Banning Possession of Gun Knowledge

New South Wales has moved to ban the possession or sharing of information on 3D printed firearms.

Considering that plans have been available since 2013, this seems a bit like trying to put the genie back into a bottle. We know how well it works to tell people that they can’t have something anymore when it can be downloaded from the internet. It’s not like Australia doesn’t already have laws on the possession of actual guns, but I guess now they want to ban the knowledge of guns, too.

PA Police Promote PSH

I don’t see how this “case of mistaken identity” had a positive outcome, other than no-one was harmed by the police responding to a bogus “Man With Gun” call. And then the cops double down and encourage people to make bogus calls. Topped off by the Lancaster Safety Coalition “review[ing] footage” and “see[ing] how the tripod could be mistaken for a gun at first glance.” Mrs Grundy in the 21st Century?

Weekly Gun News – Edition 20

It’s not really tab cleaning time just yet, but I’d rather fire off the news post today rather than tomorrow. Tomorrow is our last day in our old offices. On Monday, the movers come, and I have to move a few switches and servers. Tuesday they switch our Internet pipe, so I will have a lot to do ahead of the Thanksgiving Holiday.

It’s almost like he wants Hillary to lose: “Obama says gun control to be top issue of final year.” Either that or he’s making a killing on gun stocks.

Apparently the European Commission is considering a rash of gun control laws. It’s what control freak technocrats are wont to do, and the European Union is the biggest infestation of technocrats out there. Of course, none of this will work, but control is what they do.

Analysis true: How not to be a jerk at a shooting match.

Clinton and O’Malley are still trying to out anti-gun each other.

Bernie hits back at O’Malley, noting Baltimore is not a very safe city.

Haters gonna hate.

Dog bites man: Bob Owens notes there’s more support for reinstating DC’s gun ban from wealthy whites than from residents outside of that demographic.

Every town put out a “study” that suggests states that ban private transfers of handguns have fewer mass shootings. Again, they are hoping you’re thinking one kind of mass shooting when the vast majority of these are really another.

Charles C.W. Cooke: “The NRA Is Absolutely Right to Fear the ‘Terrorism Watch List’” He takes on that ridiculous headline over at the New York Daily News. I don’t even think the “no-fly” list should be constitutional, let alone using this bullshit for removing 2nd Amendment rights.

Taurus pistols don’t seem to be drop safe? All modern pistols should be drop safe. That’s one safety feature I agree with.

Oregon admits to monitoring what Second Amendment supports were saying after the UCC killings.

There’s a Swedish rifle called the “School Shooting Rifle.” No really, there is.

Brazil seeks to copy US gun culture.

Dog bites man again: It’s possible for criminals to traffic contraband. This apparently comes as a shock to many.

Good to see Mayor Nutter putting the “Lame” in “Lame Duck.”


Jim Geraghty on Smaller Government

Jim Geraghty’s “Morning Jolt” is one of my my many sources of news, but I thought yesterday he made a good point in a rant about why GOP primary voters weren’t looking to give Bobby Jindal much of a chance (personally, I thought Jindal cozied up to the religious right too early and too hard):

See, a lot of us conservatives walk around in a reassuring trance believing that people like and want small government. Most people don’t. At most, they like and want small government for other people. Farmers like farm subsidies, defense-contractor employees like big spending by the Pentagon, most senior citizens explode at the slightest mention of cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Most self-identified conservatives not only don’t fight for smaller government, they fight against it when it personally impacts them. And then they turn around and complain that lawmakers never manage to reduce the size of government.

That’s pretty much spot on, unfortunately.

On The Syrian Refugee Issue

I’m with Tam on the issue, I’m glad it’s not my call. But I’ve seen a lot of conservatives arguing that because no background check can be 100% effective, and there are sure to be some jihadists among them, we don’t let any of them in. It only takes one to do a lot of damage. Let me play a bit of devil’s advocate, but in a different context.

There’s no way for a background check to be 100% effective, and one wrong person with a gun can cause a lot of damage, so we ban guns, right? Careful what lines of reasoning you use, lest that logic be applied to other contexts on issues you care about.

I don’t join with the left to suggest that if you don’t want to let them in your a horrible, racist person, and I think there are reasonable and non-racist arguments to be made for not accepting Syrian refugees. I’d just be careful with a “we can never be too safe” argument when it comes to background checks, because that leads to a certain conclusion in another context that would make most readers of this blog deeply uncomfortable.

New Jersey Looking to Repeal Smart Gun Law

They’d be replacing the Smart Gun mandate with a mandate that would require dealers to stock at least one smart gun. Don’t buy this load of crap for a single moment. They’ve already showed their cards. If smart guns appear on the market, they intend to mandate them, no matter how awful, dysfunctional, and expensive they may be.

I don’t see why Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) would think we’d be fooled by this move and drop opposition to smart gun technology. We didn’t have to arrive at this place. I don’t think any gun owners are opposed to the technology in concept, provided it’s the market that’s allowed to choose whether it wins or loses. But Senator Weinberg didn’t want that. She wanted to mandate it, while at the same time exempting police. That’s not something that can be undone, and trust gets automatically restored. We should continue to oppose this technology. We know, not just speculate, we know it will result in politicians mandating it.

Another Kind of Poll: LTC Applications Surging

After the attacks on Paris, I turned to Bitter and said “I’ll bet this will see another surge in gun sales, and particularly a surge in people applying for concealed carry licenses.” Sure enough, western Pennsylvania sheriffs departments are reporting they are overwhelmed by the number of new applicants:

Requests for licenses to carry concealed handguns jumped sharply in some Western Pennsylvania counties Monday and Tuesday, a reaction some sheriffs’ offices said they have come to expect in the days after mass shootings and terrorist attacks.

