one of the gun guys" in any group.
And of course, I write a lot about firearms basics, mythbusting, basic equipment etc...
All of this leads to me getting a lot of questions from people who are entirely new to firearms, or who are just casually into them...
... or me hearing conversations (or seeing internet threads) just completely full of (generally well intentioned) utter crap. Bad advice, "received wisdom" (which may have been true at one point, but may or may not be now), opinion and myth passed off as fact; even sometimes truly stupid, illegal, or potentially dangerous advice.
That's unfortunately the general level of discourse on most websites that aren't specifically gun related (and sadly, many that ARE... but that's another story entirely).
The good thing is though, being recognized as the "office expert" so to speak, in such groups; I can generally speak with some authority, and maybe give some GOOD advice, that maybe someone will take.
I figure, as a representative of "serious" gun culture, and "gun experts" etc... I kind of have a duty to do so when I can; and I enjoy doing so... at least when we can keep the general level of stupidity to a reasonable level.
Often these questions, and these discussions, fit into the post categories I already have (and have had for years now); "so you want to write about guns" or "firearms mythbusting".
Sometimes they don't however, and for those things, I'm starting a new series, "Firearms Basics".
I expect I'll be covering some of the same territory I've done with mythbusting etc... But mostly this series will be focused specifically on providing a foundation of basic firearms knowledge; and to answer questions that firearms beginners, or casual firearms owners/shooters might have.
I'll be posting the first in this series in a few minutes; but I want to put this out to my readers, and to the readers of THEIR blogs...
What basic firearms questions and issues would you like to see covered? Technical, political, legal, historical... model specific, ammo specific, whatever... so long as it's a relatively specific question, that won't take a full book to answer...
...Or maybe even then, if it's a good enough, interesting enough issue; that I know enough about to answer that comprehensively.
What basic or common questions would you like answered?
What pieces of received wisdom, or or common firearms advice would you like to see explained, verified, or corrected (this is where we overlap with the mythbusting bit)?
I figure I'll collect them all, and just start writing the posts to answer the folks, as the time is available and the inspiration strikes; with a goal of doing at least one a week.
So please, give me your questions; and those of you with your own blogs, if you feel it would provide value to your readers, link or repost this, and/or gather your readers questions.
If there's an area I don't know enough to cover properly, I may bring in a guest poster, or guest contributor to a post; and if you are an expert in a particular area and would like to help with this, drop me a line.
I've got a list of possible ideas myself of course, but I want to see all your ideas first.
...this could be kinda fun...
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Educating those outside the gun culture who've been defrauded
As I mentioned the other day, my post "Defending yourself, for those outside the gun culture" was a repost of something I wrote in another forum.
It received several responses, one of which was generally positive, but included these lines:
To the point about injuries; actually the reference being made, is to a fraud perpetrated by gun control groups, and then repeated by a media who don't bother to verify facts, so long as the fraud fits their spin on the story.
There are two specific fraudulent claims that were frequently made by gun control advocates, and then endlessly (and mindlessly) repeated by the media, and by defrauded people who don't know better.
First of all, neither are remotely close to true, or have any basis in fact. They were essentially entirely made up on the spot by gun control advocates; and have been thoroughly and publicly disproven. Thus, most gun control organizations no longer make specific claims like that, only saying "much more likely", "many times more likely" etc...
However, media reports very frequently reference those two claims even today; as they are very easy to find in a quick google search.
The reality is very much different.
Excluding suicides, injuries or deaths among the general population from their own firearms are very rare; almost always self inflicted, almost always while abusing drugs or alcohol, and in the majority, with firearms that are possessed unlawfully; which even then constitute a tiny fraction of a percent of all gun owners.
When taking only lawfully possessed firearms, by clean and sober people, the incident rate drops to even tinier fractions of a percent... Essentially so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant, and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.
There are perhaps a few hundred incidents a year total; the majority of which are from hunting accidents, the police (yes, the police in this country have a very poor firearms safety record), and from firearms owners who are not properly educated about safety.
Most commonly the incidents with police and with poorly educated gun owners; occur when someone pulls the trigger on a loaded gun either while holstering the gun, or with a gun they thought was unloaded, but didn't properly unload; either before cleaning the gun, or while at a range or shooting spot. Most commonly the individual shoots themself, usually in the foot, hand, or leg. Very rarely, they shoot someone else.
Incidences of criminals using the firearm of someone who was defending themselves with it, by "taking the gun away from them" are almost non-existent; again, so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.
In fact, police officers are shot with their own weapons FAR more than the general public.
Of the 200,000 or so sworn active duty law enforcement officers in the U.S (there are about 800,000 working in law enforcement in some capacity, but only about 200,000 are street cops, detectives etc...), about 40-60 are killed by gunfire in the line of duty every year (of 125-175 total annually). Of those, approximately one out of 8 is killed with their own gun.
The FBI and DOJ estimate that at least 60% of the 150,000 or so people shot annually in this country (some years as many as 200,000, some years as few as 125,000), are one criminal shooting another; and at least 95% of shootings occur during the commission of a crime.
Only about 1 in 20 shootings is accidental, or about 7500 a year (some say it is as high as 15,000 in some years); and of those, only about 1500 die (again, some say as many as 4000 in some years).
Oh and, in general, 80% or so of people shot in this country, don't die from it.
Given that there are 300 million people in this country, and about 3 million of them die every year; even including the 95% of shootings that occur during a crime, gunshot wounds don't make the top 25 causes of death. When you take into account just the accidental shootings, they don't make the top 100.
Similarly, incidents of children injuring themselves or others with firearms are incredibly rare; and almost always involve children involved in criminal activity, or parental negligence (usually due to drug or alcohol abuse, and funny enough most often in states with very restrictive gun control).
Kids in "gun friendly" states, generally don't shoot themselves or their friends; because their parents teach them properly about gun safety, and because their parents handle firearms properly.
Gun control groups post hugely inflated numbers, with no basis in fact. When they are forced to fall back to something with statistical validity, they then inflate the numbers further, by counting from birth to age 24 as "children"; when in fact nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur among young men, age 16 to 24, and nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur during criminal activity.
Funny enough, more than half of all violent crime is committed by young men, age 16 to 24 (according to the FBI and DOJ about 56%). Most drugs are dealt by young men age 16 to 24. Violent crime is a leading cause of death among young men 16 to 24 etc... etc... etc...
The problem isn't guns, it's young men, mostly those from broken homes, mostly those who come from severely economically and educationally depressed or deprived backgrounds.
Once again, and I'm sorry to be repetitive but it bears repeating; when you exclude young men age 16 to 24, and criminal activity, the incidents of children being injured by firearms falls to a near statistical invisibility.
There are about 60 million children under the age of 16 in this country. Something like 400 a year are shot accidentally by lawfully owned firearms, outside of criminal activity, and less than 1/4 of those die (it's very hard to get exact numbers because every state, and the CDC records things differently, and age and criminal breakdowns are hard to extract). That's a rate of .000006, 6/10,000ths of 1 percent, or 1 in 150,000 being shot, and 1 in 600,000 being killed.
Even if we add back in all the criminals, and the drug use, and the unlawfully owned weapons, and we include all "youths" (meaning from birth to age 24); even the New York times concedes that the number of accidental deaths by firearms is only 300 per year.
Out of the more than 100 million "youths" age 0-24 in this country, about 300 die per year through firearms accidents or negligence. That's a rate of .000003, 3/10,000ths of 1 percent, or one in 333,000.
You can say that "Oh my god thats DOUBLE the rate!!!!" which of course is what gun control advocates and the media do... but you're doubling from "almost zero" to "a little bit more, but still almost zero".
There are at least 300 million guns in this country (there are no reliable statistics, but guns pretty much last forever, and we make or import at least 10 million a year - in 2009 it was 14 million - so most people guess that number is low); and about 50% of the households in this country have guns (some say as low as 40% some as high as 60%).
About 40% of the population of the country lives in the 11 states where there is both restrictive gun control, and comparatively little private firearms ownership: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Hawaii, and Michigan (Michigan is an odd one, since almost everyone in rural michigan has guns, and almost no-one in urban michigan does; but the population of Michigan is mostly urban).
Outside those 11 states, it's more like 75% or more of households have guns. In many states, it's pretty damn close to 100%.
Funny enough, in those states where almost everyone owns guns legally, almost no-one gets shot accidentally (or in crime for that matter. All 11 of the states with restrictive gun control have very high rates of violent crime, most of the 39 states that don't -30 or so of the 39-, have pretty low rates of violent crime).
The vast majority of incidents of people injuring themselves, or injuring children, accidentally or negligently with firearms, occur in those 11 states with restrictive gun control, or in the urban islands of the gun friendly states where lawful gun ownership is comparatively rare.
