Quote of the day—Hollis Phelps

The mass shootings that plague us, and the daily individual acts of gun violence and death should, however, lead us to make access to guns more difficult. We should, that is, seek to “control” access to them and their use. But even that’s not going far enough. We should get rid of them, that is, ban them. Guns create too many problems, promote too much fear, and lead to too many deaths to not consider banning them. Perhaps they were necessary at some point in our history, but let’s declare that that time has run its course.

Hollis Phelps
December 4, 2015
The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Old primers

The other day I was cleaning out a box of old stuff and I found this:

WP_20160116_13_16_47_ProWeb

It’s some very old primers. I’m pretty sure I bought these in Moscow Idaho about 1975. This was long before I was into guns or had ever reloaded ammunition. I think I was going to use them to make an Estes rocket into some sort of missile with a “warhead” for the 4th of July. I never got around to it and all the primers are still in the package.

Herman’s World of Sporting Goods closed their last store in 1996, but I’m pretty sure the one in Moscow was closed many years prior to that.

Today a box of 1000 Small Rifle Magnum Primers cost about $35.00, if they were packaged and sold in 100 piece quantity, as in the picture above, the price would be just about double what they were when I bought mine.

Found in a box of bullets

Today I finished loading a case (supposedly 2500 but there were 2513 in this one) of 180 grain, .40 caliber, JHP, Montana Gold bullets. In the box I found this:

WP_20160116_13_15_57_ProWeb

It’s a partially formed bullet jacket.

Quote of the day—Earnest Harris

I am officially beyond a place of wanting to find a compromise with those who want to argue for the right, or the need, of citizens to arm themselves with guns. Focusing on assault weapons only is just giving in to the gun lobby out of a fear that we can’t beat them if we don’t give them something. The time has come for our society to say enough is enough and that we must completely outlaw private citizens from owning guns. There is just no good logic to it and the number of senseless deaths attributed to people wielding all too easily acquired guns has reached a point where we have to say this has to stop.

Let’s not go halfway on this. Let’s not be afraid of the fight ahead in working to remove all guns from private ownership.

Earnest Harris
January 16, 2013
Assault Weapons Ban Is Not Enough
[Harris said this three years ago today. How’s that removal effort working out for him? Not so well? Maybe because he hasn’t take point on the implementation.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gary Kleck

The term ‘loophole’ suggests that it was a minor, unintended flaw in the design of the law, something inadvertently overlooked by lawmakers, when it was actually the very intentional result of a carefully worked-out political compromise between those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all.

Gary Kleck
January 7, 2016
PolitiFact Sheet: 3 things to know about the ‘gun show loophole’
[This article does a good job of explaining the facts about the “gun show loophole”. I particularly like this part:

Our findings show that there is, in fact, an exemption in the law. But the exemption pertains to who sells the guns rather than where they sell them.

And that distinction is critical. The anti-gun crowd uses deliberate deception (it’s part of their culture) in an attempt to get laws passed which would be far less likely to get support if they were to be truthful.

I also found this to be of interest:

Professors at Northeastern and Harvard universities conducted a gun survey in 2015 that isn’t yet published. The national survey of 4,000 non-institutionalized adults found that 22 percent of the people who purchased guns — at gun shows, stores or elsewhere — underwent no background check, said Matthew Miller, professor of Health Sciences and Epidemiology at Northeastern University and co-director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

When researchers excluded purchases between family and friends, that number dropped to 15 percent, which equates to approximately 5 million gun owners whose most recent purchase did not involve a background check.

I sent an email to Miller that said, in part:

I have some questions about the study referenced.

When will this study will be published?

A “background check” is not a black and white activity. Did your study consider the seller requiring the purchaser possess a concealed carry license a “background check” or not? There are other indirect “background checks” possible as well. For example, some gun organizations require a concealed carry and/or background check for membership. Hence any member of the organization has had a background check at some point in the not too distance past.

It’s unclear, but implied, that the way study was conducted was to ask 4,000 people if their most recent gun purchase was made without a background check. Is this true? If so, that raises an important issue as in the following scenario.

Suppose collectors of antique firearms purchase almost exclusively from private individuals at a rate of five firearms per year. If most people with only one (or very few) firearms purchase almost exclusively from licensed dealers, then it’s not possible to discern the overall number of sales without explicit background checks. In this situation there is a bias which results in an underestimation of the number of sales without explicit background checks.

Other scenarios are also possible that can give a bias in the other direction. Additional information is required to arrive at the true rate of explicit background checks.

But in any case, it would appear there is data which puts the upper limit on private firearm sales to people of unknown eligibility at about 15 percent. This is in contrast to the common, long known to be erroneous, claim of “40 percent”.

Now I wonder when (if?) this study will be released and if the anti-gun people will revise down their claims of the prevalence of firearm sales without background checks. Particularly when Miller receives a lot of money from the Joyce Foundation.—Joe]

Update: I sent the email to Miller four days ago on January 11th. No response yet.

Anti-gun mental ill health

Via email from Miles I received this bill introduced in Missouri by Representative Stacey Newman.

The TLDR version is, in Miles words:

It would create restrictive guidelines that a person must follow to purchase a firearm in the state of Missouri.
 
