Author Archives: Joe

Quote of the day—Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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]

Quote of the day—David Leonhardt

Posted on by

The legalization of same-sex marriage is a potent example of a dominant theme in American history: Over time, civil rights expand, and discrimination ebbs.

…

As a result, it’s fair to divide the major issues in American political life into two broad categories. In one category are the rights-based issues in which the future can be safely predicted. In the other category — which includes abortion, gun control and climate change — there is far less clarity about the direction of public opinion.

…

People who favor abortion rights can point to a woman’s right to control her body; people who oppose abortion can point to a fetus’s right to live. People who favor gun rights can point to a gun owner’s right to bear arms; people who favor gun restrictions can point to Americans’ right not to die and be injured by gun violence.

David Leonhardt
June 30, 2015
Why Gun Control and Abortion Are Different From Gay Marriage
[If you read the whole thing he makes some good points. But what is interesting is his handling of the gun issue. Almost his entire treatment of it is contained above.

It is my belief that he is in denial. He doesn’t seem to see that the Second Amendment clearly enumerates the right to keep and bear arms versus some nebulous “right” to be safe from criminal acts. He doesn’t seem to see the importance of the Heller and McDonald decisions.

While we do not have the freedom in the area of guns that we did 100 years ago we certainly are much freer than we were 20 years ago and the momentum is on our side. I could see gun rights on a trajectory that parallels gay rights but lagging by 10 or 20 years. Our “gay marriage” pinnacle analog might be the full legalization of machine guns after mandatory background checks are abolished and we have constitutional carry everywhere. And then my “I have a dream” moment will be realized.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jon Gabriel

Posted on by

Instead of pointing fingers at the innumerates running Athens, they should consider our own situation.

…
Print

It’s an imperfect analogy, but imagine the green is your salary, the yellow is the amount you’re spending over your salary, and the red is your MasterCard statement.

Jon Gabriel
June 30, 2015
Athens on the Potomac
[I am not the only one wondering if we are watching a version our future play out in Greece.—Joe]

Quote of the day—J. Michael Winmore

Posted on by

Come July 1, any person with a “troubled” mind, or just your garden variety fool, can openly carry a gun, without training, without permit, without background checks. It’s the brainchild of the most comical state legislature in the nation. (see story from KC Starfrom back in April of 2015)

It’s the type of tired, faux tough guy, cock waving that socially conservative Libertarians and Republicans always tout as being a protection of “Americans’ freedoms.” Meanwhile, it puts more Americans at the risk of a gun-smoked catastrophe.

J. Michael Winmore
June 30, 2015
Kansas Gun Laws: Wyatt Earp Would Be Appalled
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via email from Bob S.

We have the Bill of Rights, SCOTUS rulings, and decades of data from all over the country. He has grade school insults.—Joe]

Sea level to 7000 feet

Posted on by

Yesterday Barb and I were riding a ferry at sea level.

Today (after driving to 6400 feet at Sunrise on Mount Rainier) we hiked to Dege Peak which is over 7000 feet above sea level:

wp_ss_20150705_0001

This is the hike we attempted during Memorial Day Weekend.

The views were surreal.

Continue reading →

Quote of the day—David Hardy

Posted on by

On January 14, 2013, Brady boasted that the incident had raised $5 million for it..

…

But if you look at Brady’s IRS Form 990 report, its total fundraising for 2012 was $4.8 million, and for 2013 was $4.2 million. (That’s gross: net would be those figures minus fundraising expenses of $1 million and $800,000 respectively). So the surge in funding Brady claimed was in fact more than it brought in total for either year in question. And the 2013 claim was that the cash had come in “since late December (2012),” but in fact 2013 saw a fundraising decline of 13%.

David Hardy
July 4, 2015
Brady Campaign puffs smoke regarding fundraising
[You should not be surprised at this. The anti-gun crowd and the Brady Campaign in particular have a long history and culture of lies and deception.—Joe]

Public health strategies

Posted on by

Via a Tweet from Firearms Lawyer we have this article from Business Insider.

From looking at the map it appeared that Idaho was in third place and I was wondering if there might a be a prize for that:

gun-ownership-study-state-map

Instead I find this:

Gun cultures may need to be considered for public health strategies that aim to change gun ownership in the USA.

I considered there was a remote chance that the authors would consider it a “public health strategy” to increase gun ownership. But I got a copy of the report and of course they took just the opposite view:

Therefore, we cannot infer whether exposure to social gun culture predisposes one to gun ownership or whether the latter increases likelihood of participation in the former. However, this is not particularly germane to the observations being drawn here, suggesting simply that prudent gun policies that aim to reduce gun ownership and gun-related injury might need to actively consider the prevailing social gun culture in the USA.

