The Californication of the West continues. It would seem we have a nascent assault weapons ban to worry about in Nevada. This has me worried about Nevada. It’s carry laws have gotten worse in the past several years with reduced reciprocity, and now this.
Year: 2012
Carrying a Gun in the John
I’ve carried a firearm on a regular basis for a decade now, for most of that time a Glock 19. During that time I’ve never had an issue with what to do about the gun in the john. I’ve found it’s possible to use a urinal without dropping the drawers far enough that the gun drops below the covering garment (though I usually prefer a stall when carrying), and the number two situation can be dealt with easily, if you’re using a proper holster, by not dropping your drawers around your ankles. Taking the belt down to just above the knees is enough to drop your friends off at the pool, and to keep your firearm out of sight and under your immediate control. A proper holster will stay on the belt regardless of whether you’re wearing it or not, and will retain the gun even if you hold it upside down. The only thing you have to be conscious of is to make sure the belt doesn’t side out of the loops, but I’ve not found this to be a problem with properly sized belts.
I think advice that suggests unholstering the firearm is bad, and I wouldn’t suggest anyone follow it. If  you do find it necessary to remove your gun in the john, or anywhere in public, remove the holster while the gun secured in the holster. If your holster won’t do this, or if retention is a problem, time to rethink your holster. The best advice is always going to be that which keeps the firearm secured, and minimizes the chance of something, booger hook, piece of clothing, or door coat hook, from yanking on the bang switch. I’m of the opinion that, ideally, the only time your firearm should clear leather (or Kydex, as the case may be) in a public place is if you have to defend yourself.
Electronic Arts Partnering with Gun Makers
If you’re a gamer, and also part of our shooting culture, you might want to meander over to Gameological.com and start scoring points for the team. EA is partnering with gun makers, which I consider to be a good sign, but some people are freaking out about it. In some cases, the right people. But this is one of those cases we should play some defense. There’s nothing wrong with marketing a legal product, and makers of first person shooters can be as much in the political crosshairs as gun companies. It’s not surprising to me that convenient scapegoats for complex social problems may find themselves to be birds of a feather.
A Startling Rise
CBS News New York is reporting on the increasing number of women owning guns and shooting:
In fact, according to a recent Gallup poll 23 percent of woman reported they are gun owners, up from 13 percent in 2005.
That’s quite a jump for just 8 years. I have to wonder how many of them were already gun owners, but didn’t want to admit it, and are now it’s becoming more socially acceptable.
Maria Alampi at the Cherry Ridge Range in New Jersey teaches women how to shoot. While it used to be known as a man’s sport, it may not be such the case much longer.
“A lot of women, a lot of college-age women, take the course,†Alampi said.
Anthony Colandro runs a firearm training school in New Jersey, where right now he said women are a driving force for business.
If this is the case in New Jersey of all places, our opponents are in more trouble than they realize. Especially given that women are more likely to try to do something about public policies that they don’t like, Emily Miller being a key example.
Military History Speculation
Gun news today is a bit slow, so I’ll open up a speculative discussion. Last night I was looking at Netflix recommendations, and caught this long forgotten movie that has long been overshadowed by its much better predecessor. Up against the British Army, there was never really any question about who was going to win in the end, especially after the British sent two artillery battalions to Natal as reinforcements after the first invasion of the Zulu Kingdom had failed. But what about more evenly matched opponents? Ignoring the logistical impossibility of the Romans keeping an army supplied in South Africa, if you had put the Roman Legionaries up against the Zulu Impis, who would have come out on top? Let’s assume that the Zulu Army consists of about 20,000 Impis, about the same as the Anglo-Zulu War, and armed, organized and disciplined along traditional lines. Assume that the Romans deploy 3 legions, or about 15,000 men, and equipped, organized, and disciplined as a Roman army normally would be about the time of the Gallic Wars. Discuss.
Grasping Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
I think the best summary of the Missouri Senate campaign that I’ve seen so far starts with this:
Here’s the thing, if you’re running for the Senate and you have to cut a spot that assures voters that you think rape is bad and you now know that women don’t have a goalie in their vajay-jay to stop sperm in case of “legitimate rape”, you’re in big trouble.
I didn’t think I’d live long enough to see an ad worse than “I’m not a witch” but I was wrong. I regret the error.
I appreciate that the post highlights that this isn’t just about the risk of repeal of Obamacare, losing this seat impacts judicial nominations.
I’ll be honest, as a woman, if I saw Todd Akin’s name on a ballot, I don’t know if I could cast a vote for him even though I realize I would need to strategically in order to see my preferred political outcomes that have nothing to do with abortion become reality. When someone is so out-of-touch that they can’t take a serious look at the issue of a major criminal act, then I don’t believe they should be serving in government. When they are so unbelievably misinformed that they believe there’s some magic switch women can flip when they don’t want to become impregnated during a specific sexual act, well, they shouldn’t have any role in defining education or health policies.
As a female voter, I’m constantly hit with ads telling me that policies dictated by anatomy are ALWAYS AT RISK and that this election will be the one to see my rights DIRECTLY BANNED FOREVER. They stop only slightly short of saying that if a Republican is elected in this country, it will turn into a nation not unlike The Handmaid’s Tale. Needless to say, I tune it out.
