Context Matters

From a, “there ought to be a law” perspective, I have no problems with what these two kids are doing. But, no matter how old or young you are, I don’t think I can universally say that slinging a rifle around with you is a good idea. Context matters.

If I see someone come into a mall, our roughly similar public place, with a rifle slung, I’m probably going to do a double take, and, to be honest, even if I don’t call the police, I wouldn’t blame anyone who did. I’m very certainly going to keep a very close eye on that person while they are in my immediate vicinity and prepare myself for the possibility I might have to draw on this person. Why? Because context matters, and around here, people don’t go walking around with slung rifles in public places. That’s not oppression, that’s just how it is. What I wouldn’t think twice about seeing on the hiking trail, or along a road, if I see in a populated public area, it’s going to elicit an entirely different response.

I’m not saying open carry should be illegal. I think everyone has as a right to bear arms in whatever way they see fit. But I have to agree with this guy, at least in part:

He said that just because the Dotys are carrying guns in public doesn’t mean they’re not responsible with them, but questioned the need to carry them in town even though it was legal.

“My advice for them is the same as it is with adults — yes it’s your right and yes it’s legal, but why draw unnecessary attention to yourself just because you can?”

I don’t really agree with him in regards to the need, but do as far as drawing unnecessary attention to oneself. I’ve never been a big advocate of open carry for this reason. Some will argue the educational aspects of it, but personally, I don’t think it’s changing anyone’s minds, or really successfully communicating gun rights messages. People either a) assume you’re a cop, or b) get the willies. In the case of slung rifles in populated areas, I’m not entirely sure I’d say someone who had reaction b) would be entirely off base.

Defend your Vicinity

Joe Huffman asks, in regards to the recent shooting in his home town:

There is the issue of urban response and combat tactics, which leave me curious. The guy apparently was shooting at anything that moved. He was on a hilltop surrounded by mostly residential streets and a high school, but also surrounded on two sides by solid buildings. What do you do? That’s my question, and I don’t have a good answer, mainly because I have no exact details and maybe never will have them. IF (if) there is guy in a parking lot firing shots at everything around him (was he maneuvering? was he behind cover? we don’t know) he might be a fairly easy target for someone intent on stopping him. Certainly a SWAT team arriving hours later was in this case of no use.

If it was my neighborhood, and there was a guy in the area shooting at anything that moved, I’d return fire if I had a clear shot, but I’m not going to go roaming around the neighborhood looking for him.

As soon as I knew the guy was in the area shooting, I’d load the AR-15, and call the police. After the police were called I’d check my immediate vicinity (basically my own property, plus up and down the street) and see if I could spot the shooter. If I can identify him, and have a clear shot, I’ll take it. I am fairly confident in my ability to hit a man sized target out to 100 yards with an iron sighted AR-15. If I couldn’t easily identify the location of the shooter as being in my vicinity, I’d retreat into the house, find cover someplace where I can still see what’s going on, and keep an eye out for the shooter until the police arrived.

I don’t think it’s a wise idea to be running around the neighborhood with a loaded rifle out in the open. There’s a non-trivial chance you’ll be mistaken by police, or another one of your neighbors, for the active shooter. I think in this situation, the best thing to do is to defend your vicinity. If the shooter comes into your vicinity, carefully aimed return fire is the way to go.

Leave tracking the guy down to the guys wearing a uniform and body armor. I don’t think you have any duty to go seeking out an active shooter that’s not in your immediate vicinity. Presumably, your neighbors have all taken care of their own defense. If they haven’t, it sucks to be them. Toting firearms is about defending yourself, and those immediately in your presence. It’s best to leave the offensive action to the professionals.

Rifles I Can’t Afford

The M82A1 in .50BMG is generally considered most useful in anti-material operations. For long-rang anti-personnel work, you can’t beat the .408 caliber CheyTac M100 and M200 rifles. It’s portable too.

http://www.pagunblog.com/blogpics/cheytacM100.jpg
The M100 Rifle

http://www.pagunblog.com/blogpics/cheytacM200.jpg
M-200 Rifle

Both pretty attractive looking pieces, but at 14k a pop, I’d rather have a Barrett M82A1. Also, Ronnie Barrett will sell you the same rifle he sells the military, and I can respect a company that respects its customers. CheyTac sells a less accurate version to civilian shooters because “we never want our incredible technology to fall into the wrong hands.” Piss on that. If I were a terrorist with 14 large burning a hole through my pocket, I’m sure I could get a military version of the M200 from the right person.