Basically you can only buy from an FFL that’s at least 120 miles away from your residence, after getting a psych eval signed off (I assume at the buyer’s expense), watch a 30 minute anti-gun video and take a tour of a trauma ER on a weekend between 10pm and 6am when there’s actually a patient being treated for a gunshot wound, visit two families who have had a family member shot and visit two “ local faith leaders” who have performed a funeral service for a teenager who was shot and killed in the last year. Oh, I almost forgot, I have to have my 91 year old father and 89 year old mother sign off on the purchase too as there’s no age limit for the required parental permission slip (and what happens if one is an orphan?).

Many anti-gun people have mental health issues. I have to believe this another one. It’s hard to believe someone, even the most evil, if they are rational, can imagine this would pass muster in the courts let alone with a majority of their fellow politicians. Even in the most generous of scenarios, signaling her virtue to other anti-gun people, you would have to conclude, “this is crazy talk”.

How does someone like that even get elected? They must have stopped taking their meds after winning the election.

Requiring seizure

Via email from Paul K.

Read the Gun ‘Seizure’ Bill Introduced by Democrats That Will Likely Send a Chill Down the Spines of Georgia Gun Owners

Six Democrats in Georgia’s state House of Representatives unveiled a bill on Jan. 11 that would “require seizure” of “certain weaponry and ammunition” that is deemed as contraband, effectively banning “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines.”

HB 731, which is sponsored by Mary Margaret Oliver, Carolyn Hugley, Pat Gardiner, Stacey Abrams, Dar’shun Kendrick and Dee Dawkins-Haigler, would amend current law to “prohibit the possession, sale, transport, distribution or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets.”

Those who do possess either an assault weapon or a large-capacity magazine, as defined in the text of the bill, on July 1, 2016, will need to either modify the weapon to magazine to “render it permanently inoperable or such that it is no longer an assault weapon or large capacity magazine” or give the firearm over to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to be destroyed; gun owners will have an Oct. 31, 2016 deadline to do so.

I agree with some of the text of this proposal. The part about requiring seizure and rendering permanently inoperable. But they have the object of those verbs wrong. The objects should the politicians advocating for such a law. They should arrested and then prosecuted.

Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Quote of the day—Miss Tina‏ @Miss__Tina

@NRA I’d wager most of your members are adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Miss Tina‏ @Miss__Tina
Tweeted on January 7, 2016
[This is what they think of you. If you don’t think like them you must be crazy and it’s off to the psych ward for you. It’s what Stalin did and it’s what they will do if they get the chance.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Domenico P. Nanni @dominicnanni

What are conservatives going to do when we succeed in taking their guns away? #guncontrol

Domenico P. Nanni @dominicnanni
Tweeted on January 7, 2016
[Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Their desperation is showing

From CNN, Gun control groups emphasize suicides in bid for more public support:

In years past, gun control advocates focused almost exclusively on homicides, whether the mass shootings covered intensively by the national media or the inner-city murders that are a staple of the late local news. Now, groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, as well as public health researchers, are starting to emphasize suicides.

The shift is part of a broader change in looking at gun violence as more of a public health issue and less of a matter of crime.

“When criminologists focus on guns, they focus on crime,” said David Hemenway a professor at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “What we’ve been trying to say is that a person is dead whether or not someone else shot them, they were shot by accident or they shot themselves on purpose.”

Zimring said that by putting the focus on victims who are their relatives and neighbors, gun control advocates hope to get the attention of these “apathetic” suburban voters.

“It’s a politically sophisticated way to change the nature of the debate,” he said. “The point is not to increase the percentage of support, but to increase the intensity of support. It’s not to make more people support gun control. It’s to make them care about it.”

I used to play a lot of tennis. There was a “rule” my instructors drilled into me, “Never change a winning strategy, always change a losing strategy.” This same rule is applicable to a lot of endeavors. This includes politics.

Gun control people are losing their war on guns and they know they need to change their strategy. It’s a little subtle but I find the statement “When criminologists focus on guns, they focus on crime” very telling. They know criminological data does not support the case for gun control and they need to change the focus of their attack on our rights. The Heller decision blunted many of the gun control by “principle” (such as “civilized people don’t own guns”) and conformance with “other advanced countries”. The mass shootings excuse for infringement is falling flat because any rational person recognizes that the best way to stop such an attack is exactly what the NRA says, “A good guy with a gun.”

What do they have left? They only have suicides as a possible weapon against us. There is a reason this has not been used much in the past. It’s because it too has fallen flat when it has been attempted. In debates with anti-gun people in the past I have never had them try to defend suicide by gun as a valid reason to place restrictions on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. And people in the middle will dismiss it even quicker. This is the anti-gun conspirators last ditch tool of desperation and it will fail just as it has in the past.

Quote of the day—Jim Kenney

There are just too many guns on the streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that.

