June 2007 – Page 7 – Shall Not Be Questioned

New Shooter

I took my ex girlfriend’s young brother shooting this weekend. He wanted to try it, and she said it was fine, despite the fact she’s not all that comfortable around guns herself. This was a true first time shooter, which I will typically start with long guns rather than pistol. The real question is whether to start with a .22 (best option, typically) or move up to the AR-15. Generally if someone is a little timid, I’ll go for the .22LR. If they don’t display any particular timidity around firearms, I’ll upgrade to the AR.

Guys typically like shooting the military stuff if they’ve never shot before, so I took the AK-47 and AR-15. He displayed a bit of recoil sensitivity with the AK-47, and struggled a bit more with the operating system. Consistently, people who are new shooters much prefer the AR-15 over anything else. I find they latch on to the AR-15 operating system really fast, and become proficient quickly. The sights are also easy to explain and intuitive on the AR-15. I noticed he wasn’t hitting anything with the AK, and after a brief explanation of the notch sight, I don’t think he was sighting it properly.

Setting the target out at 20 yards, with the AR-15 he was hitting groups about the size of an orange at first, from bench, then they’d loosen up. I see that a lot from new shooters, and I think it’s recoil anticipation that’s building up. His shooting with the AK was all over the place. I think the recoil was making him tense up too much and jerk the rifle too much in anticipation.

In conclusion, I think the AR-15 platform is really the best for new shooters. A more conventional looking .22 might be more apt for someone who is truly timid, because a lot of people make assumptions about military patterned guns are just aren’t correct. I’ve not had much luck with getting new people to enjoy shooting the AK-47 platform, particularly people who are recoil sensitive. For beginners, I think the AK-74 platform is a better choice. I will have to try that on my next new shooter.

VCDL and the Governor

I think the Virginia Governor’s Office is probably a bit confused here, since it makes no sense to me at all to worry about concealed carry.Â Â What I suspect was the concern is VCDL members quite often carry openly, as is their right.Â I think VCDL did the right thing by asking members to carry concealed to this event, rather than openly, and their response to the Governor’s office I think is quite apt, appropriate and well done.

Temperature Readings

Clayton Cramer points out this site on problems with temperature sensors that are being used to measures global warming.Â It would seem to be lending some credence to the urban heat island theory of global warming.Â I found it to be pretty amusing though.Â I should qualify this with two things.

It’s just anecdotal evidence
I’m far from an expert on weather instrumentation and how to properly place it, so I don’t know if the things pointed out are really problems.

But it sure is pretty funny, and does show that this is definitely a government operation.Â Go give it a read.

A Phrase I Hate

“States Rights”

Yep. Hate it. States don’t have rights. People have rights. States have powers. In order to protect the former, we place limits on the latter.

Product Review: Gunzilla

I’ve usually shied away from reviewing products, because I hate the idea of spending my time doing other people’s marketing for them, but sometimes I run across a product that genuinely is really good, and I think would be of help to other shooters.

While at the NRA convention in St. Louis back in April, I bought a small bottle of a gun cleaner called Gunzilla. The guy at the Gunzilla booth said the product was developed for the military, was plant based, had very little odor, wasn’t harmful to the environment, but still “removes rust, lead, copper, plastic, carbon and even cleans corrosive ammo.” I was skeptical of these claims, but he was offering the 5oz bottles for six bucks, so I thought I’d give it a try.

Now, I’ve always been a Hoppes No. 9 guy when it came to cleaning the power residue out of firearms. I’ve tried other cleaners, and I always thought No. 9 did the best at cutting through thick residue. The chief problem with No. 9 is that it smells, though not necessarily badly in my opinion, it’s quite strong. After I clean my Glock, for the next few days, I’m waiting for someone to come up to me and say “My, that’s an odd fragrance you’re wearing, what do you call it?” I’m probably the only one who can detect the smell, but it’s definitely there. I usually put all the wet patches and q-tips in a zip lock to keep it from continually stinking up the house.

So tonight I decided to try the Gunzilla to clean the Glock. When they said it didn’t have much odor, they weren’t kidding. Vegetable oil has a stronger scent than this stuff. I did take a quick whiff before I bought it, but even with a few wet patches laying out, I still couldn’t smell anything. I was skeptical when I bought the bottle that it would be a truly effective cleaner, but my skepticism was unwarranted. This stuff cleans pretty well! Granted, I’m meticulous about keeping my carry piece clean, but it cut through the powder residue pretty ably. I think for my regular cleanings, I’m sold on Gunzilla.

The real test will be to use it to clean the Kalashnikov, which I clean maybe once a year, after a thousand or so rounds of filthy Russian ammo have been fed through it. If it can clean up that mess, I may never buy another bottle of No. 9 again. You can’t beat something that cleans well, and saves both the environment and your nose!

UPDATE: A few people have asked if I got paid to do an endorsement.Â Who would pay a C-list blogger to endorse their product?Â Nah, I just thought it was good stuff. Â If someone offered to pay me to write an endorsement I’d tell them to get lost (well, unless there was a lot of money involved)

World’s Apart

Every once in a while I run across a post from other bloggers like this one. I often time wonder what it is that made someone like SteveAudio come to exactly the opposite side of an issue as myself:

I hate guns. I recognize their sad neccessity, for law enforcement, and soldiers. But I have absolutely no comprehension how a human can enjoy killing a creature and call it sport. Some of my beliefs I am willing to call personal failings. I recognize that some may legitimately enjoy professional wrestling, whereas I think it’s idiotic. But I own my feelings about guns. No one is going to change my mind.

