Guns – Page 87 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Magazine Capacity Doesn’t Matter

Criminologist Gary Kleck did some research on mass shootings involving so-called high-capacity magazines, and found their use doesn’t make a difference. Popular perception, fed by the media and the fear mongers on the other side, is that mass shooters spray bullets quickly. But the truth is mass shooters don’t expend ammunition very quickly at all, making reloading a non-factor in terms of people killed or injured.

Dave Kopel notes that better mental health treatment will do a lot more to stop mass shooters than more gun control.

Defense Authorization Bill Goodies

This is probably old news by now, but since I wasn’t following along, it’s new news to me. The short of it is that Obama signing the National Defense Authorization Act means:

Concealed carry options for our soldiers.
CMP Sales of surplus 1911s.
Prohibits EPA from regulating lead ammunition.

I’m pleased with this development, but to me the big prize would be to require the military and all other federal agencies to sell surplus ammunition to the public. The Clinton Administration ended surplus ammunition sales years ago, and we’ve never gotten it back.

Banning Possession of Gun Knowledge

New South Wales has moved to ban the possession or sharing of information on 3D printed firearms.

Considering that plans have been available since 2013, this seems a bit like trying to put the genie back into a bottle. We know how well it works to tell people that they can’t have something anymore when it can be downloaded from the internet. It’s not like Australia doesn’t already have laws on the possession of actual guns, but I guess now they want to ban the knowledge of guns, too.

Weekly Gun News – Edition 20

It’s not really tab cleaning time just yet, but I’d rather fire off the news post today rather than tomorrow. Tomorrow is our last day in our old offices. On Monday, the movers come, and I have to move a few switches and servers. Tuesday they switch our Internet pipe, so I will have a lot to do ahead of the Thanksgiving Holiday.

It’s almost like he wants Hillary to lose: “Obama says gun control to be top issue of final year.” Either that or he’s making a killing on gun stocks.

Apparently the European Commission is considering a rash of gun control laws. It’s what control freak technocrats are wont to do, and the European Union is the biggest infestation of technocrats out there. Of course, none of this will work, but control is what they do.

Analysis true: How not to be a jerk at a shooting match.

Clinton and O’Malley are still trying to out anti-gun each other.

Bernie hits back at O’Malley, noting Baltimore is not a very safe city.

Haters gonna hate.

Dog bites man:Â Bob Owens notes there’s more support for reinstating DC’s gun ban from wealthy whites than from residents outside of that demographic.

Every town put out a “study” that suggests states that ban private transfers of handguns have fewer mass shootings. Again, they are hoping you’re thinking one kind of mass shooting when the vast majority of these are really another.

Charles C.W. Cooke: “The NRA Is Absolutely Right to Fear the ‘Terrorism Watch List’” He takes on that ridiculous headline over at the New York Daily News. I don’t even think the “no-fly” list should be constitutional, let alone using this bullshit for removing 2nd Amendment rights.

Taurus pistols don’t seem to be drop safe?Â All modern pistols should be drop safe. That’s one safety feature I agree with.

Oregon admits to monitoring what Second Amendment supports were saying after the UCC killings.

There’s a Swedish rifle called the “School Shooting Rifle.” No really, there is.

Brazil seeks to copy US gun culture.

Dog bites man again: It’s possible for criminals to traffic contraband. This apparently comes as a shock to many.

Good to see Mayor Nutter putting the “Lame” in “Lame Duck.”

On The Syrian Refugee Issue

I’m with Tam on the issue, I’m glad it’s not my call. But I’ve seen a lot of conservatives arguing that because no background check can be 100% effective, and there are sure to be some jihadists among them, we don’t let any of them in. It only takes one to do a lot of damage. Let me play a bit of devil’s advocate, but in a different context.

There’s no way for a background check to be 100% effective, and one wrong person with a gun can cause a lot of damage, so we ban guns, right? Careful what lines of reasoning you use, lest that logic be applied to other contexts on issues you care about.

I don’t join with the left to suggest that if you don’t want to let them in your a horrible, racist person, and I think there are reasonable and non-racist arguments to be made for not accepting Syrian refugees. I’d just be careful with a “we can never be too safe” argument when it comes to background checks, because that leads to a certain conclusion in another context that would make most readers of this blog deeply uncomfortable.

New Jersey Looking to Repeal Smart Gun Law

They’d be replacing the Smart Gun mandate with a mandate that would require dealers to stock at least one smart gun. Don’t buy this load of crap for a single moment. They’ve already showed their cards. If smart guns appear on the market, they intend to mandate them, no matter how awful, dysfunctional, and expensive they may be.

I don’t see why Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) would think we’d be fooled by this move and drop opposition to smart gun technology. We didn’t have to arrive at this place. I don’t think any gun owners are opposed to the technology in concept, provided it’s the market that’s allowed to choose whether it wins or loses. But Senator Weinberg didn’t want that. She wanted to mandate it, while at the same time exempting police. That’s not something that can be undone, and trust gets automatically restored. We should continue to oppose this technology. We know, not just speculate, we know it will result in politicians mandating it.