The best way to avoid these accidents though, is not to avoid firearms... frankly, in this country, you can't, and it's futile to try. By doing so, you are simply elevating the gun to an object of mystery, desire, and power (something television and movies do a pretty good job of anyway); and when your child does come across one, they're going to want to play with it.
The best way to avoid a tragedy, is to educate yourself, and your children, about firearms safety.
Even if you don't own guns, you should have a responsible gun owner you know teach your kids; or find a range or call the NRA, and they will let you know when and where a session of the award winning Eddie Eagle gun safety for kids program is being held.
The fact is, although these tragedies do happen, they are vanishingly rare.
The use of firearms to defend ones self, ones family, and ones property, is not rare at all.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive firearms uses in this country every year (the best estimate is between 150,000 and 200,000). The vast majority (between 80% and 90% any given year) do not involve firing a shot, and many don't even involve drawing a weapon. Merely showing a potential offender that you have a firearm and are prepared to use it is often sufficient.
Of course, don't count on it. If you have a gun, you must be prepared to use it... or the bad guy WILL take it away from you and use it on you, and on others.
For sources you can reference http://gunfacts.info/, "More guns, less crime" by John R. Lott, Lott and Mustards various academic works, Gary Klecks various academic works, "Shooting Blanks" by Alan Gottleib, the CDC, DOJ, and FBI reports on causes of death, and violent crime. Most of these are available either in full or in extract form online.
It received several responses, one of which was generally positive, but included these lines:
"I would hesitate to advise one to carry a gun only because many people do not fully understand the reality that if not prepared to use the weapon and possibly kill a human being, one risks having that weapon taken from then and used on them...I wasn't going to do this, because as I said, this can be an emotional issue for many; and because of the huge infodump required.... But I really hate to see it when a fraud is unknowingly perpetuated by someone, who doesn't know any better.
I am not up on current statistics but I believe from past classes that the statistics were pretty high on injuries and deaths from ones own weapon."
To the point about injuries; actually the reference being made, is to a fraud perpetrated by gun control groups, and then repeated by a media who don't bother to verify facts, so long as the fraud fits their spin on the story.
There are two specific fraudulent claims that were frequently made by gun control advocates, and then endlessly (and mindlessly) repeated by the media, and by defrauded people who don't know better.
"You are 14 times more likely to be injured by a gun in your own home, than if you don't have one"and
"Thousands of children are killed by guns in the home every year"Let's talk a bit about those claims.
First of all, neither are remotely close to true, or have any basis in fact. They were essentially entirely made up on the spot by gun control advocates; and have been thoroughly and publicly disproven. Thus, most gun control organizations no longer make specific claims like that, only saying "much more likely", "many times more likely" etc...
However, media reports very frequently reference those two claims even today; as they are very easy to find in a quick google search.
The reality is very much different.
Excluding suicides, injuries or deaths among the general population from their own firearms are very rare; almost always self inflicted, almost always while abusing drugs or alcohol, and in the majority, with firearms that are possessed unlawfully; which even then constitute a tiny fraction of a percent of all gun owners.
When taking only lawfully possessed firearms, by clean and sober people, the incident rate drops to even tinier fractions of a percent... Essentially so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant, and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.
There are perhaps a few hundred incidents a year total; the majority of which are from hunting accidents, the police (yes, the police in this country have a very poor firearms safety record), and from firearms owners who are not properly educated about safety.
Most commonly the incidents with police and with poorly educated gun owners; occur when someone pulls the trigger on a loaded gun either while holstering the gun, or with a gun they thought was unloaded, but didn't properly unload; either before cleaning the gun, or while at a range or shooting spot. Most commonly the individual shoots themself, usually in the foot, hand, or leg. Very rarely, they shoot someone else.
Incidences of criminals using the firearm of someone who was defending themselves with it, by "taking the gun away from them" are almost non-existent; again, so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.
In fact, police officers are shot with their own weapons FAR more than the general public.
Of the 200,000 or so sworn active duty law enforcement officers in the U.S (there are about 800,000 working in law enforcement in some capacity, but only about 200,000 are street cops, detectives etc...), about 40-60 are killed by gunfire in the line of duty every year (of 125-175 total annually). Of those, approximately one out of 8 is killed with their own gun.
The FBI and DOJ estimate that at least 60% of the 150,000 or so people shot annually in this country (some years as many as 200,000, some years as few as 125,000), are one criminal shooting another; and at least 95% of shootings occur during the commission of a crime.
Only about 1 in 20 shootings is accidental, or about 7500 a year (some say it is as high as 15,000 in some years); and of those, only about 1500 die (again, some say as many as 4000 in some years).
Oh and, in general, 80% or so of people shot in this country, don't die from it.
Given that there are 300 million people in this country, and about 3 million of them die every year; even including the 95% of shootings that occur during a crime, gunshot wounds don't make the top 25 causes of death. When you take into account just the accidental shootings, they don't make the top 100.
Similarly, incidents of children injuring themselves or others with firearms are incredibly rare; and almost always involve children involved in criminal activity, or parental negligence (usually due to drug or alcohol abuse, and funny enough most often in states with very restrictive gun control).
Kids in "gun friendly" states, generally don't shoot themselves or their friends; because their parents teach them properly about gun safety, and because their parents handle firearms properly.
Gun control groups post hugely inflated numbers, with no basis in fact. When they are forced to fall back to something with statistical validity, they then inflate the numbers further, by counting from birth to age 24 as "children"; when in fact nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur among young men, age 16 to 24, and nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur during criminal activity.
Funny enough, more than half of all violent crime is committed by young men, age 16 to 24 (according to the FBI and DOJ about 56%). Most drugs are dealt by young men age 16 to 24. Violent crime is a leading cause of death among young men 16 to 24 etc... etc... etc...
The problem isn't guns, it's young men, mostly those from broken homes, mostly those who come from severely economically and educationally depressed or deprived backgrounds.
Once again, and I'm sorry to be repetitive but it bears repeating; when you exclude young men age 16 to 24, and criminal activity, the incidents of children being injured by firearms falls to a near statistical invisibility.
There are about 60 million children under the age of 16 in this country. Something like 400 a year are shot accidentally by lawfully owned firearms, outside of criminal activity, and less than 1/4 of those die (it's very hard to get exact numbers because every state, and the CDC records things differently, and age and criminal breakdowns are hard to extract). That's a rate of .000006, 6/10,000ths of 1 percent, or 1 in 150,000 being shot, and 1 in 600,000 being killed.
Even if we add back in all the criminals, and the drug use, and the unlawfully owned weapons, and we include all "youths" (meaning from birth to age 24); even the New York times concedes that the number of accidental deaths by firearms is only 300 per year.
Out of the more than 100 million "youths" age 0-24 in this country, about 300 die per year through firearms accidents or negligence. That's a rate of .000003, 3/10,000ths of 1 percent, or one in 333,000.
You can say that "Oh my god thats DOUBLE the rate!!!!" which of course is what gun control advocates and the media do... but you're doubling from "almost zero" to "a little bit more, but still almost zero".
There are at least 300 million guns in this country (there are no reliable statistics, but guns pretty much last forever, and we make or import at least 10 million a year - in 2009 it was 14 million - so most people guess that number is low); and about 50% of the households in this country have guns (some say as low as 40% some as high as 60%).
About 40% of the population of the country lives in the 11 states where there is both restrictive gun control, and comparatively little private firearms ownership: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Hawaii, and Michigan (Michigan is an odd one, since almost everyone in rural michigan has guns, and almost no-one in urban michigan does; but the population of Michigan is mostly urban).
Outside those 11 states, it's more like 75% or more of households have guns. In many states, it's pretty damn close to 100%.
Funny enough, in those states where almost everyone owns guns legally, almost no-one gets shot accidentally (or in crime for that matter. All 11 of the states with restrictive gun control have very high rates of violent crime, most of the 39 states that don't -30 or so of the 39-, have pretty low rates of violent crime).
The vast majority of incidents of people injuring themselves, or injuring children, accidentally or negligently with firearms, occur in those 11 states with restrictive gun control, or in the urban islands of the gun friendly states where lawful gun ownership is comparatively rare.
The best way to avoid these accidents though, is not to avoid firearms... frankly, in this country, you can't, and it's futile to try. By doing so, you are simply elevating the gun to an object of mystery, desire, and power (something television and movies do a pretty good job of anyway); and when your child does come across one, they're going to want to play with it.
The best way to avoid a tragedy, is to educate yourself, and your children, about firearms safety.
Even if you don't own guns, you should have a responsible gun owner you know teach your kids; or find a range or call the NRA, and they will let you know when and where a session of the award winning Eddie Eagle gun safety for kids program is being held.
The fact is, although these tragedies do happen, they are vanishingly rare.
