Guns – Page 1046 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Finnish Gun Laws to Change

Via John Lott, apparently the Finns were under quite a bit of international pressure to change it’s “lax” gun laws:

International gun control activists have urged the Finns to rethink their laws in the wake of Wednesday’s tragedy.

Finns are sensitive to their international image, and often complain their country is portrayed as a gloomy northern outpost of Europe, where long dark winters drive people to binge drinking, suicide or random outbursts of violence.

Sensitive, but they are agreeing to make this change in their law:

The government said Friday it would raise the minimum age for buying guns from 15 to 18, but insisted there was no need for sweeping changes to gun laws shaped by deep-rooted traditions of hunting in the sub-Arctic wilderness.

Good for them for pissing on Rebecca Peters and her group’s demands.Â But consider that Finland’s gun laws are still stricter than ours:

“The application was rejected because a 9 mm gun is considered too powerful … for target practice shooting,” Detective Superintendent Tero Haapala told The Associated Press. “He was recommended to get a .22-caliber gun.”

After Wednesday’s shooting drew international attention to Finland’s gun culture, the Interior Ministry issued a statement saying firearm sales were “strictly controlled.”

Before granting a weapons permit, police “assess the applicant’s suitability to posses a firearm, his or her way of life, behavior and possible mental health problems,” the statement said. Applicants must prove also they have a legitimate need for a gun, such as hunting or target practice. Self-defense is not a valid reason.

Sounds pretty strict to me, and yet:

Gun control activists said the shooting at the Jokela High School in Tuusula, some 30 miles north of Helsinki, proved the need for stricter gun laws in Finland.

“Compared to other European countries, Finland has a serious gun problem,” said Rebecca Peters, director of the London-based International Action Network on Small Arms.

Not enough.Â We must not give an inch to these people.Â They won’t stop until they all go under the saw.Â If Paul Helmks wants to find ways to work with the NRA, since his organization isn’t about banning guns and all, why doesn’t he start by denouncing this international gun ban movement led by Rebecca Peters?

What If We Lose?

Armed Canadian asks that question: What if we lose at the Supreme Court?Â Â I think he’s more optimistic than I am.Â While I agree that in the short term, it would be a huge boost to the gun rights movement, I would note that after the Kelo decision, there was a persistent outcry from quite a lot of directions, but to date I’ve seen very little movement on eminent domain reform.Â People have gotten tired and moved on.

A defeat at the Supreme Court will hurt us very much over the long term, because the anti-gun groups will be able to say “The second amendment doesn’t mean anything,” and for all practical purposes, they’d be right.

You Don’t Even Have a Collective Right

Dave Hardy dug up an unpublished decision from the 6th circuit that you all need to read to believe.

The court essentially rules that since the State Guard can be armed by the State when activated, and the governor *probably* would do that, ownership of the guns was not reasonably related to its purposes. Nevermind the question of training before being activated, or that the governor might find it convenient for the units to have their own equipment.

So if this is the case, then the court is basically saying the Second Amendment has no meaning whatsoever.Â This isn’t collective rights, this is no rights.

Electoral Roundup

Uncle taunts the Brady Campaign with some electoral facts. Brady is boasting bout 19 out out of 21 candidates in the Virginia House of Delegates winning. It’s easy to increase your electoral success rate if you never take any chances. What they don’t say is that NRA endorsed candidates in The Virginia House won 57 out of 62 seats and in the Senate won 23 out of 27 seats, including the upset of Devolites Davis, and a hearty “screw you” to Bloomberg.

Let’s see… that puts NRA’s winning percentage at 90% in Virgina. Tell me who’s victory this was again? In both raw numbers and in percentage, it looks to me like NRA came out ahead.

I have to hand it to Peter Hamm, he’s good at making an electoral defeat look like a victory.

10/22 PDW

Ahab is building a PDW based on the 10/22 platform.Â I like the .17HM2, personally.Â I had some silhouette shooters tell me they like the high-velocity rimfires because they are flatter shooting than .22LR.

Gun Owners Who Annoy the NRA

It’s a funny title to an odd blog post. I know a lot of gun owners who are annoyed by the NRA, but not for the reasons Paul would think. I’ve been observing for a while now the Brady’s are starting to understand more of our fault lines in their attempts to divide and conquer. Paul’s latest article would attest to that.

Richard Feldman and Jim Zumbo should start a club.

