Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day–Ry Jones

Posted on by

Try it yourself–I’m sick of the bitching.

Ry Jones
Marble Falls AR15 magazine backwards refutation
[From Ry’s video on how a Police Officer can put a magazine in backwards an AR-15 long enough to get her picture in the paper. This refutes any claims it had to be a Photoshop job.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Sandy Froman

Posted on by

Legislation like the Brady Bill ignores the fact that violence unfortunately has been a fact of life long before firearms were invented. Outlawing guns does not prevent violence, but it does prevent smaller, older, disabled or less powerful persons from effectively defending themselves against larger and stronger attackers.

[…]

Once the anti-gun left has a cause or celebrity to rally around, rational thought goes out the window as they push their proposed legislation.

[…]

Sarah Brady is still a leading figure in the anti-gun movement. Jim Brady is still an advertisement for gun control.

Sandy Froman
July 12, 2007
The history of gun control, part 3
Froman is immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America and a longtime member of the NRA board of directors.
[There really should be three separate quotes but I couldn’t decide which of them I wanted to post first.–Joe]

Like It Or Not, You’re A Conservative

Posted on by

It’s been said before:  We tend to live our lives as conservatives, regardless of our political affiliations.  I’ve heard R. Limbaugh say it several times.  We don’t take our paycheck, decide we’re living on “more than we need” and give half of it away each payday.  We don’t confront our neighbors, telling them they must cut back on their consumption or we’re going to do something really bad to them.  You don’t believe that you, personally, have far too much freedom, then demand that someone take your freedom away from you.  Chances are you don’t feel you have the right to steal from someone on the basis that he has more than you.

Not exactly.  But we do often advocate such coercion against our fellow countrymen on a regular basis, through government.

If we define an American “conservative” as one who embraces the principles upon which this country was founded (Liberty, property rights, minimum to non interference by government)(and I do) then it is a fact that most people live as conservatives in their personal lives.  Its just that some of us are screaming hypocrites, like this Texas politician who fought against self-defense rights and ended up shooting a thief (the thief was, after all, merely practicing his own form of “Economic Justice” as the term is used by the Left).

Thanks to M. Malkin and K. du Toit.

Uncle shows us how

Posted on by

I’m pretty sure this has been known for a long time but I somehow missed the memo. Uncle shows us how to convert many semi-auto firearms into full auto for pennies.

That, however, isn’t the main intent with his post. It’s about mocking the ATF and gun laws. All worthy goals.

Thanks Uncle.

Like a child

Posted on by

Robyn Ringler is probably close to my age. But despite having some very adult experiences she is like a child in some ways. She is so naive:

Let’s pass legislation that will have no effect on you but will stop irresponsible gun dealers.

You, in this case, refers to “legal gun owners”. What she does not realize is that no such legislation is possible. Any restriction, let along something that would “stop irresponsible gun dealers”, on gun dealers or owners will have a greater effect on “legal gun owners” than it will on the “illegal gun owners”. People that would use a firearm to commit a crime will have no reservation about breaking a law intending to prevent them from possessing a gun. Not so on those that obey laws simply because they are the laws. They will honor the waiting periods, the registrations, and licensing processes all of which are barriers to gun ownership and use.

But she is coming around. She apparently recognizes people have legitimate uses for defensive firearms:

So, legal gun owners, go ahead and own your guns for defensive use.

In this further display of naiveté I suspect she doesn’t realize is that she has stepped onto a slippery slope that the VPC, The Brady Campaign and many other anti-gun bigots avoid. Once you acknowledge firearms as legitimate self-defense tools you cannot help but admit restrictions on the purchase and carrying of these tools can cost lives.

But also like a child it appears she is learning. I have hope for her. It is very, very difficult to be an advocate for something then renounce that position even when all evidence for your position crumbles away into dust. If I am reading between the lines correctly she is reexamining some of her most dearly held beliefs in regards to firearms.