Emphasis added.

This report confirms something we already were pretty certain of. Gun ownership is more likely when you have friends and family that own guns. If you want to be able to keep exercising your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms you should “come out of the closet” about being a gun owner and take friends and family to the range.

And don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Camping and hiking on Lopez Island

Posted on by

While on Lopez Island yesterday and today we went on some short hikes.

Continue reading →

Ferries

Posted on by

Barb and I spent last night on Lopez Island. We boarded the ferry in Anacortes and got off on the north end of the island. We saw a lot of ferries on our trip.

Continue reading →

Quote of the day—Daniel Greenfield

Posted on by

The left exists to destroy you. It does not seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress.

The purpose of power is power. The left is not seeking to achieve a set of policy goals before kicking back and having a beer. The policy goals are means of destroying societies, nations and peoples before taking over. If you allow it a policy goal, it will ram that goal down your throat. It will implement it as abusively as it can possibly can before it moves on to the next battle.

It’s not about gay marriage. It’s not about cakes. It’s about power.
More fundamentally it’s about the difference in human nature between the people who want to be left alone and those who want power over others.

You can’t work out a truce with tyrants. You can give in or stand up to them. There’s nothing else.

Daniel Greenfield
June 30, 2015
No Truce With The Left
[Via an email from Ry.

While at the Washington State Steel Championship a couple weeks ago a few of us were talking about something closely related. “Why do they want gun control? They know it doesn’t make people safer. They know almost all the mass shootings have been in ‘gun-free zones’. What is the real reason to keep pushing for gun control?”

Bill, who sometimes comments here, said, “I read your blog. You know the reason.” Another guy and his wife said essentially the same thing and continued with, “We were just talking about this the other day. What we don’t get is what do they think they are going to do if they get their way? Their lives, as well as ours will be worse off then. Everyone loses.”

But as Greenfield points out, to them it’s not about money, physical possessions, or quality of life. It’s about power and control. There are people that crave power. There are people that who are frightened if “someone isn’t in charge”.

I can sort of understand wanting power even if I don’t really crave it myself. Power can silence your enemies, bring you wealth, give you status, bring you respect, and help preserve your health compared to those with lesser power.

It is more difficult to understand those who are frightened if “someone isn’t in charge”. But keep in mind that at the end of the civil war there were slaves who were frightened by the prospect of freedom. Slavery was all they had ever known and they were frightened of freedom. Today we have people who crave a form of slavery because they see it as providing security. Samuel Adams quote from 1776 is my response to them.

My response to those who crave power and control is to remember that today is July 4th and that has meaning to me and they will be well advised to understand the significance of that in their quest for power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—AWR Hawkins

Posted on by

According to Suffolk University, in addition to not wanting to hear about gun control in 2016, a majority of Americans do not believe increasing gun control via expanded background checks will curb mass violence. Fifty-six percent of respondents said it would not, while only 40 percent of respondents said it would.

This makes sense, when you consider that Roof allegedly purchased his gun via a background check at a Charleston gun store.

AWR Hawkins
June 30, 2015
Survey: Majority of Americans Not Interested in Gun Control for 2016
[Makes sense? It would make sense if it were 95% instead of 56%. That 40% think expanded background checks would “curb mass violence” when the example immediately in front of them is completely counter to that hypothesis is proof of their inability to draw even the simplest of logical conclusions.

This is a demonstration the fact that for a very large percentage of the population they, at best, make reasoning sounds. The concept of reason is completely alien to them. This is really frightening to me. I would expect dogs, cats, dolphins, and some birds, let alone all primates, to have that good of reasoning skills with similar problems. Apparently humans, on the whole, can do little better than chance.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jo Ed

Posted on by

Accept the fact that freedom is risky. If it weren’t risky, it wouldn’t be freedom.

Accept the fact that the very worst mass murders were not committed by gunmen, but arsonists, bombers, and pilots.

Jo Ed
June 29, 2015
Comment to LETTER: What gun control measures would work?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Hutson

Posted on by

Through simple, common-sense solutions, supported by nearly all US Americans, including the vast majority of gun owners, the Brady Campaign plans to realize the audacious but achievable goal of cutting gun deaths in half in the United States by 2025.

Jonathan Hutson
Chief communications officer for the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence
June 30, 2015
Is Strict Gun Control the Best Way to Prevent Shootings?
Another Massacre Begs What Can Be Done
[It’s fascinating to read his entire answer to the question. He writes entirely about how great and wonderful background checks are. But not once does he say they would have prevented the Charleston massacre. Not once does he even hint at any evidence that “simple, common-sense solutions” will cut “gun deaths” by any amount let alone half in the next 10 year.