They could call it, â€œGun Owners Who Annoy The NRA.â€

Except that the whole Jim Zumbo thing was over before NRA really knew what was going on. That was grassroots that did that, not NRA. I’m reminded of the quote from Tam. [UPDATE: More from Ahab here]

I donâ€™t consider the Brady Campaign to be one of the groups described [that would ban guns] in that last comment, but I would like to find common ground with the NRA on ways to make our communities safer. Iâ€™m not sure theyâ€™re interested in such an approach, however.

How about this, Paul. Since your organization isn’t about banning guns, why don’t you join us in getting rid of the ban on firearms in Washington DC? It certainly doesn’t seem to be making Washington DC any safer, except for the criminals. No one is going to take the Brady Campaign seriously about not banning guns as long as they continue to defend…. gun bans. Get it? It’s pretty simple.

Electoral Success in New Jersey

Scott Bach is talking about the results from New Jersey’s election this Tuesday.

And that’s exactly what happened in the 12th district on November 6. Fed up with overzealous legislative attacks, sportsmen and sportswomen turned out in force to register their disapproval with the flip of a voting lever. And register their disapproval they did…

Read the whole thing.Â This is a very positive development.Â I might just have to take New Jersey out of the “lost cause” category.

Crime Guns and Assault Weapons

Uncle links to the top 10 crime guns.Â I’m glad to see criminals are still buying American!Â There’s not a foreign gun on the list.Â Damn patriotic fellows they are eh?

Seriously though, another interesting tidbit was commented on byÂ PN NJ, which is the caliber officers were shot with.Â Rifles by nature will be overrepresented out of proportion to their prevalence in crime because police body armor will typically stop most pistol rounds, but won’t stop rounds fired from a rifle.

In 2006, 46 police officers were killed in the line of duty.Â Thirty six of them were murdered with pistols.Â It’s interesting that the .40 S&W is the largest category.Â Are criminals carrying this more or do .40 S&W rounds have more likelihood to penetrate soft body armor?

The number of officers killed with a rifle were eight.Â Of those, four were with what would normally be classified as an “assault weapon” caliber.Â That’s about 8.6% of officer killings.Â We’ve all heard the VPC/Brady statistics that claimed 20% officers were killed with an assault weapon.Â Even if you look at 1997 through 2006, the number still only rises to 13%, with rifles in total being the 20% figure.Â Overall, handguns were 73% of all casualty figures.Â Prior to the expiration of the assault weapons ban expiration, 14% of officers were shot with calibers that would normally be classified as assault weapon calibers.Â Since the ban has expired in 2004, that number has dropped to 11%.

So it would appear from that data that the best way to protect our nation’s police officers is ensure police departments have sufficient funding for body armor, proper armament and training.Â If the VPC or Brady Campaign want to claim the assault weapons ban mattered, the statistics sure don’t seem to be bear it out.

Legitimate Differences

Jeff links to this article in the November ABA Journal via this piece and asks whether NRA tried to deliberately scuttle Parker. There’s little doubt in my mind that there was an attempt to undermine Parker. There is disagreement as to the wisdom of pursuing relief through the courts. It’s legitimate disagreement. The NRA-bashers offer it up as evidence of trying to scuttle the case to keep gun control alive for fund raising purposes (A silly argument. A loss at the Supreme Court would be far better for fund raising and membership numbers than keeping the DC gun ban), when the real purpose is because losing is a real risk. I’m sure there’s also some ego issues at play, but I think that’s the case on both sides of the coin.

NRA was wrong to try to undermine Parker. The attorneys in the case make a good point that second amendment’s time of reckoning is here, and we probably won’t see a better case under more favorable conditions on the court. Nonetheless, it’s a real risk we’ll lose in the end. If Heller prevails, Levy, Gura and the rest of his team will be everyone’s hero. If not, we’re all going to have to eat crow and tell the Parker detractors they were right.

Bench of Evil

I finally got a place set up for reloading, so I can once again shoot more without going broke.Â How else is am I supposed to practice firing from a hip at 600 rounds a minute without going broke?

It’s your basic Lee Anniversary Kit.Â I’m not sure about where I had to mount the press, because there’s a bar in the way in the front, and I was worried the lever would tip the table over.

I’ve already ordered the dies and various other things from Ko-Tonics and MidwayUSA.Â Hopefully this weekend I’ll make it up to Cabela’s this weekend to get some powder and primers.Â I’m anxious to get started.