Government corruption demands swift, sure action

Posted on by

This is how China does it:

China on Tuesday executed the former head of its food and drug watchdog who had become a symbol of the country’s wide-ranging problems on product safety.

Zheng Xiaoyu’s execution was confirmed by State Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman Yan Jianyang at a news conference held to highlight efforts to improve China’s track record on food and drug safety.

Such cases “have brought shame to our administration and revealed serious problems. We need to seriously reflect on what lessons we can draw from such cases,” Yan said about Zheng and a separate case involving Cao Wenzhuang, the administration’s former pharmaceutical registration department director.

Zheng was sentenced to death in May for taking bribes to approve an antibiotic blamed for at least 10 deaths and other substandard medicines. Cao was given a death sentence last month with a two-year reprieve for accepting bribes and dereliction of duty.

It is my opinion that government corruption should be treated more harshly that corruption of officials in private business but I wouldn’t contest someone’s claim that execution is perhaps a bit extreme in ordinary corruption cases. But if someone dies as a result then it should be considered.

Politicians that infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms should be encouraged to carefully weigh the potential harm of gun-control as well as the potential benefits.

Synchronicity in the wedding

Posted on by

Trivia/synchronicity about Kim and her wedding:

  • When Kimberly Joe Huffman-Scott was born her mother, Barb, was the same age as Barb’s mom was when Barb was born (31 years-old)
  • When Kim was born her father, me, was the same as my mom was when I was born (30 years-old)
  • Kim was 172 days younger than her mother when she married and only 40 days older than her father
  • After the ceremony as Kim and I danced the boat sailed past the motel where Barb and I had our honeymoon and we celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary

Img_6705Web.jpg
Kim and I practicing our dance earlier in the day
(Photo by Xenia Joy)

IMG_6715Web.jpg
Xenia and I earlier on the day of the wedding
(Photo by Xenia Joy)

IMG_6744Web.jpg
Kim’s garter
(Photo by Xenia Joy)

IMG_6884Web.jpg
The bride and her parents
(Photo by Xenia Joy)

IMG_5808Web.jpg
Kim and Xenia prior to the ceremony

IMG_6926Web.jpg
Barb and I dance in the foreground, Kim and Caleb in the center background
(photo by Xenia Joy)

IMG_6954Web.jpg
Kim and I dancing for real
(photo by Xenia Joy)

IMG_6973Web.jpg
More of Kim and I dancing for real (can you tell what, if anything, I’m “packing”, how, and where?)
(photo by Xenia Joy)

IMG_5999Web.jpg
Dillon Precision Range Bag containing a video camera and accessories, a SureFire 6P flashlight, and a 22-round magazine loaded with 180 grain SXT Winchester Ranger .40 S&W

More photos on Xenia’s Live Journal here and here.

Quote of the day–Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser

Posted on by

The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would be at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Volume 30, Number 2, Spring 2007.
[The answer to Just One Question is no.–Joe]

An answer for Just One Question

Posted on by

The question. The answer is no. From the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

[sarcasm] I wonder if the main stream media will report on this? [/sarcasm]

Here is a sample:

There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of the more guns equal more death mantra seem oblivious to it. One study asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot to death than people in the world’s other 35 wealthier nations. While this is literally true, it is irrelevant-except, perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern–but which the study fails to mention–is that per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent.

Understanding the problem–with the mainstream media

Posted on by

I have been exchanging email with Omie and Geoff over the last few days related to the article in the Daily News they collaborated on. The focus of the article was fully automatic firearms as they related to the recent high profile shooting at the courthouse which resulted in the death of a Moscow police officer and two other innocents. It was the belief for several weeks that one of the firearms was illegally converted from a semi-automatic to a full automatic. About two days after Omie and Geoff’s article came out a different paper, the Lewiston Morning Tribune, reported there were no fully automatic firearms involved in the shooting. I can’t imagine why it took weeks for law enforcement to make that determination but that is a different story.