Read the whole thing. Though I do not hunt, I have killed animals before with a gun, but I didn’t find it to be either particularly fun or particularly unpleasant. I was always more interesting in honing marksmanship than I was in hunting, butchering and preparing game. I doubt anyone who hunts takes any particular joy in the killing of game, it’s just part of the process. I suspect for the vast majority of hunters, the joy is in the process; of participating in the food chain from start to finish, and the knowledge one must possess to successfully accomplish such tasks.

All the arguments by people who want to keep guns in their houses fail even casual scrutiny to me. Statistics, while open to interpretation, show far more danger from those guns than any perceived benefit. To me, it’s a bit like any addiction: one will torture logic to support the addiction, no matter how harmful. These people just want to have guns around.

I think that’s crazy.

Well, for every statistic that shows that, I can drag up two more than show the opposite. But I really have no issues with people who think it’s crazy to keep a firearm for self-defense, hunting or sport shooting. I totally get that some people just don’t understand it, much like I don’t understand why anyone enjoys riding horses enough go through the trouble and expense of raising and caring for them. It’s only when people go so far as to suggest because they don’t understand it, that the practice ought to be banned, or regulated to virtual non-existence, that I draw the line in the sand

GOA Press Release

The GOA issues a release today (or yesterday by now I suppose), detailing their opposition to HR2640. I understand why GOA wants to oppose this, but I don’t think most of their concerns really persuade me, and I think they are even getting some things wrong:

The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it’s predicated on a microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on this.)

The note below says:

NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example, where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via Section 3 of the bill.

Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11, it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be “adjudicated as a mental defective” by a court or by any “OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY” (like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or others (or can’t manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this “danger” doesn’t have to be “imminent” or “substantial,” but can include “any danger” at all. How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS doesn’t pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else?

Section 101(c)(1)(C) is actually an explicit limitation on the power of federal agencies to enter data into NICS that was added specifically to address Clinton’s thank you to 83,000 veterans in 2000. It reads:

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if–

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

27 C.F.R. 478.11:

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include–
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

I will admit I’m not a legal expert, but I think this language is a far cry from having a psychologist say, “You’re Crazy Man!”, and calling up the feds to add you to NICS. To the extent that some states use boards, or commissions to adjudicate mental health cases, that’s an issue with the mental health laws, which can remove other freedoms too, rather than an issue with this particular bill. My interpretation of the ATF’s language is that it was meant to cover any other lawful body in a state that may hear mental health cases but is not a court, board or commission. Is there any state where a psychologist has universal power to commit someone or make a danger finding?

And trying to scare folks into thinking ADD’s going to get you a disability seems to be reaching pretty far. There are plenty of good reasons to worry about this bill, but GOA isn’t coming up with any that are convincing me. This bill doesn’t change who is and who isn’t a prohibited person under current law. There’s no real getting around that.

H&K’s PDW

Ahab has a good post pointing out the very close resemblance to H&K’s 4.6x30mm round to the .17HMR in terms of ballistics.Â Since H&K has decided to disrespect the shooting community in the US by refusing to offer civilians versions of most of its product line, it’s hard for me to get excited about the MP7.Â Actually, I’m very skeptical of most of the PDW concepts I’ve seen out there today.Â I don’t quite see the point in a round that will penetrate soft body armor, but will likely not stop the attacker beyond that.

The only PDW I could see myself getting is this one.Â To me, if you want better than a submachine gun penetrating power in a lightweight package, the existing 5.56×45 NATO round is just fine.

Mental Health Disabilities Down Under

Australia’s National Coalition for Gun Control wants to put a 10 year ban if a licensee “attempts self harm”:

The National Coalition for Gun Control has called for a mandatory 10 year cancellation of a firearm licence if a licensee attempts self-harm.

The call comes after a coroner’s inquest into the murder-suicide of a family at East Gresford, in the New South Wales Hunter Valley, three years ago.

Michael Richardson, 32, killed his wife and children before shooting himself – he had previously attempted suicide, but had been reissued with a gun licence.

I guess the whole licensing scheme was insufficient to stop someone from going nuts. Â So a 10 year ban should do just fine?Â I’ve never bought the suicide risk argument for applying a disability.Â If someone wants to off themselves, that’s their own business.Â The fact that sometimes they decide to take others with them is also not compelling.Â Would the National Coalition for Gun Control feel better if the suicidal pop drove the wife and kids off a bridge or into a lake?

I Remember When It Wasn’t Trendy

Kim and Tam are amused by the Cult of Apple. It’s all rather amusing to me since I was a part of the cult before it was cool. Started in 1992 with a Mac IIsi and System 7. I had used the Classic Mac with System 5 and System 6, but never owned one. System 7 was considerably better than Windows 3.1. I was more functional and sure crashed a lot less. Windows 95 wouldn’t come out for another few years, and even when it did, it sucked too.

Apple lagged behind for a while with System 8 and 9, at least in terms of essential features like protected memory and preemptive multi-tasking. Apple caught up when it bought NeXT and reengineered NeXTStep to be MacOS X, which is a truly wonderfully engineered operating system.

I was a Linux user from the dark days of System 8 and 9 up until recently, when I purchased the MacBook Pro. Trendy or not, they are still putting out the best desktop operating system on the market today. It’s really just NeXTStep with better eye candy and a more Macintosh-like look and feel, but NeXTStep was way ahead of it’s time years ago, and I think has come of age rather nicely as MacOS X.

So don’t buy a Mac because it’s trendy. Buy it because it’s a legitimately excellent product. I spent 10 minutes using a laptop with Vista on it before I wanted to throw it out a window. Even Linux is less obnoxious as a desktop operating system than Windows is becoming.