Monthly Archives: December 2011

Quote of the day—Conservative4Ever

Posted on by

I had to go talk to my guns just now to let them know If I let them walk that they will be responsible for the violence they cause.

Liberals kill me by their complete lack of logic and reasoning abilities. They are like children.

Hence my talking to guns like they were children.

Conservative4Ever
December 9, 2011
Comment to Gunwalker goes “legal” … again
[He is insulting children. By the age of four my children had better reasoning abilities that some of the anti-gun people I’ve dealt with.—Joe]

Christmas gifts for the Brady’s

Posted on by

By all accounts guns and associated gear are a big sellers for Christmas this year. Here is what one article says:

A sale for a basic Russian-made rifle — priced to move at $79.99, bayonet included — was targeted at bargain shoppers buying gifts for a first-time shooter.

“I’ve had little old ladies come in… and buy them by the crate for gifts for all the men in the family,” he said. “Across the board, we used to sell to men, adult men, ages 18 to 45. Now we’re advertising to everybody.”

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, handgun production and imports more than doubled between 2005 and 2009 to 4.6 million, as changes in many laws have relaxed restrictions on carrying such weapons. Gallup’s annual crime poll in October showed record low support for a handgun ban for civilians. It was also the first time the poll found greater opposition to a ban on semiautomatic guns or assault rifles than support for such a restriction.

Say Uncle said Cheaper Than Dirt was running ads on the radio in his home town. I’ve been hearing them on a Seattle radio station too.

This made me wonder; What would be an appropriate gift for someone still aligned with The Brady Campaign? Mailing them a gun is out because that is still illegal. Ammo would be pointless because they probably don’t own any guns. Tequila has it’s appeal but a little birdy once told me someone at the Brady Campaign had a really bad drinking problem already and it wouldn’t be appropriate to tempt them. I can understand the temptation to give whiskey and sleeping pills but the humor would probably be lost on them. A one-way ticket to the “gun-free” utopia of the U.K. would probably be well received but it’s too expensive. I could see a Sad Panda being acceptable but it’s a little “down” and I think they really need something to cheer them up after all they have been through the last few years.

Therefore I believe some suggestions for a name change would be the ideal Christmas gift. With a name change they could have a chance of starting over without so much anti-gun baggage. They already changed their name from oppressive “Handgun Control Inc.” to the neutral sounding “The Brady Campaign”. It’s now time for something positive. They already say they are defending the Second Amendment (H/T to Sebastian) so here are my suggestions:

Second Amendment Supporters: The plan would be to beg for a buyout from The Second Amendment Foundation. But a SAF audit would find their computers are so old they are still running Windows 95, they are behind on the rent for their office space, Dennis Henigan doesn’t have a clue what Alan Gura is talking about, and the only the people on their mailing list that have donated any money in the last two years are a few people on the board of directors who stopped payment on the last check they gave them.

Handgunning and Running for Fun and Profit: They could start out helping the ATF run guns into Mexico then transition into USPSA/IPDA training.

And my favorite suggestion is Gunowners Anonymous: Initially they could offer to help people with their “gun addictions” but when no one shows up they could transition into a service to anonymize gun purchases.

What the World Needs

Posted on by

There was an article in a recent issue of Guns and Ammo Magazine about what gun products the various gun writers would like to see.  Most of the suggestions were for re-issues of favorite old gun models.

Here’s what we really need though– A variable power Intermediate Eye Relief (IER or “Scout”) scope with an illuminated reticle.  I see that Leupold now has a variable Scout scope in their VXII series, but without illumination.  Some of the big optics retailers show it for sale, but I can’t find it on Leupold’s web site.  If I had to choose, I’d take the illuminated reticle over the variable power though.  A fixed 3x or even 4x would be just dandy.

Trijicon has it figured out.  The illuminated reticles in their ACOG series are just the ticket for fast target acquisition.  You use them like a reflex sight with both eyes at close range, for speed, and their fixed 4x models are good out to farther than most people will shoot. (See Bindon Aiming Concept, or BAC)  Trijicon doesn’t make an IER version of the ACOG, else that would be the end of the discussion.  Something like that mounted low on an M1A with the M8 rail would rock, I tell you.  That scope would also be just the ticket for the dangerous game hunting market, for them that likes optics.