I sent email to both Omie and Geoff after reading the article in the other paper. They had not been aware of the recent development until I pointed it out to them. I requested their permission to post our email exchanges but they both declined. My latest response to Omie closely relates to some recent posts of Lyle’s and mine and Lyle encouraged me to post my email here. I had been planning to do that but just hadn’t gotten around to it. I’m doing that now in the hopes it will help others in dealing with the bias against gun owners in terms than can be expressed constructively to those with the bias.

The first sentence is in response to Omie’s request not to post her email to me on this blog. The second paragraph can be understood a little better if you know that it was not her intent to have the article be hostile to gun owners of any type. I believe that is true.

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007
To: ‘Omie Drawhorn’
Subject: RE: Hamilton’s gun

 

I understand and will respect that.

 

My impression of the article was as you describe your intent. But things like “More restrictions or better enforcement could be key to questions about weapons” and even the assignment of “fully automatic” firearms allowed me to read additional things (rightly or wrongly) into the editorial mindset of the paper. As my friend Lyle pointed in a blog posting (https://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/07/04/same-template-different-story/) yesterday the type of weapons is really the wrong focus for a follow-up article. Better would have been what went right, wrong, and what could be done differently in regards to the response and preparation for, what law enforcement calls, an “active shooter”. For example, was Newbill wearing body armor? If so was it inadequate or irrelevant because of the shot placement? Should Hamilton have been in jail for previous crimes but was let out early for some reason? Did the responding officers follow their training for the information they had available to them at the time? If so could there have been better training that would have improved the outcome?

 

If the focus is on the gun then it seems to me someone has a solution in mind before they have a clear statement of the problem (see also this blog posting of mine from this morning: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/07/05/understanding-the-problem/).

 

As an engineer I solve problems. One of the most common errors inexperienced engineers make is they jump to the solution before they have a good statement of the problem. The implied problem statement of the newspaper article was:

 

A criminal had a fully automatic firearm.

 

My statement of the problem would be something like:

 

A criminal with firearms attacked a building with people in it and responding law enforcement officers and private citizens were injured and killed.

 

The solutions problem solvers arrive at for the two different problem statements will be drastically different.

 

Is this making sense to you? I’m getting into “engineer talk” and worry non-engineers won’t see what I view as critical differences.

 

 

-joe-

Quote of the day–Tamara K.

Posted on by

In his article, Westen proudly displays his passport from Bizarroland, a place superficially similar to planet Earth, but where drooling idiots with hearts full of hate run amok absent guidance from their spiritual and intellectual betters in politics and academe.

…

I was waiting for the lizardoids to show up around paragraph seven or so and symbolically rape Gaia while carrying off Al Gore to be a slave on their homeworld, Karlrovia.

Tamara K.
July 5, 2007
*sniff* It’s a thing of beauty.
[And so is Tam’s snark a thing of beauty. I find myself quite pleased at all the attention given to The Gun Guy (Gonzo) email and the book and article by Drew Weston which was the basis of Gonzo’s claim that emotion is what wins gun control arguments–not facts and logic. Here is a quick, perhaps partial, list of the chain of postings Gonzo’s email triggered:

And from looking at my log files I see where Gonzo himself visited to see where I quoted him. The web is a wonderful thing.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Bruce Schneier

Posted on by

…is security just an excuse for any random thing these days?

Bruce Schneier
July 5, 2007
School Uniforms to Enhance Security?
[Yes. Look at gun control, unconstitutional and ineffective searches at our airports, national ID cards, etc.–Joe]

Same Template, Different Story?

Posted on by

Reading Joe’s recent post got me thinking.  Every time there’s a shooting, we see reports on the type of firearm used, its features, where it may have been obtained, and what gun laws might “prevent this sort of thing” in the future.  Given that criminals by definition don’t obey gun laws, and that this sort of thing isn’t going to be prevented by more Prohibitions, what sort of reporting might actually benefit the consumers of news reports?  Newsies: I’m asking you to think outside the usual story templates.