His entire response is an exercise in avoiding the question asked. There are two possibilities here:

  1. He knows gun control, of any type, will not prevent the shootings that make headlines and he is deliberately avoiding the question.
  2. He has mental problems similar to Peterson Syndrome. He literally sees and hears something very different from what others write and say. He brain is malfunctioning and he is incapable of rational thought.

In either case Hutson is making it clear to everyone that he and his organization are either malicious or have crap for brains and are to be ignored in the political debate.

Because of the evidence supplied by Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson, for which Peterson Syndrome is named, and the actions of their lawyers, I’m inclined to believe crap for brains is a requirement for everyone aligned with them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michelle Ye Hee Lee

Posted on by

Lawmakers have a responsibility to check out the facts in the reports they use, especially ones that come from advocacy groups. If they are aware there are definitions that are disputed, or that are defined in other ways depending on who uses them, it is incumbent on lawmakers to clarify exactly what they are talking about and not mislead the public. In particular, lawmakers should rely more on official government statistics, such as from the FBI, rather than misleading metrics cobbled together by interest groups.

We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios. But this is a definition of “school shooting” that was widely disputed a year ago, and lawmakers need to present information — especially for such a controversial topic as gun control — in a clear, responsible and accurate way. Murphy’s failure to do so tipped the rating to Four.

Michelle Ye Hee Lee
June 29, 2015
Has there been one school shooting per week since Sandy Hook?
[Gun control advocates lie because it is in their nature and they have to if they are to have any hope of achieving their goals. That people at The Washington Post are pointing out their lies is a really big deal.—Joe]

Steel match results

Posted on by

As I mentioned yesterday I shot in another steel match on Saturday.

It was a beautiful day for a ferry ride:

WP_20150627_15_31_58_Pro

Here are the match results:

Name Class Time
Steve RF-RI-O 43.96
Brian RF-RI-O 50.12
Brian RF-O 51.19
Steve RF-O 51.67
Jeff RF-RI-O 53.47
Joe Huffman RF-I 71.38
Joe Huffman CF-I 77.18
Steve CF-O 78.66
Bruce CF-I 88.87
Tanner RF-O 92.39
Brian CF-I 105.85
Jeff CF-I 106.59
MAC CF-I 107.50
MAC CF-RV-I 111.46
Tanner CF-I 112.99
John CF-I 119.07
Mitch CF-I 128.48
Susan RF-O 128.76
Rebekah RF-I 236.19

The codes are:

  • RF-RI-O: Rimfire, rifle, open
  • RF-O: Rimfire, open
  • RF-I: Rimfire, iron sights
  • CF-I: Centerfire, iron sights
  • CF-O: Centerfire, open
  • CF-RV-I: Centerfire revolver, iron sights

Even with the malfunctions I had I won in my classes. I felt like I was shooting very well. I wasn’t thinking, I just moved the gun past the targets and it went off when the sights were on the targets. Misses were rare. It feels really good to have things working like that again.

There were five stages. The times are the sum of all the best four of five strings fired on each stage. So with five stages and four strings per stage you can figure out that I averaged 3.86 seconds per string with my centerfire pistol. That is 3.86 seconds for a draw and five shots on five different targets.

With the rimfire pistol it was an average 3.57 seconds per string. With the rimfire pistol I did not have to draw. The start position for the pistol was pointing at the tennis ball you see in each of the pictures below:

WP_20150627_08_53_07_Pro
This was a very fast stage. I think I had a couple runs that were under two seconds.
WP_20150627_08_54_20_Pro
WP_20150627_08_55_58_Pro
WP_20150627_08_58_37_Pro
WP_20150627_08_56_55_Pro

Quote of the day—The Lords Taint @UtopiasTaint

Posted on by

@wallsofthecity @tesstoro like the irrational fear that only subsides by carrying a penis extension, I mean binky, wooos I meant gun

The Lords Taint‏ @UtopiasTaint
Tweeted on January 18, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Two thousandths of an inch

Posted on by

As I reported last weekend I put all my polymer coated lead bullets through a max case gauge and still had problems with my new STI. I had saved one of those cartridges to diagnose the problem.

The cartridge still failed to chamber when stripped off the magazine by the slide when I tried it again at home. The bullet in that cartridge was seated too deep by about 0.040”. None of the others were too deep so I suspect it happened during the chambering of the cartridge. I pulled the bullet and reseated it at the proper depth and it chambered just fine. Hmmm… maybe the crimp just isn’t tight enough, the bullet gets driven deeper into the case, then the cartridge fails to nose down into the chamber as it comes off the magazine.