With more options available for forward mounted optics, and with Ruger jumping in with their new Scout rifle, there is no doubt a market for such an animal.  I see that in the sub 100 dollar range (complete with rings) the Chinese companies have an illuminated Scout scope, but the world needs a really good one, made in a really good country, like this one.  A couple guys from NightForce Optics came over and we spoke about it, but they didn’t seem to be terribly excited.  Maybe I didn’t do enough convincing.

Let’s see it, World.  I (and my customers) want a ~1x to ~4x IER scope with a ~32 to ~40 mm objective, with something like Trijicon’s illuminated chevron and some vertical range ticks.  Ready…..Go!

Quote of the day—Jeff Cooper

Posted on by

Rumor has it that Sarah Brady is being put forward by the Shooting Industry Magazine as “saleswoman of the decade.” It is quite obvious that Sarah has done more to boost the sale of personal arms than any person in recent memory, and she should be appropriately honored.

Jeff Cooper
From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
Vol. 2, No. 4
22 March 1994
[This is in response to Ken in the comments here who suggested Clinton popularity and success meant people didn’t buy guns for fear they would be taken away shortly. And that the surge in sales at about the same time as Obama was elected were due to the Heller decision and not the threat of Obama.

But it that were true then why was there a big surge in sales during the first part of the Clinton presidency? I was there at the time. I was one of the people buying my first guns. Nearly everyone I talked to about guns were buying things they were afraid would soon be outlawed.

If you read the book Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun you will find a similar thing happened with Glock pistols. Politicians and anti-gun people started talking about it being a “terrorist gun”, “invisible to X-Rays”, and they should be banned with the result the factory couldn’t manufacture them fast enough to keep up with the demand.—Joe]

Is it still paranoia?

Posted on by

Fear of big government is near an all-time high (via a Tweet from Michelle Malkin):

A near-record level of Americans, 64 percent, say that “big government” is a bigger threat to the country than “big business” or “big labor,” according to a new poll.

While nearly two-thirds say big government is the major threat, 26 percent name big business, according to the Gallup survey conducted November 28 – December 1. Just 8 percent name big labor.

Since Gallup starting asking the question in 1965, Americans have typically named big government as the biggest threat; an all-time high of 65 percent named it as the biggest threat in 1999 and 2000.

If a large majority of the population think they really are out to get us can it still be considered paranoia?

Denial, deception, or refusal to answer?

Posted on by

As was widely reported at least ten days ago Dennis Henigan was in denial about the number of guns being purchased. He has a lot invested in that belief because The Brady Campaign has repeatedly said gun ownership is on the decline:

The report they quote was published by the Violence Policy Center. The VPC relied on gun data from the General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago.

The tabular data agrees with the VPC report. But what is interesting is (as of 2001):

Trends in Gun Ownership
The proportion of households with a firearm has been in slow decline over the last quarter century (Table 6). In the early 1970s about 50% of adults lived in households that kept a firearm. This now has fallen about 34-35%. Similarly, the percent of adults living in a household with a gun fell from a high of 51 % in 1977 to a low of 32-33% in 2000-2001. These declines are partly the result of a decrease in household size. From 1980 until 1997 the proportion of adults personally owning a gun held steady at about 29%. However, since then even this level declined to about 22-24% of adults personally owning a gun.

One of ways people can “cheat without lying” with these statistics is to choose which number make their case look better when there is actually another variable that is changing. In this case the size of household affected the numbers.

In tough economic times households tend to get larger and hence the likelihood of someone owning a gun in the house could increase without the actual number of people owning guns increasing. Hence during good economic times the anti-gun people could chose to report declining “gun in the household” number while ignoring the fact that gun ownership on an individual basis was essentially constant.

I was unable to obtain the percentage of adults that own guns from the GSS data. Perhaps someone else can see a way to do it.

What is very interesting that I was able to get from the data is the number of people that refused to answer the question, given that a gun was in the house, “DOES GUN BELONG TO RESPONDENT?”

Year Percent Refusing
1991 0.0
1993 1.4
1994 0.6
1996 0.8
1998 1.0
2000 3.6
2002 2.4
2004 3.6
2006 4.7

The number of people that refused to answer the question about a gun in the home was smaller but had a similar trend:

Year Percent Refusing
1991 1.2
1993 0.6
1994 0.9
1996 0.4
1998 0.4
2000 1.3
2002 0.9
2004 1.4
2006 1.7

I would expect the upward trend to continue in 2008 and 2010 because of the mass buying associated with the election of President Obama.