Even with that filter in place, Akin’s remarks are simply inexcusable. The things he said aren’t even said in polite company, mostly because polite company probably wouldn’t be able to keep from making faces at the sheer stupidity of his understanding of how reproduction works even if they were left in stunned silence at his dismissal of the impacts of rape.
I truly hope that the women of Missouri get a better candidate later today. With someone like him on the ballot, there can’t be a true debate over the actual issues that women – whether on the right, left, or in the center – might want to discuss when it comes to healthcare and access to services. There won’t be room to make the argument that perhaps taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill to fund everyone’s favorite birth control because with Akin on the ballot, he might just assume that women don’t really need birth control at all since we can apparently just “shut that whole thing down.” It really doesn’t matter what he says now, those will be the arguments that people will hear. And really, is that unbelievable that those arguments might stick with a few folks? It’s less unbelievable than the idea that a 65-year-old father doesn’t know about the birds and bees and wants to make public policy on his misinformation.
UPDATE: I think this is an excellent post from Clayton Cramer on why Akin’s statement just isn’t backed up by data no matter what he claimed as his source. I guess what really disturbs me about that situation is that it’s not just a fundamental knowledge issue, it shows that he’s not remotely serious about his beliefs in order to defend them, and he doesn’t do any basic research at all before taking a position on public policy. Clayton sums it up best:
This is one of the reasons that I try to emphasize to ideologues of all stripes that if you go looking for evidence that backs your position, you will find evidence that backs your position, and you will miss the evidence that doesn’t.
Go read his entire post.
More Signs the Zombie Meme has Jumped the Shark
CSGV is lambasting it as serious. You know, I think if you put these folks in a dourness contest with a bunch of Puritans from early New England, the Puritans would have some pretty stiff competition.
And, oh, Guns and Ammo? The Zombie thing stopped being funny a while ago.
UPDATE: From the people who don’t want to ban your guns:
Yes, the Mossberg 500, one of the most common sporting pump-action shotguns in existence, and you have a CSGV loyalist who suggests the fact that these are sold is “Disgusting.” Yet they aren’t ever going to come for your guns. You can trust them on that. You’re paranoid for thinking that.
The Media and Shooting
Interesting article in the San Bernardino Sun where they mention the lack of press attention Kim Rhode, despite the fact that she’s been setting all manner of Olympic records. It’s an interesting question to ponder whether it’s the media revulsion in regards to anything involving guns, or it’s just that not many people follow shooting. I tend to think it’s probably more the latter. The media has been willing to be a lot more fair to shooting as a sport these days, so it’s likely unfortunate the lack of media stories simply reflect the public’s lack of interest. Shooting really is a participatory sport. It’s fun to do. Even I find watching other people shoot is like watching paint dry. But that doesn’t seem to bother Kim:
“Ultimately, I don’t do it for anybody but myself and my country,” she said. “I’m happy with that and that’s all that matters.”
Spoken like a true shooter. Even if the media doesn’t care about shooting, we will still celebrate Kim’s accomplishment here. On a good day, when I’ve shot ATA trap at my club, I could do maybe 20 out of 25, doing 99 out of 100 in Olympic Skeet is something I can’t even fathom.
Not Interested in Dialog
If anti-gun groups ever wonder why we are single mindedly dedicated to their political existinction, they need to look no further than the ridiculous hate they themselves promote. Comparison America’s 4,000,000+ NRA members to a terrorist group like Al-Qaeda is pretty much a recipe for remaining on the fringe, and for no one to take you seriously. That even tops the SPLC. Additionally, it’s a recipe for keeping our people stoked and ready for a fight, which gets harder the more and more gun control groups become politically irrelevant.
Rhetoric being echoed by the likes of Jack Dunning here are not that of a group trying to seriously engage in political activism. If you’re activism starts out with comparing your opponents to the group that murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11, you’ve lost before you even start. This is just more trying gather mouth foamers among the left in an attempt to, what Sean calls it, if I recall, “save their phoney baloney jobs.” Otherwise, the would be no reason for several prominent gun control leaders to be promoting the likes of Jack Dunning. But hey, never interrupt your enemy in the midst of making a mistake, and of Oregon Ceasefire and Brady Campaign want to associated with rhetoric like this, who am I to stop them?
Dana Milbank Gets it Right Over at WaPo
I disagree with the Family Research Council’s views on gays and lesbians. But it’s absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church. The center says the FRC “often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science.†Exhibit A in its dossier is a quote by an FRC official from 1999 (!) saying that “gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.â€
Offensive, certainly. But in the same category as the KKK?
As I said, I’m not a fan of FRC’s political agenda, but putting them into the same category as the KKK is not only wrong, because it suggests beliefs held by millions of mainstream Americans are “hate,” but because it also cheapens the horror of exactly what the KKK stands and stood for. Given some of the hateful and false rhetoric about gun owners that is accepted and promoted by groups like Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, pretty clearly they would qualify as a hate group under SPLC’s standard.