Thinking About Reloading

I’m sure there are some of you out there that are reloaders.  The price of 5.56x45mm has me seriously considering taking it up as a hobby.  It looks to me like the money saved doing it yourself is really negligible unless you reuse your brass.

What are the advantages to reloading really?   Can it save money?  How many times can you typically reuse brass?  Is it worth it for me to invest in all the equipment to do it?  Are there hazards?  The ammo I spend the most amount of time shooting, other than .22LR, is .223, 9x19mm, 9x18mm and 7.62×39.   I think the latter two, because they are typically Berdan primed, would be hard to reload.   Any advise is appreciated.

Compressed Air Cars

Instapundit is talking about compressed air cars.  The big problem with this technology is you’re essentially driving with a bomb under your car.  Gasoline contains a lot of energy, but it won’t explode under normal conditions.  You’ll get a hell of a blaze, but not an explosion.   Any compressed gas technology is going to have the fundamental problem of an explosion hazard, not because of the gas within being explosive, but because of the tremendous amount of energy being stored up in the tank.  See this summary of a dive shop explosion that occurred when the tank failed.

Also, the net greenhouse gas savings here would be negligible, since it will take copious amounts of electricity to operate the fill up stations and compressors.  This energy, if it comes from burning coal, will just shift the greenhouses gases to the power companies.   But still, this technology is more promising than the ones that involve reacting light metals with water to produce hydrogen.

Mayhem on the Streets of Japan

From an Association Press Article, it seems that there’s been a spate of violent crime in normally low crime (and gun free) Japan:

Japan, a country of 127 million people, had 1,391 homicides in 2005, compared with 16,692 in the United States. But overall crime in Japan jumped to 2.27 million cases that year, from 1.81 million in 1996, the National Police Agency said.

“Anxiety is mounting in Japan about the increase of high-profile crimes. Due to rapid globalization, the traditional rules and social order are changing dramatically,” said Jun Ayukawa, an expert on criminal psychology at Japan’s Kwansei Gakuin University.

The surge in high-profile violent crime has spurred debate over tougher gun-control rules, calls for strengthening the moral fiber of youth in schools and concerns about the state of parenting.

How do you get tougher gun-control rules than “You may not have them, except under very rare circumstances”? I suppose after the gun control advocates achieve their goal of banning guns entirely, the next step will be to double ban them. Because if the first ban didn’t work, clearly you need to ban them one more time, just to be sure.

UPDATE: I see David picked up on this earlier.

A New Aquisition from Cabela’s

I joked with Bitter that every weekend she spends away from me, I will comfort myself by buying a gun. She’ll have to find out whether or not I’m actually joking. This weekend’s addition was a Ruger Mk.III Hunter 22/45. I got it at Cabela’s, which processes gun buyers with assembly line efficiency. I figured it was easier to get exactly what I was looking for there, rather than run around to 20 different gun stores to find it.

I was disappointed to see that Cabela’s is now requiring customers to check their firearms at the front desk. I’m happy that they at least provide a place to check, but do they have to state “For your safety, please be sure to check all firearms at the customer service desk”, or something very similar. It’s not for my safety. Maybe for the job safety of their lawyers or whoever insures Cabela’s, but certainly not for mine. Needless to say I paid the sign about as much attention as it deserved. Does anyone else’s local Cabela’s post signage? If you by a gun, they also escort you out with the purchase, and hand it to you after you exit the building. The whole experience certainly makes me more inclined to make my next purchases at the local gun stores, where not only do they allow customers to carry, but the people behind the counters are strapped as well.

Maybe Cabela’s should rethink their policy and ban their insurance company’s lawyers instead of guns. No insurance policy is worth pissing off your customers. Especially in a state like Pennsylvania where there are close to 700,000 people licensed to carry.