Weekly Gun News – Edition 65


I started this feature not long after Sandy Hook, because the amount of bullshit flowing in the media was high enough that I couldn’t cover it all. This is a feature I’m happy to skip because of lack of news, but since we’re in the aftermath of a particularly bad mass shooting, the news is flowing. There are a few surprising things, however. One is that the gun control groups aren’t getting much traction. I have alerts for Everytown, Brady, and CSGV. For the most part the press aren’t writing about them. However, NRA’s announcement changed the news cycle.

The media were very quick after the incident to spread far and wide that in their estimation, Nevada’s gun laws are awful. They were even chiding Nevada for failing to implement Bloomberg’s badly drafted background check law. That narrative dried up quick once the facts started to come out.

This is the big article of the week: “I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

If you read nothing else here, you’ll really want to read this. Worth sharing even on the vast wasteland of social media.

This bit by Sci-Fi author Larry Correia is also worth your time. Probably one of the best things I’ve seen defending suppressor deregulation.

The Federalist: “6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn’t Coming To Your Side On Gun Control

Because it worked so well in 2016: 2020 Democrats Target Guns.

This one is going to be fertile ground for the conspiracy loons, because it’s increasingly looking like we aren’t going to have answers.

Guns now at forefront of Virginia Governor’s race. This won’t help the Democrat. Bloomberg is also dumping a lot of money into the race. You remember last time he did that and almost cost Terry McAuliffe the election?

It would be helpful to Senator Murphy if this was actually true: “Mass shootings are an American problem. There’s an American solution.” Unfortunately for him, it is not.

Smart guns won’t stop mass shooting, says Wired. I don’t know, judging from the thumbprint reader on my phone some days it just might.

We must ban springs! One easy way ATF could have ruled against bump stocks is to argue they are readily convertible. Just add a spring.

The Federalist: “When You Politicize Shootings You Make It Harder To Find Solutions” An excerpt: “Those in the press who mislead the public on all these issues give themselves away, as well. They are interested not merely in stopping mass shootings, but limiting gun ownership.”

Patrik Jonsson, whose reporting on this issue has always been fair: “Why gun experts don’t support banning – or buying – ‘bump stocks’

Your hearing is a joke to them.

Gun groups now rejecting Pat Toomey’s “landmark background check bill.” How does it feel to be a sucker, Pat? I told you, none of those people will ever vote for you. Last election, a lot of us didn’t either!

Remember that when someone starts to argue that your hobbies aren’t worth precious lives, that we tolerate an awful lot of death and societal harm for people’s pleasure in other contexts, so what makes you such an peculiar asshole? And unlike guns, alcohol isn’t particularly useful for self-preservation in most situation, though I suppose it’s a useful fuel and disinfectant.

Philip Bump at WaPo: “But the effect of having a silencer probably would have been negligible. Clinton and others appear to be assuming that silencers — or ‘suppressors,’ as they’re known in the industry — work the way that they do in the movies.

Bearing Arms: “In the wake of the Las Vegas shooing, YouTube has banned all videos demonstrating how to modify firearms so that they can fire in more rapid succession.” Oh well, Internet freedom was fun while it lasted.

The New York Daily News thinks they’re being played by Congress and the NRA. If your goal is more semi-auto gun bans, then yes, you are. And we are very good at it. The truth is that overreach on the part of the anti-gunners is why nothing happens. We’ve been willing to make trades, and we’ve made trades. The other side seems to have a real issue with that.

What if I were attending a shooting match or training class in Vegas? Or Reno?: “While amassing private collections of firearms may be consistent with the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment, it is hard to accept that anyone has a protected right to appear in the time and place of their choosing bearing more than 10 rifles.” I don’t offer advice to Bridge players because I don’t know or understand the game. But hell, bring up guns suddenly everyone’s a fucking expert.

An oldie, but worth bringing up again: “There’s No Correlation Between Gun Ownership, Mass Shootings, and Murder Rates” I did a similar analysis years back and got the same result. Once you start controlling for confounding factors like urbanization, income, etc, you’re admitting that the problem is more complicated than just the prevalence of firearms.

Raise your hand if you thought Jimmy Kimmel’s cry-a-thon was a bit much. Ben Shapiro has an excellent retort. So does Charles C.W. Cooke.


16 thoughts on “Weekly Gun News – Edition 65”

    1. Commenters come and commenters go. I know I haven’t had time to comment on blogs for years now, though I will still sometimes show up at old haunts. I barely have time to write one.

  1. Regarding the Vegas Shooting, there is almost absolute consensus on the political right (by checking the blogospheres, and across nearly all of talk-radio) that the Vegas Shooter was a member of ANTIFA, just by whom he targeted, how ANTIFA is calling for that kind of violence against Trump Supporters since he got elected, and, by how there does seem to be an outright cover-up going on.

      1. Yeah. I’ll email you some photos off of ANTIFA social media pages at the end of my work day. where they refer to Paddock as tgeir “Comrade” and take credit for the shooting.

        1. One picture that is alleged to be the shooter at a obscene-hat protest, wearing the obscene hat.

  2. Haha, reading the Craig Hovey / Lisa Fisher excerpt, it reminded me of being in Germany and seeing deer stands in just about every field as we drove through the Southwest countryside. Being from Alaska, where we really don’t have many deer except blacktail transplants, and those are not hunted in fields but in the island mountains, it was completely foreign to me. I had about the same reaction of curiosity.

  3. “I call this a shift from gun culture 1.0 to gun culture 2.0”
    *looks down at the 2017 date on the page
    Did he coin this phrase? I think the gun culture 2.0 phrase came and went like three to five years ago, right??

  4. If you read nothing else here, you’ll really want to read this

    Wow that was a great great read. Definitely worth sharing.

  5. >>“In the wake of the Las Vegas shooing, YouTube has banned all videos…”

    >>Oh well, Internet freedom was fun while it lasted.

    But the standard libertarian answer is that it’s their service, their right to set the terms!

    Perhaps why libertarianism is starting to look like a political dead end to me.

    1. Oh, sure, they have the right. They just lose any moral claims to political neutrality when they pull stunts like this.

      Unfortunately, because America in general isn’t libertarian, this very well could lead to laws and regulations that are supposed to fix the problem, but only exacerbate it; the proper solution is to let YouTube do their censorship, and between getting lots of users angry and others seeing new market opportunities, things will eventually sort themselves out.

      There really is no other alternative: before we expect the government to fix anything, we would do well to remember how the IRS treated conservative groups under Obama.

  6. From the NY Times article: “””This is an organization that constantly tells us that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. If that’s true, and with statistics telling us there are over 300 million guns in this country, how come we lead the world in gun deaths?”””

    Since I can’t seem to make a comment there (it seems they have no comment section, unless it’s just well-hidden), I’ll make it here: we lead the world in gun deaths because of cities where gun laws are very strict. I’d like to think that making gun laws lenient in those areas would significantly reduce gun deaths, but I suspect that the cause of strict gun laws — namely, the politicians in charge of those cities (and their States) — enact policies that encourage high murder rates in general.

Comments are closed.