The use of firearms to defend ones self, ones family, and ones property, is not rare at all.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive firearms uses in this country every year (the best estimate is between 150,000 and 200,000). The vast majority (between 80% and 90% any given year) do not involve firing a shot, and many don't even involve drawing a weapon. Merely showing a potential offender that you have a firearm and are prepared to use it is often sufficient.
Of course, don't count on it. If you have a gun, you must be prepared to use it... or the bad guy WILL take it away from you and use it on you, and on others.
For sources you can reference http://gunfacts.info/, "More guns, less crime" by John R. Lott, Lott and Mustards various academic works, Gary Klecks various academic works, "Shooting Blanks" by Alan Gottleib, the CDC, DOJ, and FBI reports on causes of death, and violent crime. Most of these are available either in full or in extract form online.
Monday, January 16, 2012
7 years on... "Why I carry and gun", and "Superiority Complex"
Just about 7 years ago, I wrote a pair of posts, about why I carry a gun, and how I feel about carrying; titled "why I carry a gun" and "Superiority Complex".
I thought this would be a good time to republish those posts. Unfortunately, in the great Haloscan purge of 2010 I lost most of my sites comments before 2009 (Haloscan comments prior to some point in 2009 were unreadable by the import engines of other commenting systems. Thousands of bloggers lost their comments); so you can't read the literally hundreds of comments, both good and idiotic, on these posts.
I'm republishing these now; first because Kevin reminded me of the posts by linking to "superiority complex" in a recent link chain (to a post from 2010 actually); but also because the world has changed a lot since 2005.
I think it would be interesting to see how comments run these days.
So, here we go (note, I updated the dates, fixed typos etc...):
And the second post:
I have no problem with you if you don't want to carry a gun. Lots of people don't want to, for any number of reasons.
But if you believe that you are not responsible enough to carry a gun, what you are saying to me is "I am irresponsible, and cannot be trusted".
If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted with a car, or a knife, or gasoline, or household cleaners... You certainly can't be trusted around my kids.
You are saying that the only thing preventing you from doing wrong, is that you don't have the tools to do so; and I don't want you around me.
All that said, you and I don't have a problem with each other. You live your way and I'll live mine... just stay away from me, and my kids.
If you think that because you are not responsible enough, no-one is; you are simply dead wrong. You may not be responsible enough, but plenty of us are.
Perhaps you can learn for yourself that you are wrong.
Talk to a responsible gun owner. Go out shooting with them. It's fun, and maybe you'll learn something. Guns aren't magic, they're just inanimate objects. Two pounds of metal, with no will, and no intent. They're tools; and just like any other tools, they can be used or misused.
If, after learning a little bit about guns and safety, and gun ownership, you still decide that you are not personally responsible enough... I respect your decision, and your self awareness; but you should understand that just because you are not mature or responsible enough for gun ownership, doesn't mean I am not.
If you believe that YOU personally are responsible enough, and police and the military are responsible enough, but the rest of the law abiding citizens of this country are not...
...Well then there's no help for you.
I thought this would be a good time to republish those posts. Unfortunately, in the great Haloscan purge of 2010 I lost most of my sites comments before 2009 (Haloscan comments prior to some point in 2009 were unreadable by the import engines of other commenting systems. Thousands of bloggers lost their comments); so you can't read the literally hundreds of comments, both good and idiotic, on these posts.
I'm republishing these now; first because Kevin reminded me of the posts by linking to "superiority complex" in a recent link chain (to a post from 2010 actually); but also because the world has changed a lot since 2005.
I think it would be interesting to see how comments run these days.
So, here we go (note, I updated the dates, fixed typos etc...):
Why I Carry A Gun
My favorite anecdote about Bill Jordan goes a little something like this:
Now Ol' Bill, he was a direct man, and a big one at that, so most of the folks he put away were willing to chalk it up to "just business", and leave it at that.I carry a gun whenever it is legal, and not impolite for me to do so (I respect peoples property rights). When I am entering the home or place of business of someone I don't know, I will inform them I am armed, and ask them if they would prefer I not carry a gun while there.
Well Bill heard this feller was raisin' a stink about comin' round to get some back at him for, but he didn't think too much of it.
A few days later, Bills sittin' out there on his porch, and he's got his trademark combat magnum in his lap. His neighbor walks by and says to bill "See ya got yer pistol there Bill, you 'spectin trouble?", So says Bill "Nope, if I was expeting trouble, I'd have my rifle"
It's just polite.
A lot of people ask me "Why do you carry a gun, do you expect trouble?"
No, I carry a gun not because I expect trouble, but because I can...
If I was expecting trouble I'd carry a 12ga.
The practice of carrying a weapon is a clear assertion that I am a man. By that I'm not talking about macho bullshit; By saying I am a man, I mean that I am an adult, responsible for my actions, and willing to accept the consequences of them.
When you carry a gun you have in your hands (or on your hip), the ability to end any mans life. This is a massive responsibility, second only to that of raising children.
Many people are uncomfortable with that responsiblity. They believe that they can't be trusted with it, and by extension, neither can anyone else. They fall back on saying "the police" or "the government" should take care of that. Someone with special training, and the blessings of the state should be responsible, but not me, or you, or anyone else.
I can think of no clearer way of saying "I am immature, and not to be trusted".
When I carry a gun, I accept the fact that I may kill someone. I don't ever plan on doing it, I hope it doesn't happen, but it may. I am prepared for this possiblity, and I accept the consequences should it happen.
A few years ago, I broke up with a girlfriend over this. She asked me what I would do to someone if they tried to rape her. I told her flat out that I would kill him. No hesitation there at all. She told me later that from that moment, she was afraid of me.
I asked her what she would do if someone tried to rape her. She said she wouldnt fight. "What if you had a gun, would you shoot the guy to stop it", no she wouldnt do that. "ok what if I was there and I shot him, would that be OK", no of course not. Finally I asked "What if a cop came along, and he shot the guy would that be ok" well of course, he's a cop.
That attitude frankly baffles, and disgusts me, yet there are so many people who hold it. They feel morally superior because they would never "sink to that level".
Personally I would consider that pretty clear evidence of moral bankruptcy.
The same applies to people who would never fight in a war, but are OK with soldiers and cops defending their rights. Oh, they'll protest, and march in the streets, but actually doing anything? No they're all above that and have disdain for everyone else who isn't, calling us savages, and rednecks, and barbarians etc...
I carry a gun because it is my right, and because I am responsible enough to excercise it. I feel nothing but pity or contempt for those who are not.
And the second post:
Superiority Complex
In my essay "Why I Carry a Gun", I explicitly state some thing that either piss people off, make them uncomfortable, or provoke irrational emotional reactions.Just in case there was any confusion, I feel exactly the same way I did seven years ago.
To wit:
When you carry a gun you have in your hands (or on your hip), the ability to end any mans life. This is a massive responsibility, second only to that of raising children.
...
When I carry a gun, I accept the fact that I may kill someone. I don't ever plan on doing it, I hope it doesn't happen, but it may. I am prepared for this possiblity, and I accept the consequences should it happen
...
I carry a gun because it is my right, and because I am responsible enough to excercise it. I feel nothing but pity or contempt for those who are not.
Responses from the left have come in many varieties, most often I get the arguments "Why do you need a gun", "Wouldnt the world be a better place without guns", and "arent you worried you'll shoot someone". Further, many insults are directed my way, calling me immature, accusing me of needing a gun as a phallic replacement, saying that I was clearly psychotic, and asking how I can possibly have such a superior attitude because of something that is so obviously wrong (carrying a gun that is).
The basic thread running through all of this, is that there must be some special jsutification for having, owning, or carrying a gun.
Here's the thing, pro-gun and anti-gun people are arguing from a different set of first principles. There can be no useful debate betwen two people with different first principles, except on those principles themselves.
More in the extended entry...
ProGun people believe that the gun is a useful tool with no inherent motive, and no inherehnt dangers, excepting misuse. Additionally, guns are examples of elegance in mechanical engineering, which many take pleasure in. Finally they are a source of enjoyment through the practice of the skill of marksmanship. But guns are jsut inanimate object; dangerous if muisused, but so are knives, screwdrivers, chainsaws, cars.. well really just about anything. A gun is an inanimate object, just like any other two pound chunk of metal.
Anti-gun people operate from a completely different principle. They believe guns are inherently wrong. They equate guns with assault and murder, and conflate a causal relationship. They believe that if anyone would have a gun, they must have a valid justification for it, and that they (the anti-gun people) must judge the validity of this justification. They believe that the desire to carry a gun is in iteslf a pathology, and therefore no-one who wishes to carry a gun should be trusted to do so.
Personally I think this position is ridiculous. It's an inanimate object. It has not intent. It has no will. It has no magical properties. Picking up a gun does not turn you into Rambo, or Gary Gilmore.