News pieces on the firearm models and types used in a particular crime are unhelpful, mostly because they’re useless unless you’re pushing an anti-gun agenda (one exception might be the LA bank robbery, in which police responded to a rifle fight with nothing but pistols and shotguns. There the types of weapons involved were actually relevant to the response tactics) and also because the reporting is typically done by people who know next to nothing about firearms (believe me, Newsies, it shows.  It really, really shows).  I submit that the public could benefit more from reports on exactly what happened from minute to minute, once all the hysteria has died down and the evidence has been evaluated.  Interview police and citizen defense trainers on what responses would be most appropriate, how the police view the role of the armed citizen, and so on.  Then we may be better able to respond to an incident more appropriately, or to stay out of it entirely when needed.

For certain, I think its a bad idea to grab a gun and run head-on toward the sound of gunfire.  Stealth, People.  Also consider the fact that it may be impossible to know friend from foe when there are armed citizens in the same area as armed criminals.  Start a discussion on when to stay out of the way, or, if presented an easy shot on a hostile target, when to take it, where to get the training and equipment, what would the police chief or sheriff’s department would want you to do?  You might let us know where to sign up for a local gun club, range development plan or self-defense course, and so on.  “Public Interest” in other words, could be served by some far more diverse reporting.

Enabler of death and evil

Posted on by

My previous post, Quote of the Day–The Gun Guys, about anti-gun bigots demanding people use emotion to win arguments and their agenda in legislatures, deserves more attention. His email was inspired by Despite Large Majorities, Democrats Are Chicken on Gun Control by Drew Westen.

Weston claims people are at their most basic and inescapable level not logical. I’ll grant that he is not but nearly everything he says just does not compute with me. I associate him and his viewpoints with death and evil. I associate great emotion with the great evils of the world. Every genocide, the burning of “witches”, the war against us by Islamic extremists, racism, domestic abuse–the list is almost endless. Strong emotions and the exclusion of facts and logic have played a huge role in the killings of millions of innocent people. To endorse emotion as a means of “finding your moral compass” as Weston apparently endorses is flat out wrong.

Reading this article was about as pleasant as shoveling fresh cow manure out of a unventilated barn on a hot day (I’ve actually done this–it’s not for people with weak stomachs). Weston has the gall to claim facts are unimportant. Emotion is what is important and he claims this as a fact. There is no hypocrisy in his world view is there?

I was going to just ignore Weston’s factual errors in regards to gun laws but I can’t. Weston’s tries to convince us with facts and logic that facts and logic aren’t important. But he is so careless with facts that even if we were to overlook his hypocritical argument we just can’t trust him. Each time he erroneously states a “fact” it’s like he just broke out another window on his airplane. His argument is so drafty that no reasonable person could tolerate the ride even if his plane could get off the ground.

Here is a sample of the factual errors:

  • The Brady Act restricted the sale of “assault weapons” — Wrong. It was the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act passed in 1994.
  • The Brady Act caused 100,000 felons to loose their right to bear arms — Wrong. Convicted felons had that right infringed in 1968 with GCA68.
  • Hunters have a right to own firearms — The right to own firearms has nothing to do with hunting.
  • The National Rifle Association supports semiautomatics for felons — Wrong.
  • The National Rifle Association supports unrestricted access to automatic weapons — Wrong.
  • There exists some set of firearms “designed for no other purpose than to take another person’s life” — I suppose it’s possible but I’ve never seen or heard of such a gun.

I will grant Weston has a point in that emotion is a “card” politicians can and do play with great effect regardless of the facts and logic of reality. But this is not the way it should be. Emotions should be used by politicians to gain support for that which is true and logical. The “dispassionate mind”, which Weston apparently despises, should be the beginnings of any endeavor which has the luxury of at least a small amount of time devoted to planning. From the basis of what is true and good one can build up a web of logic and reach conclusions that will resonate and create passion. One should not start and end with conclusions and passion. To do that is to invite error into our thinking and that is why I see Weston and his ilk as enablers of death and evil.

