The Brady Campaign has a new video and web site about “assault clips” (yes, I put the “nofollow” tag on that link). In addition to the obvious ignorant use of the words “assault” and “clip” the shooter has a  very poor grip on the gun. His left thumb is in danger of needing a bandage and/or stitches. And his left index finger is doing nothing.

Furthermore the narrator and text of the website talk of 32 shots in 16 seconds. But I only count 16 (or maybe 17) shots in 4 seconds. And of course the claim is that “A magazine that allows a gun to fire 32 rounds in 16 seconds is only good for one thing. Killing a lot of people–fast.” Is totally bogus.

In the following video I shot 17 rounds in 7.5 seconds including a magazine reload and a malfunction clearance. I then go on to shoot a total of 36 rounds in 16.02 seconds—still with 10 rounds in my magazines.

If one were to accept the Brady Campaign claim that “a magazine that allows a gun to fire 32 rounds in 16 seconds is only good for one thing” then 10 round magazines must be only good for killing a lot of people fast too. Hence, I must inevitably must conclude one of three things about the magazines in my guns which hold more 10 or more rounds:

1. I have killed many thousands of people with the 60,000 or so rounds I have fired through these guns and no one has noticed—including myself.
2. The magazines have continuously malfunctioned to the point of being useless for their intended purpose.
3. The Brady Campaign is lying.

The use of Occam’s Razor should reveal the correct answer.

If it weren’t so deadly serious I would find it quite amusing that anti-gun activists get all bent out of shape and claim they feel threatened when millions of people peaceably carry concealed firearms in public every day. Yet they advocate passing laws that would mandate those same peaceable people give up their defensive tools at the point of a policeman’s gun and claim we are the ones threatening violence.

Sometimes you just have to shake your head at the lack of a rational thought process. This particular instance is brought to you by Elizabeth Guernsey, 26, a graduate of Trinity College who is pursuing a master’s degree in “urban studies”. “Urban studies” probably explains everything:

In fact, the federal government has passed only three major pieces of gun legislation over the past century. Two of these bills followed the assassination and attempted assassination of public officials. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it illegal to carry hand grenades and machine guns. The Firearms Act of 1968, passed after the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, regulates the firearm industry and prevents interstate firearm transfers. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, named for James Brady, who was shot during the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, requires background checks for those purchasing firearms.

These pieces of federal law are critical to keeping illegal guns out of our communities. Perhaps we should applaud politicians for using the moment after a president or congresswoman is shot to push for improved gun regulations. But why have public officials been unable to pass laws in light of the 9,484 ordinary people killed each year by gun violence?

First off, these three laws are far from all the Federal laws on the books. Alan Korwin has an entire book on just Federal Gun Laws—all 271 of them.

Next, the laws she describes as “critical to keeping illegal guns out of our communities” actually created “illegal guns”. Machine guns, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors weren’t “illegal” until it was required that an exorbitant tax (at the time) was placed on them with NFA 1934. Without registering the gun and paying the tax the guns were illegal to be privately owned. Again, GCA 1968 prohibiting the private transfers of firearms across state lines created “illegal guns”. And finally the background check mandated by the Brady Act in 1993 has nothing to do with guns. It only has to do with people. Her statement about the criticality of the laws in “keeping illegal guns out of our community” is a total disconnect from reality.

Finally, as pointed out by the CDC and others there is no evidence that any of the gun laws on the books has made communities safer. I find it very telling that neither the issue of effectiveness of laws infringing upon a specific enumerated right, or the issue that such a right even exists was mentioned by Ms. Guernsey. But what do you expect from someone who has crap for brains and the best they can do to establish self-esteem is attempt to acquire a degree in “urban studies”?

Sometimes I would almost agree there should be common sense limits, including background checks and licensing, on the First Amendment. This is one the reasons:

For an American, that means the person working beside you or sitting beside you on the bus or at the bar or the stadium or the movies or in class, or in the same traffic jam ready to explode with road rage, could well be carrying one of those formidable multiple-firing Glocks, the kind Mr. Loughner wielded.

But this guy is from Canada where censorship is already part of the political landscape. Maybe they should implement mandatory training and testing on a topic by topic basis for all journalists. The number of distortions and amount of ignorance and bigotry this guy spews is truly impressive.

I can see why his name is “Nutter”:

Bad people will do bad things, but we can and must take steps to deny these criminals the weapons of mass destruction that have ripped apart families across the country.

…

President Obama has called for “common sense” regulation. Regulating magazine size is surely common sense. Large-capacity magazines can turn a semiautomatic pistol into a weapon of mass destruction, with some spitting out six shots per second.

Actually, as I demonstrated last week, even on an off day a middle-aged computer geek can do close to six rounds a second with only ten rounds in the magazine. The size of the magazine has nothing to do with rate of fire and no matter how many rounds are in the magazine it doesn’t turn the gun into a WMD.

Or is Nutter saying we really did find WMDs in Iraq?