Another Kind of Poll: LTC Applications Surging

After the attacks on Paris, I turned to Bitter and said “I’ll bet this will see another surge in gun sales, and particularly a surge in people applying for concealed carry licenses.” Sure enough, western Pennsylvania sheriffs departments are reporting they are overwhelmed by the number of new applicants:

Requests for licenses to carry concealed handguns jumped sharply in some Western Pennsylvania counties Monday and Tuesday, a reaction some sheriffs’ offices said they have come to expect in the days after mass shootings and terrorist attacks.

And this kind of poll is the only kind that counts. Regardless of what Bloomberg wants to trick people into believing, when Americans become concerned they may come under attack, they arm themselves.

I first got my LTC in 2002, less than a year after 9/11, and it was 9/11 that convinced me to pull the trigger, so to speak. I figured they’d eventually try something here like they did later in Mumbai, Kenya, and now Paris.

New Everytown Commissioned PPP Poll Shows How It Matters How You Ask The Question

Bloomberg’s mouthpiece is touting a new PPP poll they commissioned that they claim shows clear support for banning private transfers of firearms, but in actuality shows very strong support for the Brady Bill, which already passed in 1994.

Q1 Â Do you support or oppose requiring a criminal background check of every person who wants to buy a firearm?

Support a criminal background check for
everyone who wants to buy a firearm …………. 83%

Oppose a criminal background check for
everyone who wants to buy a firearm …………. 14%

Notsure……………………………………………………. 3%

It makes you question why they are framing the question this way. Why not ask the question this way? “Do you support or oppose requiring all transfers of firearms between individuals to be processed by federally licensed gun shops who conduct background checks?” How much does the support fall off if you do that? How many people took that question to mean support for background checks at point of sale?

The biggest problem for NRA in all of this is probably this:

Q12 Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: The NRA used to be an organization dedicated to gun safety, but itâ€™s been overtaken by lobbyists and the interests of gun manufacturers and lost its original purpose and mission.
Strongly agree ………………………………………… 45%
Somewhat agree……………………………………… 14%
Somewhat disagree …………………………………. 13%
Strongly disagree……………………………………..19%
Notsure…………………………………………………… 9%

But then you have 51% of gun owners saying NRA represents their interests, which makes you ponder whether they misunderstood the question.

Q10 In your view, does the NRA represent your interests as a gun owner, or not?
NRA represents your interests as a gun
owner …………………………………………………….. 51%
NRA does not represent your interests as a
gun owner ………………………………………………. 37%
Not sure …………………………………………………. 12%

Polling is essentially trickery, because how you ask the question can skew the results incredibly. How many people on the Constitutional Carry questions were thinking removing the permit requirement would mean no more carry? The domestic abusers and stalker numbers don’t surprise me. No one wants to be seen, even by a pollster, or standing up for domestic abusers and/or stalkers.

One thing to also keep in mind with polls like this is that they will greatly overstate NRA membership, because they identify NRA members by asking if the person is an NRA members. About 33 million Americans will self-identify as NRA members even if they haven’t actually been dues-paying members for years. That’s about 1/3rd the number of gun owners in this country. So when 55% of the people in this poll say NRA represents their position on background checks, that’s about 15.4 million Americans who say they are NRA members, but actually are not. Just to put that in perspective, Obama’s margin in 2012 was 3.5 million, and in 2009 was 9.5 million.

Dealing With Attackers Armed with TATP Suicide Bombs

I asked Joe Huffman, who runs Boomershoot and who has more explosive experience than any other gun blogger, if he would have any commentary about suicide bombers who were armed with TATP bombs, and he has responded. He’s certain that if TATP gets hit with a bullet impact it will detonate, so necessitates head shots. He goes into a lot more detail than I will, so read the whole thing.

One weakness in my own shooting is that I’ve spent very little time shooting at moving targets. I’ve done it once, and I did OK, but I’d love to spend more time with targets like this:

Of course, I should offer the standard Internet disclaimer which goes: “That kind of gamer stuff will get you killed on the street,” or something like that, but since you can’t practice shooting terrorists in the gourd, these kinds of moving targets seem like a good idea.

WaPo Article Condemns Silly Right-Wingers for Politicizing Tragedy, then Proceeds To Do the Same

A few figures on the right politicized the terrorist attack in Paris pretty much while it was happening. I might agree with the sentiments expressed, that people are generally made safer by having a well-armed population who are well-trained (dare I say well-regulated?) in the use of those arms. But I agree that jumping right in with fodder intended for domestic political audiences is distasteful. But my question for the folks arguing this: is it wrong when Obama jumps in with political rhetoric immediately following mass shootings? Is it wrong when gun control advocates immediately start pushing their policies in the media immediately in the wake of mass shootings? If you say it’s wrong for Newt Gingrich to do it, but fine for Barack Obama, then you have a double standard, and pardon me if I don’t then start thinking your an unthinking partisan. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having the policy discussion. That will inevitably come. But I do think it’s the decent thing to do to tame the rhetoric until people have had a chance to process what happened. At least give it a few days.

And notice, in the linked article, the Washington Post laments politicizing the attacks, and then turns around and belches out several anti-gunÂ talking points, like they couldn’t help themselves, and like that itself is not controversial or political. So who’re really the assholes here? You’d almost think for as narcissistic as some in the media are, they might look in the mirror now and then.