Another form of shooting brace

For handguns. Apparently it’s “not an NFA item” because it doesn’t actually attach to the handgun. SO if you duct tape it…

It seems like an OK idea on the surface. Some will of course say that if you “learn to shoot” you won’t need it, that you should be able to get the gun’s inherent accuracy, or near to it, in practice without that kind of support. That’s a nice theory I suppose.

My problem with it would be that the sights are now that much closer and I already have a hard time focusing on the front one as it is unless I’m wearing special corrective lenses or looking through a small aperture. So now I’d need a Glock with a peep sight, which would suck when used at arms length. That or a reflex sight. Or one of those pasty apertures you can stick on your glasses.

Quote of the day—Bernie Sanders

We need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, should not be sold in the United States of America.

Bernie Sanders
July 26, 2015
Bernie Sanders: Racism, Economic Inequality are ‘Parallel Problems’
[Don’t let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns. And don’t let Sanders become president.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Hardy

But don’t grab a weapon, not even pepper spray! “They all sound like a good idea, but again, we don’t know how the burglar will react to seeing an armed person.” No, but we can probably predict how he will react to the impact of 1.25 ounces of 00 buck.

David Hardy
July 26, 2015
Home invasion: some useless advice
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—lzatlanta73

the way I think is let people keep their hunting rifles….there is a need for them (I don’t think there is personally) but make it illegal to own hand guns whose only purpose is to kill people. the military can keep what they want….I hate guns of any kind

July 25, 2015
Comment to Ted Nugent, Allen West call gun control questions ‘inappropriate’ in Lafayette
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Primal Zen

Gun control wouldn’t even work in a utopia… and I don’t know of any utopias that exist.

Primal Zen
June 30, 2015
Comment to Survey: Majority of Americans Not Interested in Gun Control for 2016
[Well… if your utopia is a place where there are no animals capable of making tools I suppose you could say it works. But only because all the tool making animals are extinct rather than you banned firearms.

Strangely enough there are people who think this is a good idea.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

My anti-gun-rights friends — you don’t seem to understand that crimes and atrocities committed by madmen are not valid grounds for infringing on the public’s right to arms — a fundamental freedom. This is why you meet the constant resistance that befuddles and frustrates you.

This is why you meet all the indignant furor and nothing gets done. This is why, from the man currently in the White House to the woman who wants that seat and those who support their anti-rights position, you’re looked down upon. This is why, when you’re literally dancing in the blood of helpless innocent victims, cut down in their prime, you are scorned.

From that insensitive immoral place you come after me and my fellow decent upstanding Americans, with a self-righteous, but more importantly dangerous intention of disarming everyone who didn’t do anything. You don’t need gun control, you need help.

Alan Korwin
July 15, 2015
Church Psychopaths As Law Givers
[Of course Tam said it more succinctly and without trying to be nice to people that aren’t nice to us..—Joe]

Quote of the day—William Jefferson Clinton

The Brady bill will make the streets of America so safe that our nation’s police will not even need to carry guns anymore.

William Jefferson Clinton
On TV, while signing the Brady bill in 1993.
Quoted in Sheriff Richard Mack’s book, The Magic of Gun Control.
[Of course everyone knows now that President Clinton is a pathological liar and surely many people, including some of the supporters of the law, knew this was a lie at the time. What many probably didn’t know was that he even the chief advocates for the law who made far more modest claims about the law have a cultural and long history of lies.

But still there are people that believe the near equivalent of this even though just a little bit of rational thought will yield the conclusion that background checks cannot possible do any net good. People have a strong propensity to believe what they want to believe. And don’t get me started on the prior restraint of a specific enumerated right.

See also Robb Allen’s post on the Clinton quote from a couple of years ago.—Joe

Update: This quote may be one of those too good to be true things. Here is the signing speech.]

Decent pro-con comparison

I found the gun debate presented here close to fair. I wish they would have done some fact checking on the claims of the people/organizations they quote. But overall it is pretty good. It has a collection of facts that could be useful. For example:

The most-recently available total annual spending budgets for gun control groups were $13.7 million collectively (4.7% of the NRA’s 2013 budget): including Everytown for Gun Safety ($4.7 million in 2012); the Brady Campaign ($2.7 million in 2012); the Brady Center ($3.1 million in 2010); Coalition to Stop Gun Violence ($308,761 in 2011); Sandy Hook Promise ($2.2 million in 2013); and the Violence Policy Center ($750,311 in 2012).

It includes a decent history of gun laws and gun organizations.

It’s worth a read.