Jim Kenney
Mayor of Philadelphia
January 8, 2016
Man ambushes, tries to “execute” cop in Philadelphia
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Bad primer

I found a bad primer when reloading some more ammo over the weekend:

WP_20160111_20_46_04_Pro__highresCropped

This is the second time (out of nearly 70K rounds reloaded) I have found a bad primer. The first time was less than a year ago. Again it was a Winchester Small Pistol (WSP) but it was a different lot this time:

WP_20160111_21_10_29_ProCropped

This primer was very obviously bad and would not have inserted into the shell casing without difficultly had I tried.

Quote of the day—Mo @Mo_2015UK

@PC_Kyllyr @Frozty2u And you sir are a right wing cunt, who has a micro penis who needs his large gun to make up for not satisfying women.

Mo ‏@Mo_2015UK
Tweeted on October 25, 2015.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a tweet from Proud Hunter ‏@Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

ObamaTheDum-Dum

I’m not sure “The DUM-DUM” is the best caption. More like “The Truth Be Known.” But then the image would have to be changed to match.

Via Townhall.com.

Quote of the day—Slifter ‏@slifter

HowManyWillIHaveLeft

Slifter ‏@slifter
Tweeted January 7, 2016
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

ObamaBullseye

I think this is exactly correct.

Via Townhall.com.

Quote of the day—Connecticut Carry

The home invasion, which was carried out on August 6, 2012, in Sharon Connecticut found the victim’s mother zip-tied with her son Luke dead from multiple gunshot wounds pleading with the dispatcher for police and an ambulance for ten minutes. At approximately 6 minutes into the call, she exclaims that ‘she doesn’t have a gun and couldn’t defend herself’ in an audible display of despair.

Politicians who are protected by armed security details like Governor Malloy, the Connecticut General Assembly and Connecticut’s Federal Representatives and Senators continually tell the public that this kind of thing doesn’t happen. That people do not need firearms to defend themselves, and worse, they create infringements on the right to armed self-defense for the citizens in Connecticut.

Connecticut Carry
January 7, 2016
Press Release: When Seconds Count the Police Are Ten Minutes Away
[These politicians need to be prosecuted.—Joe]

Sean’s dream is coming true

Laser weapons are being tested right now and they are getting close to having them on military planes:

a number of other companies are also working on lasers that might be suitable for use on the AC-130. Lockheed Martin, the aircraft’s manufacturer, is developing a 60-kilowatt-class laser for the Army, for example, and Northrop has advertised its interest in developing airborne lasers as well. AFSOC has studies under way to determine the best solution.

And they are getting small enough to put on a small truck:

General Atomics has developed another version that fits in a box 12 feet long, 4 feet wide and 2 feet tall.

60 kW is a lot of punch. A six inch diameter magnifying glass collects about 15 W (1/4000th of the power of the laser) and quickly fries an ant.

And these are going to get smaller too. A 1 kW laser rifle would seem to be plausible and useful for some tasks.

I know it could make Sean’s dream come true.

Ammunition control

From CNN Money, Gun control is one thing, but what about bullets?

A small group of gun-control advocates have, for years, been making the case that bullets are as good, if not better, a target for regulation than guns. Without bullets, they point out, a gun is a useless piece of metal. And unlike guns, bullets must continually be replaced. “If I buy a firearm, I take good care of it, it can last a lifetime,” says Garen Wintemute, an emergency physician and Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. “The larger share of the market is in the consumables, like ammunition.”

The proposed new system in California would require a background check at every purchase, and would draw on the database of prohibited purchasers, updated in real time, that the state already uses for gun sales.

What about background checks before you make a post on Facebook or tweet something? What about a background check each time before you go to church, vote, or read something of political nature? It’s a constitutionally protected right and these proposals create a chilling effect upon that right.

Even ignoring the principles involved these people are delusional. They are almost completely out of touch with reality. Last year, in my spare time, I reloaded 9531 rounds on my little bench using a simple hand-powered press and other tools. In the last week, putting a little more effort into it because of an upcoming class, I manufactured 1200 rounds. At that rate I could easily assemble over 60,000 rounds in a year. That’s more than enough, even including a fair number for misses, for all the murders committed by people with guns in the entire country. There

So…how do they propose they might be able to stop the black market manufacture of ammunition? There are probably 100s of thousands of people in this country with reloading equipment and components. As soon as there is serious talk of trying to shut us down the component market will explode and people like me will have the components to assemble 100,000s of thousands of rounds (I currently have components for about 10K rounds on hand) before they can get the restrictions in place.

Quote of the day—Police Detective Sergeant

I had a female in here. She’s every bit of 5-foot and 80 pounds. I’m not going to say anyone can’t take a gun from me or, or you know. But, I’m just saying and I told her I’m going to be completely honest with you. In my opinion, I said, if I saw you and I saw you with a gun, especially here in Essex County, and the people we have here in this county. Um, I said yeah I’d be concerned with you having a firearm. Again it wasn’t anything against her. It’s not her fault she’s female and only, but I said we’ve got to look at the public safety.

Police Detective Sergeant
Orange New Jersey
December 2, 2015
Second Amendment Society Claims Police Departments Delaying and Denying Handgun Permits
[As I have said many times before (see also here and here). The only reason I’ll willingly go into New Jersey in its present corrupt state is if I can get a hunting license with an unlimited bag limit for people like this Sergeant.—Joe]