Gunwalker, Guerena and Self Protection

For those interested in a bit of web-surfing, you might want to take a trip over to Pajamas Media where the good folks there are kind enough to publish me. I have a new article up on the Gurenea case. For those who have been reading my detailed posts here, it's nothing new—actually a summary of the last several updates for general consumption—but it's a pretty decent summary. Of course, I may be somewhat biased in that assessment… In any case, it's fun to read the many comments and PJM is a first class blog. If you don't know it, by all means, visit regularly. Bob has a great new Gunwalker article there too.

I've also been asked to write for the Gun Values Board and just posted a little article on the fact that the Police generally cannot be sued for failure to protect any individual citizen. The lesson: We're on our own; we're responsible for our own protection. For those who read my five-part article on gun ownership and the reasons therefore in the last year, it's a shorter version of one of those articles, but again, it's a pretty decent summary and a nice blog with which to acquaint yourself.

Gunwalker And The Law

The nice folks over at Gun Values Board have asked me to contribute now and then. My latest article for them regarding why Gunwalker cannot possibly be a legitimate law enforcement operation and why any legitimate law enforcement officer would know that, is now up

Ar-15 Lower Blowout

$65 each for Templar stripped lowers.

That's almost theft.

MAIG Strangely Silent on Gunwalker

Congress will be discussing the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 today, which, if passed, would allow concealed carry reciprocity in all states for a valid permit holder of any state.

The usual suspects are up in arms over the legislation, including Nanny Bloomburg and his anti-gun coalition called Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Isn't it interesting that Bloomberg and the largely Democratic MAIG have all the time in the world to disparage lawful citizens, but can't seem to come together to issue such much as a strongly worded statement again the Obama Administration, elements of which have walked more than 2,000 guns to drug cartels and allowed convicted felons to buy guns in the Midwest?

North Carolina Governor Declares Every Concealed Carry Permit in eastern NC Invalid Due to Hurricane Irene

Thanks to a brain-dead state law foisted upon us by a Democratic state legislature (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.7), every time the governor—in this instance, Democrat Beverly Perdue—declares a state of emergency, it is illegal from that moment onward to carry a concealed weapon until the state of emergency has been declared over.

14-288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:

(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or

(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.

(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14-269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.

(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

We've dealt with this bit of Democrat-generated stupidity before.

Governor Purdue made this declaration while the state was at work, meaning everyone who has a carry permit and lives east of Interstate 95 who was away from home instantly became a criminal by proclamation.

If we look at Google Maps, that means that a carry permit holder in Wilson dining at the Cracker Barrel is perfectly legal, but the permit holder a block to the east filling up on gas at the Kangaroo Express is now a criminal.

Ridiculous.

Update: I'd forgotten we were stuck with this crap last year as well.

Update: Looks like I was wrong about the I-95 cutoff. It includes those entire counties.

John Richardson notes that Perdue issued a statement with her executive order that gun provisions would not take effect, but as South Carolina's Joe Wilson might say, Bev Perdue, you lie.

Bev Perdue is incorrect in her assertions that the declaration of the State of Emergency does not trigger firearm restrictions. As I noted last year when she invoked a State of Emergency in the face of Hurricane Earl, if she uses Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes, it invokes G.S. § 14-288.7 which states in part, "it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area" if a state of emergency is declared. Just because she is the governor does not give Bev Perdue the authority to ignore plainly written state laws when it is politically inconvenient for her.

In other words, Perdue does not have the authority to declare the ban null and void, anymore than the governor can arbitrarily decide than any other law no longer applies.

While a state of emergency is in effect in North Carolina, taking guns of your property is illegal, whether concealed or openly carried. We need to address this flaw in our gun laws as soon as the NC Legislature returns to Raleigh.

Shoot Twice And Go Home

The famous story goes like this: In 1912, the German Kaiser, knowing of the fearsome reputation of the Swiss for marksmanship and of the forbidding terrain of Switzerland, and knowing that the Swiss militia was then composed of a quarter of a million men, asked what the Swiss would do if the Germans invaded Switzerland with half a million men. A Swiss replied, no doubt completely deadpan: "shoot twice and go home." The Kaiser did not invade, nor did Adolf Hitler during WWII. Smart choices.

"Si vis pacem, parabellum:" If you desire peace, prepare for war. The Swiss have always understood this, and their martial tradition—and their fortunate terrain—has stood them in good stead. Even today, Swiss militiamen keep their fully automatic military rifles—real assault rifles, not the fake "assault weapons" invented by American gun banners—in their homes and frequent shooting competitions, attended by and participated in by entire families occur all over the nation.

There is a lesson in that, I think, for all who wish to remain free. Mr. Obama and his sycophants in the BATFE, DEA, FBI, DHS, DOJ, Department of State and likely other agencies understand it all too well and are always, always working with their non-governmental allies in and out of America to strip Americans of their Second Amendment freedoms. Gunwalker is only one very clumsy, illegal, idiotic and deadly manifestation of the realization of the Left that only through citizen disarmament can they ever truly control the American public.

Go here for a brief article and interesting photo that illustrates the reality of Switzerland, a nation that remains free and lives on its own terms because it understands that only free men have that option, and that only arms wielded by free men can establish and maintain it.

Practical Problem Solving: The S&W M&P 22-15

I'm fond of my AR-15. I don't mean that I sleep with it under my pillow or gaze longingly at its photograph on my desk at work. I appreciate well-designed and manufactured devices, whether firearms, musical instruments or computers. I find useful and functional design to be remarkable.