I have asked a girlfriend to pick up a gun and hand it to me from my work bench, and they actually shrunk back from it, as if it would hurt them.
I carry a gun because I can, and because it is a useful tool. I never explicitly stated that a gun is a useful tool in my original essay, because anyone who isn't an idiot, or blinded by their emotional reaction to an inanimate object should be able to see that a gun is useful. I also carry a pocket knife, a flashlight, and a multitool, because I can, and because they are useful tools.
Does carrying a gun make me feel better? More secure? Absolutely. I know that no matter who might try to harm me or those around me, I have an advantage in stopping them. I know that I won't necessarily have to rely on the police, or the people around me to help. I know that by merely having a gun I am more likely to be able to stop an assault from happening because most defensive uses of guns do not involve any shots being fired.
Am I supposed to feel bad because carrying a gun makes me feel better?
Do I take pleasure in the fact that I can kill someone with it? Of course not. I can almost as easily kill someone with my bare hands, or a knife, or even easier with my car.
Only those that impute some mystical power to guns could ever make these arguments without realizing how ridiculous they are.
What I do appreciate, is that carrying a gun is a greater responsibility than not carrying one. I have a greater capacity for harm with less effort, (though no greater responsiblity to not harm), and should act accordingly. THis is no different than a large and strong man appreciating that he must be more careful than a small man in how he moves, to avoid breaking things around him.
Does this somehow make me feel superior to everyone around me? No of course not, but I do feel superior to those who believe they are not responsible enough to carry a gun, because I AM superior to them. I have control of myself, and I do not impute irrational properties to inanimate objects. I dont think that merely posessing an object will make me a killer.
Damn right I'm superior to those who do not have the moral courage to simply own an inanimate object.
Damn right I am superior to those who feel that since they aren't responsible, neither is anyone else.
Damn right I am superior to those who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety.
I am superior to them, because I am not dependent on them, or anyone else, to defend myself; and yes, I feel contempt for those people who do not have the will to do so. It's not about ability, its about will.
Saying you don't have the physical ability to defend yourself is nothing but an excuse, because weapons are the great equalizer. What you really don't have is the will necessary. You are saying that if someone tries to kill you, or rape you, will do nothing to stop them but flail your arms and scream. Worse, you are not only saying it isn't your responsibility to stop them, but that it IS everyone elses responsiblity.
Yes, I have contempt for you, and I pity you, because no matter what age you are, you have wilfully reduced yourself to no more than a helpless child.
I have no problem with you if you don't want to carry a gun. Lots of people don't want to, for any number of reasons.
But if you believe that you are not responsible enough to carry a gun, what you are saying to me is "I am irresponsible, and cannot be trusted".
If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted with a car, or a knife, or gasoline, or household cleaners... You certainly can't be trusted around my kids.
You are saying that the only thing preventing you from doing wrong, is that you don't have the tools to do so; and I don't want you around me.
All that said, you and I don't have a problem with each other. You live your way and I'll live mine... just stay away from me, and my kids.
If you think that because you are not responsible enough, no-one is; you are simply dead wrong. You may not be responsible enough, but plenty of us are.
Perhaps you can learn for yourself that you are wrong.
Talk to a responsible gun owner. Go out shooting with them. It's fun, and maybe you'll learn something. Guns aren't magic, they're just inanimate objects. Two pounds of metal, with no will, and no intent. They're tools; and just like any other tools, they can be used or misused.
If, after learning a little bit about guns and safety, and gun ownership, you still decide that you are not personally responsible enough... I respect your decision, and your self awareness; but you should understand that just because you are not mature or responsible enough for gun ownership, doesn't mean I am not.
If you believe that YOU personally are responsible enough, and police and the military are responsible enough, but the rest of the law abiding citizens of this country are not...
...Well then there's no help for you.
Friday, December 30, 2011
On the desk right now...
Glock: The Rise of Americas Gun by Paul Barrett
I met Mr. Barrett earlier this year, at the Gunblogger Rendezvous, and had a great time taling about guns with him, and shooting with him.
Ill be reviewing the book next week. I got this review sample for free from the publisher; so, if I like the book (and I think I will, based on the discussions I had with the author, and on the earlier reviews I've read - not coincidentally all by friends in the gunblogger community) I'll be buying my own copy, and passing this one on to a reader.
I met Mr. Barrett earlier this year, at the Gunblogger Rendezvous, and had a great time taling about guns with him, and shooting with him.
Ill be reviewing the book next week. I got this review sample for free from the publisher; so, if I like the book (and I think I will, based on the discussions I had with the author, and on the earlier reviews I've read - not coincidentally all by friends in the gunblogger community) I'll be buying my own copy, and passing this one on to a reader.
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Yes I'm on my way
Though in this case, I do actually know where I'm goin.
I'm going to Reno, to the Gun Blogger Rendezvous, and I'm leaving in about an hour.
Unfortunately, I'm driving up from San Francisco, so no shooty goodness with me; but there's always plenty to play with there anyway.
If you're coming, see you there. If not... YOU SHOULD BE.
I'm going to Reno, to the Gun Blogger Rendezvous, and I'm leaving in about an hour.
Unfortunately, I'm driving up from San Francisco, so no shooty goodness with me; but there's always plenty to play with there anyway.
If you're coming, see you there. If not... YOU SHOULD BE.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Happy 1911 day
100 years ago on this day, March 29th, 1911; the United States Army officially adopted the J. Browning self loading pistol design of 1910, manufactured by Colt's firearms (with changes and specifications as amended by the Army ordnance board); as the Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, model of 1911.
And history was forever changed.
Over the past 100 years, the m1911, in all it's variants from all the many manufacturers producing them; has sold more than any other centerfire automatic pistol by far.... With at least 5 million sold.
There were 2 million 1911s made by military contract manufacturers for WW2 alone.
Including all variants and all manufacturers, the number is most likely far, far more than 5 million. I'd wager it's more like 10 million sold, given that we know (from excise tax records compiled by the ATF) we manufacture about 150,000 1911 variants every year in the U.S. alone, and have (or more) every year since the mid 80s (when the current 1911 boom began).
Really, no other single design even comes close... in fact, even at the lower estimates, the 1911 has probably sold more than the entire centerfire auto product line of any other manufacturer... or even any two manufacturers.
(That's if we limit it to centerfire automatic pistols only. Otherwise S&W would have the 1911 beat with revolvers; and Ruger with .22s. The Ruger Mark1/2/3 etc... .22 is by far the highest selling rimfire auto pistol; at around 3 million sold. Combine that with Rugers .22 revolvers and you've probably got over 5 million).
Glock has sold about 3 million pistols of every model and variant world wide. S&W has sold around 12 million handguns, but less than 1/4 of those have been automatics (and at least a hundred thousand of them have been 1911s). Ruger has sold about 10 million handguns, but less than 1/4 of those are centerfire automatics. SIG and Berretta have both sold about 3 million handguns each. HK has sold about a half million handguns (that's a very rough estimate based on internet sources, since they don't publish figures, and don't have the large military contracts that other manufacturers do, to allow for better estimates). Walther and other manufacturers made about a million p38s for WW2 (surprisingly, I dont think even 200,000 Lugers were made from 1908 til today). Browning has sold about 2 million centerfire auto pistols, about half of which are hi-powers, and the majority of those to foreign militaries.
Something like 7 million new guns are sold in the united states every year; about 1/8th of which are centerfire handguns (fully half are .22s; and about 3/4 overall are long guns), and about 3/4 of those automatics. So, out of about 660,000 total centerfire auto pistols sold every year, about 150,000, or one out of every 4.4, is a 1911.The 1911, has been issued to more soldiers, and been used to kill more of our nations enemies, than any other sidearm.
Although I have no hard numbers on the topic, I feel safe in saying it has defended more civilian lives, than any other hand gun... or at the very least any other automatic (the K frame smith might beat it).
Also, and there is absolutely no doubt about the numbers here: variants of the 1911 have won more competitions and championships than all other handguns COMBINED.
Is it a perfect weapon? No of course, there's no such thing; but it's a damn fine one.
The 1911 simply has the best trigger of any auto pistol, period. No other single action trigger can be made better than a well worked 1911 trigger; no matter how expert the smith (though 1950s S&W revolvers worked by a master can come close). It still has among the best, if not the best, feel in the hand and general ergonomics of any auto pistol.
The 1911 platform provides you a useful defensive handgun from the subcompact to the longslide size, slimline short grip, or a full size doublestack holding up to 20 rounds; and it does it all looking great (ok, some of those doublestackers can be kinda funny lookin...).
Personally... the 1911 is my first choice for both a combat and a competition handgun (that is, for me personally. If choosing for a large military or police organization, I would choose differently, because the 1911 is for people who train a lot with their handguns. With lower standards of weapon handling, marksmanship, and weapon maintenance, the 1911 is a suboptimal choice). I carry one most every day; and most of the serious gunnies I know make the same choice (at least part time anyway).