Reasoning sounds

Anti-gun people attempt to fake rational thought. Here is another example:

In the wake of the July 1 attack in which illegal alien Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez allegedly used a stolen gun to shoot and kill Kathryn Steinle, San Francisco supervisor Mark Farrell is pushing a new gun control law that will require every gun and ammunition sale to be videotaped.

This law will increase the focus on law-abiding citizens who buy guns and ammo–as those are the kinds of transactions that will be videotaped–while completely ignoring the problem of illegal aliens in sanctuary cities using guns, acquired via theft or otherwise, to harm citizens.

To top it off the gun was one in the possession of a Federal agent.

This is crazy talk. But as crazy as this is the sad/disturbing/scary thing is that many people accept and approve of this sort of thing.

It’s as if when confronted with lemons, water, and sugar some politician attempts to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Then a significant number of people want the government to force everyone to eat the sandwiches.

Quote of the day—bajacalla

now we know exactly why Republicans hate gun control laws: it’s just tooooo haaaaaaaaaard!!!!!

July 15, 2015
Comment to Missing From New York’s Gun Control Law
[This is what they think of you.

In addition to reading comprehension apparently punctuation is too hard for this brainiac.—Joe]

Times are changing


The idea that guns provide protection appears to be quickly gaining currency among American blacks. In December, 54 percent of blacks polled by Pew said they believed guns were more likely to protect people than to put their safety at risk. That figure was up from 29 percent two years earlier. For whites, 62 percent said guns protect people, up from 54 percent in 2012.

Those are huge changes in a relatively short time.

It may seem odd to my readers that only about 60% of people think “guns protect people” (poor wording, but everyone should be able to extract the correct meaning from that). But if your only exposure to electricity was lighting bolts and electric chairs you might have a tough time believing someone extoling the virtues of electric lights, heat, and motors. That is essentially the case with people who have been living in “gun-free zones” for decades. The Heller and McDonald decisions, Shall Issue, and Constitutional Carry are having their effect in exposing the true nature of gun ownership. Or should I say exposing the true nature of the anti-gun people?

Quote of the day—Sebastian

If the anti-gun movement had a patron saint, it would be Gladys Kravitz.

July 10, 2015
They Still Have No Idea What They Are Up Against
[While this is very close to true and very funny I’m surprised Sebastian is old enough to know who Gladys Kravitz is. I’m pretty sure he could have only see the reruns while I saw the shows when they first came out.

The part of the Kravitz character that well represents the anti-gun movement is she was a mostly ignored, shrill, annoying, busybody, attempting to get innocent people in trouble. Even her own husband didn’t much care for her. That’s a pretty good characterization of the anti-gun movement.

The aspect of Gladys Kravitz representing the anti-gun movement that is not true is that in the TV show Kravitz actually knew to within a small margin of error what was going on in her neighbors house and told the truth to anyone who would listen. Everyone, except the target of her campaign, thought she was a nutcase. The anti-gun movement is either totally clueless and/or is deliberately lying to the public.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Eric Brakey

When someone with a credible death threat against them has to wait for months before they can carry legally and defend themselves with their jacket on, that says it is not working.

Eric Brakey
Maine State Senator (R-Auburn)
Maine State Police Support Rescinding Concealed Permit Requirement
[When you think about laws and regulations just a little bit you realize anything specific to guns, beyond a few safety rules, are nonsensical.

We have a lot of work left to do but making it easier for people to use their guns without getting into trouble is a step forward. The more people that have and use guns the easier it is for them to realize the magazine restrictions, background checks, registration, and “safe gun” rosters are stupid and infringing upon a specific enumerated right.—Joe]

Bad choices

Daniel Drew has some good points:

The Charleston church shooting flooded newsrooms around the world. Did the killer act alone? How much did he really hate black people? Should we burn every Confederate flag in the country? When will another racist strike next? Stay tuned for more! After reading this, one would assume there was an evil Confederate in every town, ready to open fire on every family in America. The reality is much different. The greatest danger to the average American is the cheeseburger they ate for dinner last night.

He goes on to give graphs and charts with the data on how people in the U.S. are most likely to die. The most common form of death is heart disease followed by cancer. I have no reason to believe anything he said not true. But there are some caveats I would like to add.

Heart disease is mostly preventable and someone that dies from heart disease after a lifetime of obesity and virtually no exercise isn’t going to get as much sympathy as someone who was killed by a drunk driver or a group of people murdered by someone they welcomed into their group. It’s the difference between self-inflicted “wounds” and being an innocent victim.