Quote of the day–The Gun Guys

Posted on by

Emotion is what wins arguments, and there is a tremendous amount of emotion among those fighting to reduce gun violence — there always is when someone gets hurt or must go through the tragedies that we experience in this country as a result of gun violence.

…

That is important emotion, and it will do more for the argument for stronger gun laws than any facts or figures ever will.

…

We have to show legislators the human side of this issue, too, and force them to base their own decisions and policies off of that emotion…

The Gun Guys (actually the paid anti-gun, anti-freedom, activist Gonzo)
Email from June 26, 2007
[There you have it. Just what we have been saying for years. The facts don’t really matter. What matters is emotion. They know the facts don’t support their agenda. The number of innocents dead, wounded, raped, and robbed is irrelevant as long as someone feels good about removing the tools of self defense from those victims. And they need to force legislators to base their decisions off of that same sick mindset.–Joe]

OSHA wants to get involved

Posted on by

From the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) we get this warning:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America’s workers, is proposing a regulatory rule affecting the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants.

As written, the proposed rule would force the closure of nearly all ammunition manufacturers and force the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the market could bear—essentially collapsing our industry. This is not an exaggeration. The cost to comply with the proposed rule for the ammunition industry, including manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million. For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters.

There is something you can do to stop this:

Click here for a template letter. If you choose to draft your own letter, the reference line must read as follows:

RE: Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032
Request to Extend Public Comment Period and Request for Hearing on “Significant Regulatory Action” as Defined in Executive Order 12866

Please fax the letter to: 202-693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on the cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter).

Please e-mail the letter by visiting: http://www.regulations.gov and following the submission instructions.

I don’t have the time to read it right now but I wonder if OSHA is proposing something to the effect that I will have to move my reloading bench out to the Taj Mahal or a similar facility. It would be a pain but I could do it. Expect people to set up storage businesses catering to reloaders if such a thing comes about. It’s total BS of course so we need to do our best to stop this now rather than just mitigate the damage once they get such an oppressive regulation in place.

Semi-auto/full-auto what does it matter?

Posted on by

Last week I took a reporter (Omie) and photographer (Geoff) for the Daily News to the range. Full automatic firearms was the topic. I didn’t have any but I showed them an AR-15 and taught them to shoot it. Omie told me one of the firearms used by Jason Hamilton a few weeks ago was converted from semi-auto to full-auto. I was skeptical but hadn’t really stayed up on the topic. It’s non-trivial to do the conversion and generally you don’t expect losers like Hamilton to have the brain-power and/or strength of will to follow through on something like that.

At least from the editorial standpoint it was pretty clear to me the article was intended to be a hit-piece on owners of machine guns with undercurrents of hostility toward owners of semi-auto firearms. It now turns out both the firearms used by Hamilton were semi-auto. From the Lewiston Morning Tribune:

Gun in Moscow shooting was a semiautomatic

July 2, 2007, 11:04 am

MOSCOW — The AK-47 Jason Hamilton used in his May 19-20 shooting spree is semiautomatic, not fully automatic as was earlier reported by officials investigating the case.

Sgt. Ed Westbrook with the Idaho State Police confirmed Monday that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has determined the gun is a semiauto, which fires one bullet with each trigger pull.

Westbrood said he didn’t know how the AK-47 was initially thought to be fully automatic, which would keep firing as long as the trigger is depressed.

Hamilton used that gun and a semiautomatic Springfield M1A rifle to assault the Latah County Courthouse late in the evening on May 19, firing nearly 200 rounds. He killed Moscow police officer Lee Newbill and church caretaker Paul Bauer before killing himself early in the morning of May 20.

Hamilton had also killed his wife at their home east of Moscow before driving to town to start his shooting spree.