I believe I've put more rounds downrange, by far, with 1911s than any other handgun; including .22s... (and I only make the handgun only qualification because of the number of machine gun rounds I've fired. If we're excluding full auto I'm pretty sure that includes rifles as well). 1911s, still make up the majority of my handgun shooting today.
The thought that a firearm designed 100 years ago, can still be the best selling handgun in the United States (and excluding military sales, the world), every single year... that's absolutely mind blowing.
So, happy 1911 day, and heres an unfortunately short selection of my writings on 1911s (short because for some reason most of my posts about 1911s aren't tagged properly):
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/search/label/1911
Friday, October 08, 2010
Gamers, Cheaters, and Assholes
This started off as a comment on one of Calebs posts, but got a little long so I decided to move it over here
I'm pretty much with Caleb on this one... though I don't know if this guy was a cheater, or just an asshole.
Either one, I don't want to shoot with.
When I shot IDPA, I shot what I carried, with the rig I carried in. At times, what I was carrying didn't fit within IDPA rules at the time (especially when there was still a limited holster list). If that meant I didn't score for that day, that was fine with me; it was still good practice.
...BUT everyone knew what I was doing BEFORE I did it.
I've also discussed with SOs BEFORE my run, that I wasn't going to use the stage reload rules; that I was running it for trigger time under pressure, and didn't want to play the game rules, because I didn't think it was sound practice (sometimes the stage designers liked to get cute with partial mag reloads, retains, and then using the retained mag etc...).
Frankly, if the SO is expecting you to conform to a pattern and you don't, that could be a safety hazard; never mind it just being common courtesy.
I have always viewed IDPA primarily as a good exercise in training under pressure; and cared a lot more about doing what I felt was tactically correct, rather than what the stage designer wanted.
BUT I ALWAYS talked with the SO before the run, and let them know beforehand. In fact, I usually talked with the other shooters and the SOs at the briefing. If anybody had a problem with it (which only happened a couple of times) then I ran the stage by the rules, or I didn't run it at all.
That said, that's what I'M there for, personally; not necessarily what everyone else is there for. They don't need to accomodate me in my preferences, I'm playing on their range, with their time, and I need to make sure that I'm playing by their rules, or at the least with their permission.
I have no problem with someone who is playing the game. That's the point of the rules. Thats why they time and score and publish the results. It's a competition, with structure and rules. Faulting someone for competing to the rules, because you don't like the rules, is asinine.
The idiots who act like anyone playing the game is "just a gamer" and not worth respecting... Well, I have a few less polite words for them.
Fine. You don't want to "play games", and you're always tactically correct etc... Great for you... but why on earth do you think you have the right to screw with anyone elses fun, or training, or competition, or for that matter any other damn thing they please?
But those people, are just assholes, not cheaters.
Sadly, there are a lot of assholes out there.
Now... for those who purport to be playing the game, and then don't follow the rules, to gain advantage? THOSE are cheaters, and they are beneath contempt.
There's an old saying, "If you didn't win, you didn't cheat hard enough"... and under certain circumstances I'm an ardent practitioner of that policy; but when you AGREE to play a GAME, you agree to follow the rules.
In my still young IDPA career, I’ve been called a “gamer” a lot. In IDPA circles that usually means someone that treats IDPA as a game to be won, and will work within the full extent of the rules to win. For example, a “gamer” will ask the SO during the walk-through very specific questions about where they’re considered behind cover, if they’re allowed to load on the move in certain areas, etc. The reason for this is that a gamer doesn’t want to cheat – but they certainly want to win.
Cheating is an entirely different concept. A cheater is someone who is aware of the rules and simply doesn’t care – whether they’re the rules on reloading or the rules on magazine capacity, this person simply ignores them. In 3 years of shooting IDPA, I had never encountered a true cheater until recently, and it was a completely flabbergasting experience to me. I can honestly say that I’ve never seen someone openly defy IDPA rules, get a procedural and they say that they “don’t care”.
I'm pretty much with Caleb on this one... though I don't know if this guy was a cheater, or just an asshole.
Either one, I don't want to shoot with.
When I shot IDPA, I shot what I carried, with the rig I carried in. At times, what I was carrying didn't fit within IDPA rules at the time (especially when there was still a limited holster list). If that meant I didn't score for that day, that was fine with me; it was still good practice.
...BUT everyone knew what I was doing BEFORE I did it.
I've also discussed with SOs BEFORE my run, that I wasn't going to use the stage reload rules; that I was running it for trigger time under pressure, and didn't want to play the game rules, because I didn't think it was sound practice (sometimes the stage designers liked to get cute with partial mag reloads, retains, and then using the retained mag etc...).
Frankly, if the SO is expecting you to conform to a pattern and you don't, that could be a safety hazard; never mind it just being common courtesy.
I have always viewed IDPA primarily as a good exercise in training under pressure; and cared a lot more about doing what I felt was tactically correct, rather than what the stage designer wanted.
BUT I ALWAYS talked with the SO before the run, and let them know beforehand. In fact, I usually talked with the other shooters and the SOs at the briefing. If anybody had a problem with it (which only happened a couple of times) then I ran the stage by the rules, or I didn't run it at all.
That said, that's what I'M there for, personally; not necessarily what everyone else is there for. They don't need to accomodate me in my preferences, I'm playing on their range, with their time, and I need to make sure that I'm playing by their rules, or at the least with their permission.
I have no problem with someone who is playing the game. That's the point of the rules. Thats why they time and score and publish the results. It's a competition, with structure and rules. Faulting someone for competing to the rules, because you don't like the rules, is asinine.
The idiots who act like anyone playing the game is "just a gamer" and not worth respecting... Well, I have a few less polite words for them.
Fine. You don't want to "play games", and you're always tactically correct etc... Great for you... but why on earth do you think you have the right to screw with anyone elses fun, or training, or competition, or for that matter any other damn thing they please?
But those people, are just assholes, not cheaters.
Sadly, there are a lot of assholes out there.
Now... for those who purport to be playing the game, and then don't follow the rules, to gain advantage? THOSE are cheaters, and they are beneath contempt.
There's an old saying, "If you didn't win, you didn't cheat hard enough"... and under certain circumstances I'm an ardent practitioner of that policy; but when you AGREE to play a GAME, you agree to follow the rules.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Just a couple good things about living in Arizona
Earlier today, a new Arizona Senate Resolution was introduced with 17 cosponsors (more than half the senate), covering several areas of crime law, firearms laws, victims rights and other areas... Kind of a kitchen sink bill.... but a couple of nice provisions are in there including:
Now that would be good enough... but it gets even better... the sections in red below are deletions:
So yes, that means it would no longer be a crime to carry concealed without a permit in this state.
It's a big bill, the full text is posted here, and it includes a number of other very gun friendly provisions. Given the number of cosponsors it looks like it's going to pass at least the senate (we have a bicameral legislature here, 30 in the senate - 28 republican - and 60 in the house - 35 republican - so it will still have to pass the house, but it's likely to), and if it does pass both houses, it's likely the governor will sign it.
The only holdup is an administrative issue, in that we cant address any other bills until we pass a budget, and that seems unlikely to happen any time soon, given the state is completely bankrupt.
It's still more complicated and restrictive than it should be, but it shows that sometimes, you really can take freedom back without the bloody reset.
Sec. 3. Section 12-714, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
START_STATUTE12-714. Actions against firearm manufacturers; prohibition; findings; definitions
A. A political subdivision of this state shall not commence a qualified civil liability action in any Arizona court.
B. The legislature finds that:
1. The citizens of this state have the right, under the second amendment to the United States Constitution and article 2 II, section 26 of the Arizona Constitution, to keep and bear arms.
2. Lawsuits have been commenced against the manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of nondefective firearms for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.
3. Businesses in the United States that are engaged in the lawful sale to the public of firearms or ammunition are not, and should not be liable for the harm caused by those who unlawfully misuse firearms or ammunition.
4. The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is the sole responsibility of others is an abuse of the legal system, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and constitutes an unreasonable burden on the free enterprise system.
5. The liability actions commenced by political subdivisions are based on theories without foundation in the common law and American jurisprudence. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of this state under both the Constitution of Arizona and the United States Constitution.
Now that would be good enough... but it gets even better... the sections in red below are deletions:
Sec. 6. Section 13-3102, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions
A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:
1. Carrying a deadly weapon without a permit pursuant to section 13‑3112 except a pocket knife concealed on his person; or
2. Carrying a deadly weapon without a permit pursuant to section 13‑3112 concealed within immediate control of any person in or on a means of transportation; or
So yes, that means it would no longer be a crime to carry concealed without a permit in this state.