And this kind of poll is the only kind that counts. Regardless of what Bloomberg wants to trick people into believing, when Americans become concerned they may come under attack, they arm themselves.

I first got my LTC in 2002, less than a year after 9/11, and it was 9/11 that convinced me to pull the trigger, so to speak. I figured they’d eventually try something here like they did later in Mumbai, Kenya, and now Paris.

New Everytown Commissioned PPP Poll Shows How It Matters How You Ask The Question

Bloomberg’s mouthpiece is touting a new PPP poll they commissioned that they claim shows clear support for banning private transfers of firearms, but in actuality shows very strong support for the Brady Bill, which already passed in 1994.

Q1  Do you support or oppose requiring a criminal background check of every person who wants to buy a firearm?

Support a criminal background check for
everyone who wants to buy a firearm …………. 83%

Oppose a criminal background check for
everyone who wants to buy a firearm …………. 14%

Notsure……………………………………………………. 3%

It makes you question why they are framing the question this way. Why not ask the question this way? “Do you support or oppose requiring all transfers of firearms between individuals to be processed by federally licensed gun shops who conduct background checks?” How much does the support fall off if you do that? How many people took that question to mean support for background checks at point of sale?

The biggest problem for NRA in all of this is probably this:

Q12 Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: The NRA used to be an organization dedicated to gun safety, but it’s been overtaken by lobbyists and the interests of gun manufacturers and lost its original purpose and mission.
Strongly agree ………………………………………… 45%
Somewhat agree……………………………………… 14%
Somewhat disagree …………………………………. 13%
Strongly disagree……………………………………..19%
Notsure…………………………………………………… 9%

But then you have 51% of gun owners saying NRA represents their interests, which makes you ponder whether they misunderstood the question.

Q10 In your view, does the NRA represent your interests as a gun owner, or not?
NRA represents your interests as a gun
owner …………………………………………………….. 51%
NRA does not represent your interests as a
gun owner ………………………………………………. 37%
Not sure …………………………………………………. 12%

Polling is essentially trickery, because how you ask the question can skew the results incredibly. How many people on the Constitutional Carry questions were thinking removing the permit requirement would mean no more carry? The domestic abusers and stalker numbers don’t surprise me. No one wants to be seen, even by a pollster, or standing up for domestic abusers and/or stalkers.

One thing to also keep in mind with polls like this is that they will greatly overstate NRA membership, because they identify NRA members by asking if the person is an NRA members. About 33 million Americans will self-identify as NRA members even if they haven’t actually been dues-paying members for years. That’s about 1/3rd the number of gun owners in this country. So when 55% of the people in this poll say NRA represents their position on background checks, that’s about 15.4 million Americans who say they are NRA members, but actually are not. Just to put that in perspective, Obama’s margin in 2012 was 3.5 million, and in 2009 was 9.5 million.

New Jersey Bill Would Require Dome Lights at Traffic Stops

How do you become a police state? Whatever the police ask for, they get. No questions. I think this bill, which would require people to turn on their dome lights during a traffic stop is going to end up getting someone killed. The police unions are asking for it, so who are members of either party to say no? Republicans love themselves some law and order, and you can’t expect a Democrat to say no to a union, can you?

What’s going to end up happening is a lot of out-of-state people will get fined, because they aren’t aware of such a ridiculous law, since they don’t exist in other states. Maybe that’s the idea. Is it a good and courteous thing to turn on one’s dome light during a stop? Sure. But just because it’s courteous doesn’t mean it ought to be the law.

Of course, there will be the usual, “the innocent having nothing to hide,” from the law and order crowd, but remember a .22LR hollow nose cartridge getting out of your range bag is going to get you in a hell of a lot more trouble than a $50 fine in New Jersey. This bill is not only an invitation to extract more money from out-of-state drivers, it’s an invitation for more otherwise law abiding gun owners to end up in New Jersey State prison. Chris Christie isn’t going to be around to issue pardons forever, and we already know the courts can not be depended on.

My bigger concern is that as awareness of the law spreads in New Jersey, the people who are slow to catch on are going to be presumed by the stopping officer to be up to no good, and are going to meet at the least a heightened response, and at worse a dangerous overreaction. Politicians need to think about the consequences of these kinds of outlying regulations, and not be afraid to say no to the police lobby when they come asking for them. It’s already against the law in New Jersey to refuse to turn on your dome light when requested (I don’t know what happens if your dome light doesn’t work, since it’s not an inspection item, and not required to be working on the car). This law seems like a way to bilk money out of the peasantry while claiming to be about keeping the King’s Men safe.

Dealing With Attackers Armed with TATP Suicide Bombs

I asked Joe Huffman, who runs Boomershoot and who has more explosive experience than any other gun blogger, if he would have any commentary about suicide bombers who were armed with TATP bombs, and he has responded. He’s certain that if TATP gets hit with a bullet impact it will detonate, so necessitates head shots. He goes into a lot more detail than I will, so read the whole thing.

One weakness in my own shooting is that I’ve spent very little time shooting at moving targets. I’ve done it once, and I did OK, but I’d love to spend more time with targets like this:

Of course, I should offer the standard Internet disclaimer which goes: “That kind of gamer stuff will get you killed on the street,” or something like that, but since you can’t practice shooting terrorists in the gourd, these kinds of moving targets seem like a good idea.

« Previous Entries