Hence expending public resources is more likely, and more appropriate, to get legislative approval when you have innocent victims that need protection from others. It’s appropriate to protect the innocent from those who would deliberately or carelessly inflict harm on them. Most people instinctively get this.

But protecting the innocent frequently goes astray when government extends its power to include protecting people from themselves. Examples include New York City banning large sugary soft drinks and high salt content foods. That’s obvious to most people.

But the same principle applies to recreational drugs. Alcohol and tobacco use has recreational benefits as well as potential for damaging your health. Crack, heroin, and meth have even more potential for risk. But it’s self inflicted harm. I don’t have much sympathy for those that inflict harm upon themselves. If they are stupid enough to harm themselves then why should I, or anyone else, expend either my or public resources to protect them?

Bringing this back to the gun issue we can apply the same principles to suicide. Suicide by gun is little different than suicide by car and only differs by degrees of certainty and speed from some of the worst recreational drugs. Those who advocate for gun control to prevent suicide are showing their totalitarian colors.

They are demanding control over how you choose to live and die. They are not trying to protect innocent life from predators. They are demanding control over you. Some may think I’m exaggerating. Perhaps this extrapolation is unfounded and I’m paranoid.

No. I am not.

If you think I’m wrong then explain to me why the big fuss over the Confederate flag isn’t conclusive proof that I am correct? Add in the multitude of laws, ordinances, and regulations affecting of tens of thousands of aspects of our lives and get back to me.

As Drew points out the media bears a lot of responsibility for this. But if we value our freedom we must recognize the freedom of the press to do despicable things such as their encouragement of totalitarianism. It may be inadvertent. Perhaps just recognize this is how they can best make money in the short time. Our response must be to recognize their actions for what they are and point out they are little different than the racist attempting to start a “race war” and differ only on the scales of time and scope from those who would incite a riot.

Freedom isn’t free. It appropriate to bring attention to these costs and appropriately minimize them. It is part of the job of the media to do this. But they would be well advised to note the costs of totalitarianism are immeasurable and should be avoided at any cost. They don’t do this. This is a bad choice for everyone.

The main stream media is going through financially hard times and if they were to die a slow and painful death I would have no more sympathy for them than a disease riddled drug addict dead in the gutter. They both made a lot of bad choices to get there.

Quote of the day—Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Eighteen states have laws that expand Brady background checks. A recent study shows that states with expanded Brady background checks see 46 percent fewer women murdered with guns by intimate partners; 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers killed by handguns; and 48 percent fewer gun-related suicides.

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
July 8, 2015
Charleston Families Join Brady Campaign and Members of Congress to Call for a Vote on Expanding Brady Background Checks
[What they don’t tell you is just as important as what they do tell you.

  • They don’t tell you the details of this “recent study”.
  • They don’t tell you if the total number of women murdered went up or down.
  • They don’t tell you if the total number of law enforcement officers killed went up or down.
  • They don’t tell you if the total number of suicides went up or down.
  • They don’t tell you if the number violent assaults went up or down.
  • They don’t tell you the right to keep and bear arms is independent of the number of crimes committed with guns.

And most importantly they don’t tell you that they have a long history of deception and lies.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James E. Clyburn

But I do know this — we know from our experiences that background checks are effective in preventing a lot of people who should not have guns from getting guns.

James E. Clyburn
July 8, 2015
South Carolina Rep.: Removing Confederate flag matters, but what about guns?
[The CDC has been unable to find convincing evidence of this claim. Does Clyburn have evidence the CDC doesn’t have access too? Of course not. Clyburn doesn’t “know” things the same way as normal people do.

How do I know this for certain? The article also says:

Clyburn said he has “no way of knowing” whether the bill would have stopped the Charleston shooting.

This is our problem. I’ve pointed out this before too. We have a major disconnect when attempting to communicate with anti-gun people. The means by which they determine truth from falsity is completely different from normal people.

We do know whether the bill would have stopped the Charleston shooting. The shooter passed a background check when he obtained his gun. Therefore we know that requiring background checks for sales unrelated to his gun purchase could not have affected his shooting of innocent people. It is magical thinking to believe it would have. These anti-gun people need help with their mental health. They have no business in positions of power. There is no point in attempting “reach a middle ground” with them. The only reason you would negotiate with people this crazy is to buy yourself some time to deal with them in a more appropriate manner.

I’m reminded of something Will Rogers said,

Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.

If you already have a “rock” there is no point in engaging in diplomacy with them. You instead force them into submission with the minimum amount of effort required.—Joe]