It's a big bill, the full text is posted here, and it includes a number of other very gun friendly provisions. Given the number of cosponsors it looks like it's going to pass at least the senate (we have a bicameral legislature here, 30 in the senate - 28 republican - and 60 in the house - 35 republican - so it will still have to pass the house, but it's likely to), and if it does pass both houses, it's likely the governor will sign it.
The only holdup is an administrative issue, in that we cant address any other bills until we pass a budget, and that seems unlikely to happen any time soon, given the state is completely bankrupt.
It's still more complicated and restrictive than it should be, but it shows that sometimes, you really can take freedom back without the bloody reset.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Come and Take Them
Happy birthday to me.I'd been planning a Molon Labe tat for a while, and it was my birthday, so what the hell.
This one wraps about 1/3 the way around the bottom of my left bicep (centered with the other two tats on that arm). I've cropped it tight here because the pic itself was kind of cluttered. Oh and the distortion is from using a non macro lens at minimum distance, not in the tattoo itself.
I took the lettering from this distinctive marble cut in the monument to the Spartans at Thermopylae:
I'm definitely happier with the Cadmian, pre-Romaniszation style Greek lettering, than the modern Romanized greek you usually see.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
H-S Precision Update
Well, it appears that H-S precision has taken the "non-apology apology" down off their website. I can only hope it is because they understand that they've screwed up even worse, and are doing their best to fix things...
I hope... but I'm not optimistic.
Also, I haven't yet heard back from my contacts at Brownells or MidwayUSA as to what their final statements on the issue will be. Earlier this week they were both planning on releasing statements, but I haven't seen anything yet.
I'm hoping H-S isn't trying to play hardball and threaten lawsuits etc... if anyone releases a statement denigrating or condemning them...
Again, I'm hoping, but I'm not optimistic.
I hope... but I'm not optimistic.
Also, I haven't yet heard back from my contacts at Brownells or MidwayUSA as to what their final statements on the issue will be. Earlier this week they were both planning on releasing statements, but I haven't seen anything yet.
I'm hoping H-S isn't trying to play hardball and threaten lawsuits etc... if anyone releases a statement denigrating or condemning them...
Again, I'm hoping, but I'm not optimistic.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Precisely Wrong
Apologies, while they may hurt the pride (or the pocketbook) are easy.
A simple "I'm sorry. I screwed up. I'll fix it, and try not to do it again"... it isn't hard.
A sincere apology goes a long way.
Some people though, seem to be incapable of apologizing. Oh they may seem to say they're sorry, but... no that's not quite right is it...
"I'm sorry you were offended"... ummm, wait a sec... That's not actually saying you're sorry is it now... in fact that's rather saying "I'm sorry you were a whiny oversensitive idiot. It's not my fault, but I'm saying this to placate you"... or something like that anyway...
Last Monday, it came to the attention of the online gun community at large, that H-S Precision, a leading manufacturer of stocks for precision rifles, had sought out the endorsement of the former head of the FBI hostage rescue team sniper program.
This of course seems a natural thing, given that the FBI is a prestigious organization, HRT is an elite unite within the FBI, and that they use H-S precision stocks; this would be a great endorsement normally...
... but for one rather large thing; which has the online firearms community incensed, and calling for the boycott of H-S precision:
The former head of the sniper programs name, is Lon Horiuchi.
Why does this matter? What's in a name? Why are so many people so angry?
Lon Horiuchi is widely considered a murderer by American gun owners. He was in fact tried for manslaughter, but his bosses in the FBI and department of justice made charges go away by claiming a jurisdictional issue.
You see, Lon Horiuchi was the sniper who killed Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, while she was holding her infant in her arms.
Some background on the incident from an earlier post of mine, "Murder by Incompetence" from August 23rd 2007:
By the laws of most states, Horiuchis actions would be charged as manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, or second degree murder (again, depending on the state, and the exact totality of the circumstances).
The standard by which criminal negligence is decided in most states is thus (or similar): If the defendant knew or should have known, that their actions could result in a criminal act or criminal harm, then they are guilty of criminal negligence.
Further, some states have a concept of depraved indifference; where if one could reasonably foresee unjustified grave harm coming as a consequence of an act, and does it anyway, one is either criminally negligent, or worse. Some states elevate depraved indifference homicide to the same level as deliberate murder.
Lon Horiuchi knew, or should have known, that his rules of engagement were unlawful and unconstitutional. You cannot excuse "just following orders" when those orders are clearly unlawful. He acted on those orders, even though he could reasonably forsee unjustified grave harm coming to those subjects he was engaging.
He acted on those orders, and an unarmed woman with a baby in her arms died.
Based on this, Boundary county Idaho prosecuted him.
They indicted him, and brought him to trial; however the trial was ended and charges were ordered dismissed by a federal judge, who ruled that Boundary county couldn't try Horiuchi because he was a federal agent acting in the scope of his duties as an FBI agent; and that any prosecution would have to be at a federal level (the supremacy doctrine).
Idaho petitioned the US attorney and attorney general to prosecute Horiuchi, but they declined on the grounds of sovereign immunity (an agent of the state - specifically in this case a law enforcement officer - cannot be criminally prosecuted for acting within their duties, so long as they acted in good faith, and without negligence).
Idahos argument was that sovereign immunity did not apply, because the shots taken did not follow the FBIs shoot/no-shoot guidelines, or lethal force guidelines, and because the rules of engagement were clearly unlawful; however the FBI formally disagreed, stating that it was the onsite commanders call, and that Horiuchi behaved appropriately and in good faith.
As charging is at the discretion of the US attorney of the state, or of the attorney general (at that point Janet Reno); and feeling that the FBI had adequately dealt with the situation internally, they declined to prosecute.
Idaho then appealed the judges decision on the supremacy doctrine, and won; clearing the way to try Horiuchi again. However, by this time, several years had passed, a new county prosecutor was in place, the FBI was stonewalling, and the justice department was pressuring the state and county very hard to drop the case; so Boundary county declined to refile.
I realize this is a lot of background matieral; but you need to understand why it is that so many people are so upset about this.
Lon Horiuchi killed a woman with a baby in her arms, without justification, while acting as a sniper during an unlawful operation; and acting under unlawful and unconstitutional orders. He was charged, and tried, but got off on an administrative technicality and through political pressure...
... and a company making equipment for snipers, published a full page endorsement from him on the back of their catalog.
As has been said, that's a lot like having Bull Connor endorse your brand of firehoses.
At best this endorsement is a major gaffe, and a bit tone deaf. At worst, it's a deliberate thumb in the eye to the millions (and it probably is in the low millions. It's certainly at least hundreds of thousands) of Americans who consider Horiuchi a murderer (or something akin to it).
Those people, who just happen to be H-S precisions core customer base. Precision shooting enthusiasts, competitive shooters, the military, and law enforcement. I think if you were to poll all of the above, all of us (and I'm certainly in that group), even the majority of law enforcement snipers (and yes I'm sure every last one of them is familiar with the incident), would find this endorsement at the least stupid, and more likely offensive.
As it turns out however, the president of H-S precision, Tom Houghton Jr., is old friends with Horiuchi. In fact, it was in part that friendship which led to the FBI using H-S precision stocks on their sniper rifles.
You might say that Tom Houghton "owes one" to Horiuchi.
Clearly, the company knew about the incident, and knew about the opinion of the gun owning public; and did it anyway.
Now I'm speculating here, but based on the companies actions I think I'm justified in saying they did this because as far as president of H-S precision is concerned, his friend did nothing wrong.
Of course they did not state this publicly, as this would be suicide.
H-S precisions single largest customer is Remington Arms; who use H-S precision stocks on their factory custom rifles, their special police and marksman rifles, and their tactical rifles. All in all I believe Remington accounts for about 1/3 of H-S precisions business.
Last February, a gentleman by the name of Jim Zumbo; a 30 year veteran writer and hunting editor for outdoor life, and television host for the outdoor life channel, who had been sponsored by Remington for over 20 years; wrote a post for his Remington sponsored blog, in which he described the most popular centerfire semi-automatic rifle in the united states, the AR-15, as a "terrorist gun".
In this article Zumbo said that there was no legitimate use for an AR (or other "evil black rifles") and called for the AR to be banned from civilian hands; because the mere fact that they are available threatens his own preferred "hunting" guns.
Within hours of the post going up, outdoor life and Remington had received tens of thousands of emails and telephone calls. Over the next few days letters poured in.
Zumbo made one of those non-apology apologies, basically saying "hey sorry I upset you, but I didn't do anything wrong".
The very next day, outdoor life canceled his longstanding column, terminated him as hunting editor, and dropped him from their TV network. Remington canceled Zumbos sponsorship deals; and all his other sponsors followed suit.
Last week, the CEO of Remington Tommy Milner said the following:
They have unfortunately been oddly silent.