I’m wondering if the Daily News will now publish a correction on their article from Saturday. The entire premise of their article was based on a falsehood. I just wish I knew when the ATF released the info on the gun in question. Did the Daily News have access to that prior to publishing the hit-piece? Of course if they did know that it would probably have just changed the focus from a hit piece on full-auto to a hit-piece on semi-auto firearms. But it would have also completely changed my discussion and interaction with Omie and Geoff.

Palouse Pink Pistols

Posted on by

I got an email from Scotty who is the current head of the Palouse Pink Pistols (Moscow-Pullman area). He is looking for someone to take over the position. Duties are:

…basically, take over the PP E-mail addy. try and organize get together and so forth. keep an eye on whats happening. pretty low energy.

I have way too much on my plate as it is and can’t take on anything new. If someone wants take over for him send me an email (p3@joehuffman.org) and I’ll forward it on.

My guns and I made the front page

Posted on by

Yesterday the Daily News ran the article they were working on about fully automatic firearms. I posted about the trip to the range with the reporter and the photographer on Thursday. The article itself is very factual and I would say unbiased–given the assignment of writing about full autos in the context of a multiple homicide. The “More restrictions or better enforcement…” part was probably put in by the editor and illustrates how you can get screwed by just one bigot in the pipeline of people the information flows through. Most of the article requires a fee to access on-line but here is the part visible for free:


Geoff Crimmins/Daily News
Joe Huffman of Moscow fires his STI Eagle semi-automatic competition pistol at a shooting range on Lenville Road south of Troy on Thursday. Huffman is a gun-rights activist and NRA certified instructor.

Fully automatic; More restrictions or better enforcement could be key to questions about weapons

Jason Hamilton was armed with a semi-automatic weapon and an automatic weapon when he went on a killing spree in Moscow in May.

When the shooting spree ended, four people were dead, three were injured and 185 bullet casings littered the parking lot of the Latah County Courthouse and the inside of the First Presbyterian Church across the street.

Despite that fact, some people say there are enough restrictions for automatic weapons to keep the firearms from being readily available and used in crimes.


Geoff Crimmins/Daily News
Joe Huffman loads ammunition into a clip for his AR-15 carbine at a shooting range south of Troy on Thursday.


Geoff Crimmins/Daily News
Joe Huffman explains how to line up the sights of a gun on a target at a shooting range south of Troy on Thursday.

It’s not easy to see in the picture here, it’s much more visible in the dead tree version, but there are three shell casings in the air in the first picture. One just above the chamber of my pistol, one that appears to be in front of my eyes, and one just off the point of my chin. I estimated I was firing about three rounds per second. All hit the target. Nearly all were in the A with a few in the C zone of the IPSC target. The picture shows me leaning backward a great deal and it seems the pistol has recoiled a great deal more than is actually the case. I’m certain the camera wasn’t parallel to the ground and that I was actually leaning into the shots. The target was probably only about three and a half feet high at the “shoulder” instead of the typical five feet.

The loading the clip picture came about because I was fighting the battle against calling gun magazines clips. My son James says the battle is over and it is lost but I keep trying and explained the difference to Omie and Geoff. They got the caption to the picture right but I’m not sure it helped my cause any.

Some good has come about from the article already–I received an email from someone who saw the article and wondered where the range was and how to join. He will probably be showing up at the IPSC match later today with his application in hand.

Quote of the day–Colleen Lawson

Posted on by

Just a few short months ago, I was still caught between the walls of the positive-thought-is-all-we-need-to follow box; Now I am a gun owner, and I am positively far more capable of making sure no uninvited violence enters my home. Without the freedom to reach for a weapon of my choice, I play a less-than-active part against violence; with that freedom, I get to participate in my own life, and in those of those I love.

Colleen Lawson
June 24, 2007
Don’t Call Me a Gun Lover
Via Kevin’s post But I Will Call You My Ally.
[She has some things to say about Jesse Jackson too.–Joe]