That Rust Thing

Cemetery comes across a problem we’ve all dealt with at one time or another.  Rust.  There’s three ways you can deal with rust.  One is to keep a coat of oil on your guns, and make sure you wipe them down before you put them away.  The other is to keep moisture away from the gun. There are a few ways to do that.

Even thought I love the fact that, as a cowboy shooter that goes by the name of Cemetery, his pistol case is a little coffin, the first piece of advice is not to keep them in the case unless you’re transporting them.  This is a surefire way to promote rust.  Cases are magnets for moisture.

The second way to prevent rust is to decrease relative humidity.  One way you can do that is to increase the temperature within a confined space, thus reducing the relative humidity.  This is how a Golden Rod works within the confines of a safe or gun cabinet.  Generally speaking, a Golden Rod is the easiest and most maintenance free way to combat rust.

The third way is to actually remove water from air within a confined, largely airtight space.  This is what dessicants do.  This is the solution I use, because the safe I got a good deal on didn’t have the electrical hookup, and I didn’t have an outlet near where I wanted to put it.  Desiccants are effective, but you have to watch them, and they need to be reactivated.  Get one that had an indicator compound in them, usually cobalt chloride, which is deep blue when dry, but turns pink as it becomes saturated with water.  You can reactivate desiccants by increasing their temperature to 250 degrees.  I do my two canisters in the toaster oven at 325 degrees for a few hours.  You typically have to recharge once a month in the winter, and once every two weeks or so in the summer.  The great thing about desiccants is that you don’t even really need a safe.  Any closed, airtight container with a desiccant thrown in will put a stop to rust.

You how we all said …

… if they passed one-gun-a-month you’d have people suggesting that it doesn’t go nearly far enough?  Like, next would be one gun a year?  One gun per person?  How about this — no guns?  When we say things like that, we’re told we’re paranoid and delusional.  Well, sorry, no we’re not.

Hat tip to Cemetery

Can’t Speak for NRA, But I Can Speak for Me

Paul Helmke wants to know if NRA approves of people carrying to town hall meetings.  I have a confession to make.  I’ve carried a loaded firearm to several public gatherings over the course of the past few months.  I’ve even been in close proximity to elected officials.  I know this might come a complete shock to our Brady friends, but no one ended up getting shot, threatened, or otherwise intimidated.  In fact, given that I carry concealed, I’m pretty sure no one ever knew!  The horror!

I couldn’t have been the only one either, given that there are 600,000 people with Licenses to Carry in this state, and given that approx 6,000 or so are in my county.  The anti-gun folks love to paint us all as having “all the earmarks of a tinderbox, and is exacerbated by the presence of loaded firearms,” like the guns are speaking to us, and egging us on to cause mass carnage because we’re clearly all unable to contain ourselves.

Public gatherings certainly do attract their share of kooks, rabble rousers, and whackjobs.  That’s why I’d prefer if ordinary, responsible gun owners went strapped to these types of events.  Trust me, it’s not the guy open carrying a 9mm with a provocative sign you need to worry about.  In that case, the gun is a prop, just like the sign.  The ones you need to worry about aren’t going to advertise themselves.  They also aren’t likely going to give a crap whether you tell them they can’t carry there.

Machine Gun Control

MikeB makes a point I’m honestly surprised anti-gun people don’t make more often, namely that we constantly make the point that machine gun crime is extraordinarily rare, yet argue that gun control doesn’t work.  Shouldn’t the controls on machine guns act as an example gun controls do work?  I’m not all that convinced, but I will admit that there’s a lot of room for bias here, and little data to go on.  But I will postulate, nonetheless.

I’m not that convinced that, outside of a few high profile criminals and high profile crimes, that machine gun crime was all that normal, even at the height of prohibition era.  One could argue that since mortars aren’t common in crime, that obviously mortar control must be effective, but mortar control did not effectively exist in this country before the Gun Control Act if 1968, yet it’s obvious mortar crimes have been uncommon to nonexistent. The reason you don’t see much crime involving mortars or machine guns is because neither is that remarkably useful for furtherance of criminal activity.  Machine guns aren’t easily concealed, and the ones easily concealed aren’t easily controlled.  All machine guns, except for crew served weapons, exhaust ammunition very quickly. It’s for that reason I don’t think machine gun crime has ever been all that common among criminals, who carry their weapons mostly for self-protection against other criminals.

During the 1920s and 1930s, machine guns made headlines, because along with the automobile, were relatively new technology that law enforcment and the public didn’t have much experience with, and that notorious criminals were quick to exploit.  But if we look, notorious machine gun crime hasn’t exactly been absent from the headlines since.  During the 1980s, Miami was known as the “machine gun mecca” even though less than 1% of crimes were actually committed with machine guns.  I’m sure we all remember drive by shooting hysteria, and who can forget the North Hollywood shootout.  I think it’s pretty clear that the media focuses on dramatic and rare crime largely because it attracts eyeballs to their story, and I don’t see any reason to assume that was any less true in the early part of the 20th century than it is today.

To speculate even further, I would argue that the presence of higher quality pistols that are more practical alternatives to machine guns actually reduce the use of fully automatic weapons in crime a great deal.  The reason being that if you’re going to make makeshift firearms, the open bolt submachine gun is actually among the simplest firearms to manufacture.  See stories form the UK about submachine guns being made out of bicycle pumps.  Or stories about how easy it is to obtain automatic weapons in the UK.  It’s probably not all that much harder here, but if all you have available is either expensive or crude, you’re probably going to have more full autos coming into the mix being used by common criminals.