The morning after the story broke (I read it about 9pm the day of) I called H-S precision, but got voicemail. I left messages for both sales, and marketing; explaining that I was a customer of theirs, and also a writer and editor of several web sites, and I wanted to hear from them regarding the endorsement as soon as possible.
I called back this week, and again got nothing but voicemail. They have not been granting any requests for comment, or interviews for the now thousands of inquiries they have recieved; apparently including not responding to their major vendors and customers (according to people inside said vendors and customers; of course unofficially).
In fact, they have said exactly nothing for nearly two weeks since the story broke... until yesterday.
I've been waiting to write anything about this story until we'd heard from H-S officially.
Yesterday, H-S Precision released the following statement:
Clealry they are saying "well, we don't think we did anythign wrong, but we're sorry you were offended".
To add insult to injury, they did not send this to anyone directly, nor respond to any questions. They quietly put up a small "news" link in the upper right corner of their website, and released that statement without fanfare... perhaps hoping no-one would notice?
We noticed.
In the mere hours since this statement was released, even those who had previously been defending H-S precision have been calling for a boycott of their products... even going so far as to call for a boycott on anyone selling H-S Precision products, or otherwise doing business with them (such as Brownells and Midway USA).
On my part, I'll be canceling my order with them on Monday. I was waiting for the statement, now I have it, and I'm showing them exactly what I think about it.
I can only speculate about what the reaction of the rest of H-S's customers will be; but I predict this will be the end of the company.
This non-apology is in fact WORSE than Zumbos, because it is insincere and disingenuous; and because H-S precisions KNEW exactly what they were saying and doing than and now, and knew what our reaction (and yes I share it) as gun owners would be.
I expect we'll hear from Tommy Milner on Monday, announcing they have canceled their contracts with H-S. There may be legal wrangling involved, but Remington knows that they won't be selling another precision/tactical rifle with an H-S stock on it; or at least not to the non-leo/military market (government contracts are a lot harder to change).
I expect we'll also hear from Midway USA and Brownells (their two largest distributors) shortly thereafter, announcing they are dropping H-S.
Right now, there is exactly one thing H-S precision could do to save the company, if they're lucky: They could issue a statement condemning Lon Horiuchi, and his and the FBIs actions at Ruby Ridge; and profusely and sincerely apologizing to the Weaver family, and to the gun owning public for being so stupid and offensive.
Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. I think Tom Houghton really believes that he did nothing wrong, and neither did his friend Lon Horiuchi.
This mans pride is going to kill his company.
Oh and Jim Zumbo? He's back at outdoor life (though he's no longer the hunting editor) and he's back on TV. He educated himself about the issue, and made a sincere apology, and to an extent, he has been forgiven (he will never be totally forgiven, nor totally trusted. That's just the way gunnies are).
A sincere apology sometimes goes a long way.
A simple "I'm sorry. I screwed up. I'll fix it, and try not to do it again"... it isn't hard.
A sincere apology goes a long way.
Some people though, seem to be incapable of apologizing. Oh they may seem to say they're sorry, but... no that's not quite right is it...
"I'm sorry you were offended"... ummm, wait a sec... That's not actually saying you're sorry is it now... in fact that's rather saying "I'm sorry you were a whiny oversensitive idiot. It's not my fault, but I'm saying this to placate you"... or something like that anyway...
Last Monday, it came to the attention of the online gun community at large, that H-S Precision, a leading manufacturer of stocks for precision rifles, had sought out the endorsement of the former head of the FBI hostage rescue team sniper program.
This of course seems a natural thing, given that the FBI is a prestigious organization, HRT is an elite unite within the FBI, and that they use H-S precision stocks; this would be a great endorsement normally...
... but for one rather large thing; which has the online firearms community incensed, and calling for the boycott of H-S precision:
The former head of the sniper programs name, is Lon Horiuchi.
Why does this matter? What's in a name? Why are so many people so angry?
Lon Horiuchi is widely considered a murderer by American gun owners. He was in fact tried for manslaughter, but his bosses in the FBI and department of justice made charges go away by claiming a jurisdictional issue.
You see, Lon Horiuchi was the sniper who killed Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, while she was holding her infant in her arms.
Some background on the incident from an earlier post of mine, "Murder by Incompetence" from August 23rd 2007:
As you can see, I don't personally consider Horiuchi a murderer; however it is abundantly clear, that he committed an unjustified homicide; which can be construed as several different crimes, depending on the totality of the circumstances, and the exact laws of the jurisdiction.
Yesterday was the 15th anniversary of the murder of Vicki Weaver by the FBI; and the day before, was the anniversary of her sons murder by US Marshals acting in concert with the ATF.
Yes, I said murdered by the government. Not just killed, but murdered. A crime was committed; and it has never been properly redressed.
Much of the attention and blame for this crime has fallen on Lon Horiuchi, the sniper who took the shot that Killed Vicki Weaver. I won't excuse what he did (he should have known better), but he was operating on very bad information, very bad orders, and under what I would consider clearly unlawful rules of engagement.
The greater culpability for this incident lies in the US marshals who were initially on scene; and from the FBI, HRT commander Richard Rogers, SAC Eugene Glenn, and deputy directory Larry Potts; who took over the scene after Kevin Harris killed deputy marshal William Degan in self defense.
On the morning of August 21st, during a botched surveillance operation; deputy US marshal Art Roderick fired at Sammy Weaver (Randy Weavers son) and Kevin Harris, or at their dog striker (this is unclear); killing the dog, and drawing return defensive fire from Weaver and Harris.
Deputy marshals Roderick, Degan, Frank Norris and Larry Cooper then opened fire on Weaver and Harris. Degan shot and wounded both Weaver and Harris, at which point Harris shot back directly at Degan, killing him. In retaliation, deputy marshal Cooper then shot Sammy Weaver; killing him.
At no time in this engagement, did the deputies serve a warrant, or identify themselves as marshals.
When the marshals called in the FBI, the situation they described to the SAC, was an outright lie. They informed the SAC and the HRT commander that the Weavers were radical religious fanatics, part of a white supremacist holy war cult; that all members of the family were armed and ready to fight at all times, and that they were going to kill their children and themselves rather than surrender.
The marshals also told the SAC that they had been pinned down for 12 hours by heavy small arms fire, and possibly automatic weapons; and that William Degan had been deliberately murdered.
Based on this outright lie, the FBI instituted rules of engagement to allow any adult with a weapon to be shot on sight. These ROE were clearly unlawful, and should have been rejected by the onsite agents (and a judge decided that as well later); instead HRT acted on them for a full day.
Within a few hours, the FBI chain of command knew that the marshals had lied; but they did not change the illegal rules of engagement until after Horiuchi had already fired several shots at Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris (wounding both). Horiuchis final shot at Harris missed him, and struck Vicki Weaver who was standing in the doorway that Harris was entering, holding her infant child.
I believe that Lon Horiuchi was negligent in his actions that day in firing through the doorway; and he was derelict in his duty to the constitution when he accepted the unlawful rules of engagement; but he did not commit deliberate murder.
It seems clear to me however that the marshals wanted revenge for the killing of William Degan, and to cover up their own unlawful acts and incompetence. In furtherance of this, they deliberately mislead the FBI in the hopes that the Weavers would be killed, and there would be no witnesses left alive to their crimes.
There is no doubt that Larry Cooper murdered Sammy Weaver, by shooting him (under whatever circumstances), while attempting to cover up the crimes and incompeteance of he and his colleagues. Further, there is no doubt that the US marshalls lied to the FBI in order to cover up their incompetence, and possibly their crimes.
At the very least, they should be tried for manslaughter, if not second degree murder; in the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver.
Additionally, SAC Glenn, SAC Rogers and deputy director Potts knew that the rules of engagement instituted that day were illegal, unconstitutional, and unjustified. They should never have instituted those rules; but even in so doing, once they found they had been misled by the marshals they had an absolute duty to rescind them.
They did not do so, and their incompetence and misfeasance of duty directly caused the murder of Vicki Weaver.
Given these circumstances, Lon Horiuchi has been saddled, somewhat unfairly, with the majority of the burden of these crimes. I simply believe this is incorrect.
Horiuchi committed negligent homicide; but I believe his chain of command showed a depraved indifference to the lives of the Weavers, based on their political beliefs; and therefore committed second degree murder, or first degree manslaughter (depending on the laws of Idaho, which I am unfamiliar with).
By the laws of most states, Horiuchis actions would be charged as manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, or second degree murder (again, depending on the state, and the exact totality of the circumstances).
The standard by which criminal negligence is decided in most states is thus (or similar): If the defendant knew or should have known, that their actions could result in a criminal act or criminal harm, then they are guilty of criminal negligence.