I’m not sure that I have a good explanation for why the Gallup Poll reported gun in the home rate is much higher than reported by GSS (for the most recent GSS year I could find, 2006, is it 42% versus 34.5%). My speculation is that people are more trusting of Gallup than of a much lesser known organization located in an extremely anti-gun city such as Chicago. If that is true then one must also conclude that at something on the order of 5.8%* of the gun-owners lied and said “No” when asked if there was a gun in the house rather than merely refused to answer the question.

* 5.8% is obtained from (42% – 34.5%) – 1.7%

You can’t fix stupid

Posted on by

This post is essentially all plagiarized from various people on the email discussion list at work about this event (more details can be found here):

A pistol discovered in a passenger’s carry-on bag was accidentally fired inside the Atlanta airport, grazing a police officer, authorities said on Monday.

Security screeners at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport spotted the .22-caliber pistol Sunday via an X-ray machine and notified Atlanta police, Transportation Security Administration spokesman Jonathan Allen said.

Authorities said the gun was loaded with five rounds of ammunition known as “snake shot,” which typically is used to kill small animals. As a police officer tried to remove the rounds while pointing the weapon at a screening table, the gun was unintentionally fired, according to an incident report.

…

The passenger, a 43-year-old Georgia man, was arrested on weapons charges and remained in jail early on Monday. He told police that he “travels to Florida often on business and keeps the weapon on him for protection, not to kill anyone but in an attempt to scare people off,” the report said.

It was stupid to attempt going though the TSA screeners with a firearm. It was stupid for the police officer to fire the gun. It was stupid to carry snake loads for self protection against humans. It was stupid to carry a firearm to only scare people.

Quote of the day—ContrarianbyDefault

Posted on by

These people need to get laid. The persistent fears of some authority coming to take their guns (see: power, virility, agency) speaks to a rather deep seated insecurity of impotence and phallic malfunctio­n. I don’t mind someone owning a handgun for protection of property or self, but the stockpilin­g of assault rifles either means they’re borderline­, paranoid sociopaths or they’re desperatel­y overcompen­sating for some other shortcomin­gs…

ContrarianbyDefault
December 2, 2011
Comment to Gun Ad Likens Obama To Hitler, Other Dictators.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—Christopher Merken

Posted on by

Guns are designed with one purpose only: to kill. Ending a life is the purpose of a gun. The argument that it’s preventative, that it’s the “well it’s either me or the guy coming through my door” mentality, or that guns create a safer society is just plain wrong. Guns are designed to kill. A specially designed piece of metal, slotted into another piece of metal and projected at incredible speeds at another person is designed to kill. There is no way to deny, refute, or get around this simple fact. So why are guns allowed? Why do we as a society accept these dangerous weapons into our community?

Christopher Merken
December 8, 2011
Another Virginia Tech Shooting, and What Should Be Done About It: It’s time to take a stand against gun violence
[Heavy sigh. Here we go again.

I’ve fired about 100,000 rounds through my guns without killing anything but two deer and a rattlesnake. By his logic my guns must have malfunctioned with nearly every shot.

He offers no studies to support his assertions. The best he can do is proof by vigorous assertion.

He asks, “Why are guns allowed?” as if that which government does not allow is forbidden. He apparently missed out on the high school government class where it was taught that government is only allowed certain enumerated powers and the people retain all other rights and powers. He has it exactly backward.

He’s got crap for brains.—Joe]

Percentages

Posted on by

This is one of my pet peeves too:

Percentage Points

People often think that if you decrease something by 50% then increase it by 50% you end up with the original value. It’s surprisingly difficult for people to grasp this is not true. I found it works better if you use 100% reduction followed by a 100% increase. When they say, “But that is different.” I just walk away to avoid the nearly irresistible urge to do some minor cleaning of the gene pool.

Australia gun control is going ‘backward’

Posted on by

Although from my viewpoint I don’t see a lot of progress being made in Australia the gun control people are screaming bloody murder:

David Shoebridge says NSW has gone backwards on gun control.

As near as I can tell the problem for these people is that people are following the law and buying guns:

Figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph show there are 188,885 people on the NSW Police Firearms Register, just short of the estimated 200,000 licence holders pre- the Port Arthur massacre, which triggered changes to gun laws.

NSW Greens described the increase as “alarming” and gun control groups warned that more and more firearms would end up on the black market.

“The trend is all one-way in NSW; that is, more guns and more gun owners and that is a dangerous trend,” NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge said.