That’s not to say the public is going to soon be in any mood to run the experiment of lesser restrictions on fully automatic weapons, to prove my theories correct, even though I suspect you wouldn’t see much of an uptick in violent crime if allowed to proceed.  But you could be practically guaranteed the few crimes that were committed would make headlines, just as they did in the 20s and 30s when the issue first appered.  Would that end the experiment?  Hard to say.

The Thing about Shooting Clubs

For the past few months I’ve been filling in for Jim, our club’s Recording Secretary, who was on an extended summer vacation.  Jim was elected to the job at the beginning of the year, but I think decided it wasn’t the job for him.  A few weeks ago he came back, and apparently thought I had done such a good job, that he resigned, and recommended the Board of Trustees appoint me to fill the remainder of his term.  Last night they did.  But that’s not really the point of this post.  What I mean to talk about are shooting clubs in general, and why I think they are worthwhile to become involved in.

I see often in forums and elsewhere, people saying “I won’t joint his club or that club, because this club has some stupid rule I don’t like, and that club doesn’t run any matches that look interesting, or their facilities are in bad shape.”  I’m sympathetic to these statements, because it’s not like our club doesn’t have things I’d like to see changed, but I think clubs are too valuable to the community as a whole to eschew involvement in them because certain things aren’t to your liking, and you’d be really surprised how easy it is to change things.   More often than not, the people in leadership positions at shooting clubs are happy to have people willing to be involved and help out.  Demonstrate you’re one of these people, and you’ll have input.  You might not be running the place, you might not always get your way, but at least you’ll have a seat at the table, and have a voice.

Clubs are an important component to the shooting community, and while mine is relatively healthy membership wise, that’s not universally true across the board.  Some of them are desperate for people, and those that aren’t are still desperate for people willing to help out.  Especially younger people.   Yes, along with most other civic organizations, shooting clubs are getting older, and some are having a difficult time attracting new, younger members.

A lot of the blame can be placed at a lot of the older clubs running matches in shooting sports that younger people aren’t participating in.  This is a problem, but it also illustrates why I think clubs are important, and why younger people should be seeking involvement with them.  Because it’s not all that difficult to convince a club to run new matches.  To convince a commercial range that you want to run a match, you have to convince them they will make money on it, or at the least appeal to their sense of supporting a shooting community (who they can then get money from in other ways).  But ultimately a commercial range is in the business to make money, and that’s going to change their calculus when it comes to running matches.  With clubs it’s a much easier sell, because a club isn’t putting as much as risk by approving a match.  There’s not as much opportunity cost for turning a range over to a match for an afternoon.  That’s why I think clubs are important to the shooting sports, and for the continuing survival of the Second Amendment.  It would be a shame if many of these clubs die off because younger people aren’t joining.  Once a club is gone, it’s gone forever.  It’s a resource the community will never get back, and I think that will make us all worse off in the long run.

No Help for the Left

This blogger makes some very salient points about the guy who open carried a gun near an Obama event with a sign saying “It’s Time to Water the Tree of Liberty.”

However, on the subject of what actually took place here, was this man well within his Constitutional right; being he was well within the proper law to carry his gun, the answer to this question is an obvious yes.  The second question is and I will answer it; is this.  Was it really in the best interests of Conservative, Republicans, and yes, even libertarians and law abiding gun owners for this man to show up at a town-hall meeting where the President of the United States was going to be attending with a Firearm and a sign that says that the Government needs to be overthrown by a violent revolution?  I say this as not only Conservative who believes in the right to carry a firearm.  But as someone who believes in something, that is not found in this day and age of internet sound bites, called common sense —  I am going to come down on that side and say that this man was totally out of line and should been removed from the area.  The reason I say this is because I happen to know that our President is getting more threats on his life now, than when the previous Administration was in power.

I don’t agree that he should have been removed.  The Secret Service wouldn’t have been worried, because he was well away from the President.  But I absolutely agree that it was a boneheaded move.  I saw the segment on Chris Matthews, and agree he did a good job of avoiding Matthews’ trap.  Matthews was hoping for foaming at the mouth, and got Libertarian geek instead.  I don’t think this guy was ever a threat to the President to the point where the Secret Service would have had to do something, but I agree it’s not the best public face for our movement.

My worry is that a lot of these people are attention seekers, and the fact that he got what he was after might mean more people try a stunt like this.  The left is already going ape shit trying to smear us with these guys.  The last thing we need is more.  If you’re going to a rally or public event, I wouldn’t bemoan anyone carrying, but I think people need to exercise discretion.

An Education on .22LR Chambering

Tam details a malfunction with a .22 rifle, and notes:

Of course everybody was wearing eye protection, and nothing bad happened to the gun, but be careful when saying “Oh, it’s just a .22.” While its powder charge may be small, the modern high velocity .22LR chamberings operate at higher chamber pressures than .38 Special or .45ACP. SAAMI maximum allowable pressure specification for the .22 Long Rifle is 2,500 PSI more than .380, and 3,000 psi more than .32 H&R Magnum.

Be careful out there.

More Hysterics

Over at Crooks and Liars, a story about a man who dropped a gun at a Town Hall that he was carrying in his pocket.  Presumably the guy is licensed.  All modern pistols have internal safeties that prevent them from going off unless the trigger is pulled.  I’ll give that the guy should be more cautious.  It’s certainly not within the realm of sound gun handling to drop a pistol.  But I’ve done it twice.  Never in public, but I’ve dropped guns.  It’s a faux pas, but it’s not dangerous with modern pistols.  Everyone can calm the hell down and go back to your regularly scheduled hysteria.