Further, some states have a concept of depraved indifference; where if one could reasonably foresee unjustified grave harm coming as a consequence of an act, and does it anyway, one is either criminally negligent, or worse. Some states elevate depraved indifference homicide to the same level as deliberate murder.
Lon Horiuchi knew, or should have known, that his rules of engagement were unlawful and unconstitutional. You cannot excuse "just following orders" when those orders are clearly unlawful. He acted on those orders, even though he could reasonably forsee unjustified grave harm coming to those subjects he was engaging.
He acted on those orders, and an unarmed woman with a baby in her arms died.
Based on this, Boundary county Idaho prosecuted him.
They indicted him, and brought him to trial; however the trial was ended and charges were ordered dismissed by a federal judge, who ruled that Boundary county couldn't try Horiuchi because he was a federal agent acting in the scope of his duties as an FBI agent; and that any prosecution would have to be at a federal level (the supremacy doctrine).
Idaho petitioned the US attorney and attorney general to prosecute Horiuchi, but they declined on the grounds of sovereign immunity (an agent of the state - specifically in this case a law enforcement officer - cannot be criminally prosecuted for acting within their duties, so long as they acted in good faith, and without negligence).
Idahos argument was that sovereign immunity did not apply, because the shots taken did not follow the FBIs shoot/no-shoot guidelines, or lethal force guidelines, and because the rules of engagement were clearly unlawful; however the FBI formally disagreed, stating that it was the onsite commanders call, and that Horiuchi behaved appropriately and in good faith.
As charging is at the discretion of the US attorney of the state, or of the attorney general (at that point Janet Reno); and feeling that the FBI had adequately dealt with the situation internally, they declined to prosecute.
Idaho then appealed the judges decision on the supremacy doctrine, and won; clearing the way to try Horiuchi again. However, by this time, several years had passed, a new county prosecutor was in place, the FBI was stonewalling, and the justice department was pressuring the state and county very hard to drop the case; so Boundary county declined to refile.
I realize this is a lot of background matieral; but you need to understand why it is that so many people are so upset about this.
Lon Horiuchi killed a woman with a baby in her arms, without justification, while acting as a sniper during an unlawful operation; and acting under unlawful and unconstitutional orders. He was charged, and tried, but got off on an administrative technicality and through political pressure...
... and a company making equipment for snipers, published a full page endorsement from him on the back of their catalog.
As has been said, that's a lot like having Bull Connor endorse your brand of firehoses.
At best this endorsement is a major gaffe, and a bit tone deaf. At worst, it's a deliberate thumb in the eye to the millions (and it probably is in the low millions. It's certainly at least hundreds of thousands) of Americans who consider Horiuchi a murderer (or something akin to it).
Those people, who just happen to be H-S precisions core customer base. Precision shooting enthusiasts, competitive shooters, the military, and law enforcement. I think if you were to poll all of the above, all of us (and I'm certainly in that group), even the majority of law enforcement snipers (and yes I'm sure every last one of them is familiar with the incident), would find this endorsement at the least stupid, and more likely offensive.
As it turns out however, the president of H-S precision, Tom Houghton Jr., is old friends with Horiuchi. In fact, it was in part that friendship which led to the FBI using H-S precision stocks on their sniper rifles.
You might say that Tom Houghton "owes one" to Horiuchi.
Clearly, the company knew about the incident, and knew about the opinion of the gun owning public; and did it anyway.
Now I'm speculating here, but based on the companies actions I think I'm justified in saying they did this because as far as president of H-S precision is concerned, his friend did nothing wrong.
Of course they did not state this publicly, as this would be suicide.
H-S precisions single largest customer is Remington Arms; who use H-S precision stocks on their factory custom rifles, their special police and marksman rifles, and their tactical rifles. All in all I believe Remington accounts for about 1/3 of H-S precisions business.
Last February, a gentleman by the name of Jim Zumbo; a 30 year veteran writer and hunting editor for outdoor life, and television host for the outdoor life channel, who had been sponsored by Remington for over 20 years; wrote a post for his Remington sponsored blog, in which he described the most popular centerfire semi-automatic rifle in the united states, the AR-15, as a "terrorist gun".
In this article Zumbo said that there was no legitimate use for an AR (or other "evil black rifles") and called for the AR to be banned from civilian hands; because the mere fact that they are available threatens his own preferred "hunting" guns.
Within hours of the post going up, outdoor life and Remington had received tens of thousands of emails and telephone calls. Over the next few days letters poured in.
Zumbo made one of those non-apology apologies, basically saying "hey sorry I upset you, but I didn't do anything wrong".
The very next day, outdoor life canceled his longstanding column, terminated him as hunting editor, and dropped him from their TV network. Remington canceled Zumbos sponsorship deals; and all his other sponsors followed suit.
Last week, the CEO of Remington Tommy Milner said the following:
I happen to agree with Tommy Milner, H-S precision makes a good product. In fact, I had ordered a customized stock from them for my 1000 yard rifle project.
Because its thanksgiving and everyone is off, we have not made contact with HS. We have taken any reference to HS from our web site..
When you first emailed me I honestly did not recall horiuchi's name so you caught me unawares. I also do not read the blogs so the fact there was an issue came as a surpise.
In any event, HS makes a great product and we are a large customer of theirs. Why they would pick a super controversial spokesperson is beyond me. Doing this violates pure business common sense. Early next week we will use whatever persuasive powers at our disposal to get HS to do the right thing..
Do me a favor and tell those on the bolgs that Remington and I are now fully aware of the issue, in full agreement with the outrage, and will do what we can t exert pressure on HS to reverse course.
Thanks
Tommy
They have unfortunately been oddly silent.
The morning after the story broke (I read it about 9pm the day of) I called H-S precision, but got voicemail. I left messages for both sales, and marketing; explaining that I was a customer of theirs, and also a writer and editor of several web sites, and I wanted to hear from them regarding the endorsement as soon as possible.
I called back this week, and again got nothing but voicemail. They have not been granting any requests for comment, or interviews for the now thousands of inquiries they have recieved; apparently including not responding to their major vendors and customers (according to people inside said vendors and customers; of course unofficially).
In fact, they have said exactly nothing for nearly two weeks since the story broke... until yesterday.
I've been waiting to write anything about this story until we'd heard from H-S officially.
Yesterday, H-S Precision released the following statement:
Well, I can see a lot wrong with that statement... first, I think we should strike that "sincerely", because clearly there was nothing sincere about it.
To Our Valued Customers:
H-S Precision has received comments relating to individual testimonials in our 2008 catalog. All of the testimonials focused on the quality, accuracy and customer service provided by H-S Precision.
The management of H-S Precision did not intend to offend anyone or create any type of controversy. We are revising our 2009 catalog and removing all product testimonials.
Sincerely,
The Management of H-S Precision
Clealry they are saying "well, we don't think we did anythign wrong, but we're sorry you were offended".
To add insult to injury, they did not send this to anyone directly, nor respond to any questions. They quietly put up a small "news" link in the upper right corner of their website, and released that statement without fanfare... perhaps hoping no-one would notice?
We noticed.
In the mere hours since this statement was released, even those who had previously been defending H-S precision have been calling for a boycott of their products... even going so far as to call for a boycott on anyone selling H-S Precision products, or otherwise doing business with them (such as Brownells and Midway USA).
On my part, I'll be canceling my order with them on Monday. I was waiting for the statement, now I have it, and I'm showing them exactly what I think about it.
I can only speculate about what the reaction of the rest of H-S's customers will be; but I predict this will be the end of the company.
This non-apology is in fact WORSE than Zumbos, because it is insincere and disingenuous; and because H-S precisions KNEW exactly what they were saying and doing than and now, and knew what our reaction (and yes I share it) as gun owners would be.
I expect we'll hear from Tommy Milner on Monday, announcing they have canceled their contracts with H-S. There may be legal wrangling involved, but Remington knows that they won't be selling another precision/tactical rifle with an H-S stock on it; or at least not to the non-leo/military market (government contracts are a lot harder to change).
I expect we'll also hear from Midway USA and Brownells (their two largest distributors) shortly thereafter, announcing they are dropping H-S.
Right now, there is exactly one thing H-S precision could do to save the company, if they're lucky: They could issue a statement condemning Lon Horiuchi, and his and the FBIs actions at Ruby Ridge; and profusely and sincerely apologizing to the Weaver family, and to the gun owning public for being so stupid and offensive.
Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. I think Tom Houghton really believes that he did nothing wrong, and neither did his friend Lon Horiuchi.
This mans pride is going to kill his company.
Oh and Jim Zumbo? He's back at outdoor life (though he's no longer the hunting editor) and he's back on TV. He educated himself about the issue, and made a sincere apology, and to an extent, he has been forgiven (he will never be totally forgiven, nor totally trusted. That's just the way gunnies are).
A sincere apology sometimes goes a long way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)