“There’s a real concern where we are developing a gun culture here in NSW. A good part of the problem comes from the influence of the Shooters Party and the Gun Council here in NSW. We need this government to stand up to the gun lobby to restrict access, particularly to handguns, and ensure the current restrictions remain in place.”

It’s interesting and revealing that this politician wants to reduce the number of gun owners rather than just restrict the type of guns and that owners be licensed and their guns registered. It was the hope that the restrictions would decrease the number of gun owners. The ultimate goal of the anti-gun people must be, always has been, and always will be a complete ban.

Quote of the day—lonewolfwisconsin

Posted on by

I am sick and tired of you pussygunbo­ys crying about your gunpowder and calling everyone names. You can now carry your precious guns anywhere, and there has been NO ATTEMPTS to restrict gun ownership in over 50 years. Just go to your KKK meetings and shutthehel­lup.

lonewolfwisconsin
December 2, 2011
Comment to Gun Ad Likens Obama To Hitler, Other Dictators.
[No attempts in over 50 years? So that would be since 1961.

lonewolfwisconsin must be from an alternate universe where the NRA aligned themselves with the KKK instead of the blacks defending themselves from the KKK. In that alternate universe none of the following gun restrictions and bans succeeded or thousands attempts occurred:

  • 1968: Gun Control Act
  • 1976: Washington D.C. bans handguns and all other firearms must be rendered inoperable.
  • 1981: Morton Grove Illinois bans the sale, transportation, and ownership of handguns.
  • 1982: Chicago bans new registration of handguns.
  • 1982: Evanston, Illinois bans handguns.
  • 1984: Oak Park Illinois bans handguns.
  • 1986: Sales of new machine guns banned nationwide.
  • 1989: Highland Park Illinois bans handguns.
  • 1989: California bans “assault weapons”.
  • 1991: New Jersey bans “assault weapons”.
    • 1991: New York City bans “assault weapons” and gun registration lists were used by police to go door-to-door to confiscate them.
    • 1992: Chicago bans “assault weapons”.
    • 1993: Connecticut bans “assault weapons”.
    • 1993: Brady Act.
    • 1994: Sales of new “Assault weapons” and magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned nationwide.
    • 2000: New York state bans “assault weapons”.
    • 2004: Massachusetts (Mitt Romney, as governor, signed the bill into law) bans “assault weapons”.
    • 2005: New Orleans sends the police and the National Guard door to door to confiscate all firearms in the wake of hurricane Katrina.

    Either this is convincing proof that alternate universes exist or lonewolfwisconsin has crap for brains.

    I’m going with crap for brains unless lonewolfwisconsin can demonstrate they are a disoriented time traveler from sometime prior to about 1865 (I know there have been periodic gun control attempts since at least the end of the Civil War).—Joe]

    The wolves must die

    Posted on by

    Idaho is very serious about thinning the wolf packs to give the deer and elk populations a chance to recover:

    An Idaho Department of Fish and Game official said Thursday the state will use aerial gunning and professional and government trappers to kill wolves in the Lolo Zone, even as public hunting and trapping seasons continue.

    Dave Cadwallader, supervisor of the department’s Clearwater Region, said he wants a multipronged approach to wolf control in the difficult-to-access area where elk herds are hurting.

    One of the comments particularly struck me:

    Why are these so called environmental groups so anti-elk? Around this world there are more wolves just like the ones we have here than we have elk. Not only the elk but our moose population here is all but gone. These groups need to be held accountable for what they have caused and should have to pay for the costs it’s taking to correct this destruction.

    Sweet!

    Posted on by

    A very nice article on the growing acceptance of guns in American culture with particular emphasis on women, gays, and Jews:

    Natanel is a Buddhist, a self-avowed “spiritual person,”a 53-year-old divorcee who lives alone in a liberal-leaning suburb near Boston. She is 5-foot-1 (155 centimeters) and has blonde hair, dark eyes, a ready smile and a soothing voice, with a hint of Boston brogue. She’s a Tai Chi instructor who in classes invokes the benefits of meditation. And at least twice a month, she takes her German-made Walther PK380 to a shooting range and blazes away.

    They give two token paragraphs to The Brady Campaign and a couple more to other anti-gun people but their arguments ring hollow with all the other very positive coverage.

    And the icing that makes it so sweet is that it is on Bloomberg News.

    Judge rules against guns in campus apartments

    Posted on by

    Via daughter Xenia and Idaho gun lobbyist Mike Brown (who says, “Time for plan ‘B’”) we find that, pretty much as expected, the University of Idaho gets to keep banning guns on campus:

    A state judge ruled Thursday in favor of the University of Idaho in a lawsuit challenging the school’s restrictions on keeping firearms in on-campus housing.