I shot in another steel match yesterday to get more samples.* On the first stage the first few strings went fine then a round failed to chamber the entire depth. I couldn’t pull the slide back. The gun was essentially locked up. I dropped the magazine, held tight to the slide then pounded the grip forward with the web and palm of my hand. The extractor pulled the round out and it was ejected. I put in a fresh magazine and completed the string in 17.xx seconds. I switched to my Montana Gold JHP handloads for the rest of the match and had no more problems.

I brought home the problem round and put in the case gauge. It fit just fine. I put it in a magazine and tried to to chamber it. It failed to chamber all the way. I tried dropping it directly into the chamber and dropping the slide. It chambered but again I couldn’t extract it without slamming my hand into the grip.

But the round fits just fine in the case gauge!

I measured the round. At the largest point it is 0.425”. The specification for .40 S&W is 0.423. So, it is oversized by 0.002”. But CASE GAUGE!

Hmmm… Maybe I have another case gauge around here… I did. I had lost one for a while and purchased another. I pulled out the other case gauge and the cartridge failed, big time.

These pictures are of the same cartridge in two different case gauges:

IMG_3314IMG_3313

In the picture on the left I applied a couple ounces of pressure to get it to seat all the way. In the second picture I put the maximum amount of pressure I could comfortably apply with my thumb to get it in that far.

So why is just the ammo with the polymer coated lead bullets giving me problems?

I measured a few bullets. Depending upon which axis I measure the bullets they have a diameter of 0.400” to 0.403”. The specification is 0.401”. The Montana Gold JHPs I measured have a diameter of 0.399.

Here is the cartridge:

IMG_3315

You can’t really see it but you can feel a bulge where the base of the bullet is in the cartridge.

Five conclusions:

  1. With a slightly over spec bullet and probably max thickness brass** I end up with an oversized cartridge.
  2. The Midway case gauge, on the left, is slightly oversized.
  3. My gun has a minimum sized chamber.
  4. Two thousands of an inch can make a huge difference in the reliability of a gun.
  5. I must use the L.E. Wilson case gauge (on the right above) for this gun.

I might be able to use the Midway gauge for some other gun(s).

Scary thought… Can you imagine needing your gun in a life or death situation and losing the fight because of two thousands of an inch?

* I can’t use this ammo at indoor ranges and I don’t have easy access to any outdoor ranges except when I shoot at matches.

** Not all cartridges with polymer coated lead bullets fail the tighter case gauge. Only some of them fail.

Mental problems

Posted on by

Having more than a casual interest in the mental problems of people I recognize a trait described by Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch regarding The Brady Campaign lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE, et al.:

plaintiffs try to have it both ways by complaining that the injury was foreseeable to the defendants on the one hand, and complaining that defendants knew nothing about their customer on the other.

One of the traits present in people with Borderline Personality Disorder and some other personality disorders is they create or complain about situations of which you cannot win. For example, “You must be home in time for dinner” and simultaneously imposing the condition, “You must complete your work before you come home regardless of how long it takes.” Or “You must bring home more money.” and “You must work fewer hours.”

Read my post Crazy talk for numerous anti-gun examples.

When you point out the impossible situation they have created they will probably attack you (verbally and/or physically). It is always your fault they are angry with you because you violated some “rule” they imposed or you “should have known” about. They insist upon a myriad of rules which are conflicting, nonsensical, and impossible to meet. They then insist you are the problem when you fail to abide by the rules. This is the Brady Campaign, and anti-gun people in general, mindset. This is conclusive proof they have mental problems.

The exact diagnosis of their mental problems is not particularly important. What is important is how to deal with them. In still another anti-gun crazy talk example Stacy, my counselor on such matters, has some advice on how to deal with these people.

Quote of the day—A Reader

Posted on by

I think genocides were/are actually useful to the planet’s preservation. Imagine if all these ppl would have not died how much more pollution there would be? I did follow this statement by ” yes genocide is horrific…but” I honestly know that genocides are terrible things however I actually don’t feel bad for these humans that were killed.  I don’t care  at all….. I know it’s wrong as society thinks it’s wrong but I actually think it’s not entirely a bad thing….it has its positives?

A Reader
June 21, 2015
Sociopath?
[Yes. These people exist.

And the interesting thing is that it doesn’t take very many of them to implement a genocide. I think it was in Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust that I found it was something like only 2% of the population were directly involved in the genocide. That can explain why gun control is an essential component of every genocide. If that 2% is attempting to exterminate 20% of the population and half of the intended victims are armed then that means the intended victims outnumber the bad guys by about five to one. Even with an equipment advantage it’s going to be “challenging” to put those “reluctant” victims in the boxcars without losing a lot of bad guys. Which tends to make them “reluctant” to proceed.—Joe]