    The ruling was handed down by 2nd District Judge John Stegner in a case brought by second-year law student Aaron Tribble. He filed his lawsuit in January, claiming that the university’s ban on firearms at his on-campus apartment infringed on his constitutional rights.

    The university bans firearms on campus, but students are allowed to store and check out their guns at a police substation on the Moscow campus.

    University attorneys said that Tribble agreed to waive certain rights when he entered into an agreement to live on campus — an argument that the judge agreed with, the Moscow-Pullman Daily News reported (http://bit.ly/szuuZ4 ). The judge wrote the state Board of Regents has a right to regulate and maintain a safe environment on campus.

    Mike and I have had many long talks about this lawsuit and the issue of guns on Idaho campuses. While the lawsuit was with the best of intentions it probably wasn’t the best way to approach the problem. Mike thinks we have a much better chance fixing this problem going through the legislature. We came close last year but there are highly charged emotional issues that need to be carefully addressed. We will be trying again this year. Part of the plan may include a private Boomershoot party for the legislators.

    It’s a small world.

    In addition to this being in the town where I have my Idaho home, everyone in our immediate family and many in our extended family went to college here. Daughter Kim still attends and will graduate in June. When in grade school Kim was good friends with one of Judge Stegner’s daughters. Stegner was the judge on the one trial I where I was on a jury. If Tribble appeals it probably will go before appeals court Judge Karen Lansing. Karen is my cousin. When growing up we lived 0.75 miles apart and she used to read me books when I was very little. The hillside where all the long range targets for Boomershoot are placed is owned by Karen’s brother.

    Quote of the day–David B. Kopel

    Posted on by

    It was feared that the Massachusetts gun confiscation was the prototype for confiscation throughout America.

    David B. Kopel
    December 2, 2011
    How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution
    [Kopel is referring to incidents in 1775 but the words could have just as easily applied to the late 20th Century.

    The people of Massachusetts went to war against their government because of gun control in 1775 yet Massachusetts politicians lead the way for gun controllers of present day. I keep thinking they should be charged with treason but I doubt I could get much traction with that meme.—Joe]

    How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution

    Posted on by

    I just finished reading David Kopel’s paper How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution. I found it fascinating. It was like an exciting short story but with lots of footnotes.

    There is a lot of great material in it and my QOTD for tomorrow will come from it.

    What follow are some of the highlights.

    In 1777 when British victory seemed likely Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan entitled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” It included the following:

    The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . . .

    Imagine how different things would be today had the British won. Kopel convincingly presents the case (Patrick Henry’s speech of March 23, 1775 is just a hint) that the American citizens knew this was coming and was a significant, if not major, motivation for rebellion.

    I especially like this (page 32):

    The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed “sporting” by federal regulators. That import ban seems difficult to justify based on the historical record of 1774-76, or on District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, both of which hold that, while sporting uses such as hunting are part of the Second Amendment, the “core” and “central component” of the Second Amendment is self-defense.

    And this (page 32):

    Laws which aim to disarm the public at large are precisely what turned a political argument into the American Revolution. Sometimes, legislative history will frankly reveal that the purpose of an anti-gun law was to discourage gun ownership in general, or that the law was based on hostility to gun ownership. This is the case for New York City’s pistol licensing fees. Everywhere in New York State, the fee for the issuance or renewal of a handgun permit is $10 (plus a separate $95 fee for a fingerprint check for first-time applications). But in New York City, the fee is over $340, payable every three years. The explicitly stated purpose of allowing the New York City government to charge extra fees was to discourage handgun ownership in the City.

    In Alameda County, California, the five-person County Board of Supervisors banned gun shows on county property at the behest of a Supervisor who complained that her previous efforts to ban gun shows had “gotten the run around from spineless people hiding behind the constitution.” She explained that the County should not “provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.” Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit upheld the ban because the other supervisors who voted for the ordinance might have had legitimate motives.

    He concludes with:

    Gun ownership simpliciter ought never to be a pretext for government violence. The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the 21st century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.

    On the shoulders of giants

    Posted on by

    As I have said before, public servants who advocate gun control must have forgotten they are servants or intend to change the relationship.

    I now read in David Kopel’s new paper, How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution (via Say Uncle):

    The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights; from the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.