The charming little weapon in the first photograph is my S&W M&P (Military & Police) 22-15 Standard model rifle. Its suggested retail price is $499.00. You'll also notice several accessories mounted on this side of the rifle.

Here's the opposite side, and those of you familiar with AR-15s will recognize that the 22-15 is a faithful reproduction in virtually every respect.

Here's the rifle with its hinged receiver open. Again, notice that it breaks down for cleaning exactly as the AR-15 family.

Here's the bolt group of the 22-15, which bears only a superficial resemblance to the AR-15. I'll explain all of that shortly.

Before we go on, here’s a list of accessories I'll mention in this article:

(1) S&W 22-15 Standard Rifle. $499. 25 rnd mags $20.04: Go here.

(2) 1000 rnds of Fiocchi .223 $410. Lucky Gunner: Go here.

(3) Tasco Red Dot 38mm tube, $36.99: Go here.

(4) #11 Eye and #13 Objective—Butler Creek Flips Ups, app. $9.00 each. Go here.

(5) Magpul MOE commercial spec. stock. $59.95. Go here.

(6) SureFire G2 Nitrolon flashlight $55.00: Go here.

(7) Daniel Defense Sling Mount: $30.00: Go here.

The AR-15 family, the brainchild of Eugene Stoner, is indeed remarkable. Accurate, reliable, light weight, ergonomically brilliant, and when accomplished by many manufacturers, a thing of beauty, AR-15s are truly worthy of a bit of platonic admiration. There's just one problem…no, I'm not talking about the caliber. Yes, I know that in combat the .5.56mm is a bit anemic. Yes, I'd prefer a more powerful cartridge if I was in combat, but on the other hand, you can't have too much ammunition, and you can carry a lot more 5.56mm than anything in a larger caliber. There is no free lunch, and this post isn't about that ongoing argument anyway.

Back to the one problem: .223 ammunition (.223 is the civilian caliber designation while the military prefers the metric designation) is pretty expensive. Luckygunner.com currently offers 1000 rounds of Fiocchi .223 (with reloadable brass) for $410. That's reasonably cheap as .223 ammunition goes. You can, of course, reload, and if you do it enough, you can actually save money compared with even cheap factory .223. I used to reload and enjoyed it, but the problem is it's relatively time consuming, and as I've grown older, I've discovered that time is more valuable than I once imagined, particularly when the savings to be had from reloading are no longer as great as they once were for common rifle and handgun calibers. As many older people discover, I have a bit more disposable income than when I was younger, and as long as I can afford to pay a bit more for the ammo, I’d prefer to have the free time.

Shooting an AR-15 is just about as much fun as you can have with firearms. They're light, reliable, have very low recoil, are ridiculously accurate, and they simply feel right. They also look very cool, and even though some shooters are far too mature to admit such considerations, have you ever noticed how many of them have photographs of themselves proudly displaying various firearms? Hmmm.

A thousand rounds sounds like quite a bit, but you'd be surprised, particularly if you're planning on frequent practice, how quickly you can run through that amount of ammunition, particularly if you are participating in a professional one or two day class. Shooting is not only a physical skill, but a mental skill as well, and if you don't practice—regularly—its perishable. So we arrive at the problem: It is good (repeat after me: It is good; it is good) to own and shoot an AR-15, but it's also expensive.

One solution is one of the several .22LR adapter kits on the market. These normally consist of a bolt and bolt carrier group that slip into the upper receiver of an AR-15, replacing the normal bolt and bolt carrier. The AR-15 is a gas operated rifle, but such adapters (and the S&W 22-15) are simple blow-back actions and don't use the AR gas system. The kits also include a .22LR magazine (usually only one) that fits in the AR magazine well and uses its magazine release button. Such kits normally retail for about $130.00.

Any well-engineered kit will work reasonably well, but they have several drawbacks. The foremost drawback is that most magazines are limited to ten rounds and are quite expensive, often running as high as $100.00. Some kits have magazines of 25-30 rounds, but are often less than reliable in these larger sizes. In addition, I've found that magazines are often hard to find. The other factor is dirt: .22LR ammunition is quite dirty, and while it will shoot with good accuracy in standard AR-15 barrels, it can leave quite a bit of lead in the barrel and loads of powder gunk throughout the receiver, far more than shooting a great deal more .223 ammunition will cause.

I'm not a clean freak, but I do believe that a clean gun is a happy gun, and I like my guns to be very happy in their work. No, I don't talk to them; my cat certainly, my plants—maybe, but my guns, no. I don't mind cleaning guns, it's a part of appreciating fine machinery and fully understanding your weapons, and the AR-15 is easy to take down, clean and reassemble, but I don't like cleaning them longer and more often than necessary.

By now you've probably realized that the solution to this dilemma is the S&W 22-15. There are indeed similar weapons by other manufacturers, but Smith really got this one right. Smith and I have had a rather rocky relationship. They have always made fine revolvers, but many of their weapons, particularly their earlier semi-automatic pistols, just weren’t up to their promise. In recent years, S&W has, happily, reversed that trend in a great many ways, and the 22-15 is a fine example.

Before I get into the details of the Smith, let's explore the rationale for buying one. The standard model of the gun retails for $499, but can be found for considerably less with a bit of careful shopping. When you consider that many adapter kits with one spare magazine run for $200 and more, the difference is not so great, considering that 1000 rounds of .22LR can be had for less than $40.00. Compared to $410 for 1000 rounds of .223, you can nearly buy the Smith for the savings inherent in the first 1000 rounds. And it has been positively established by experiments with the Large Hadron Collider at CERN—as a side effect of looking for the Higgs Boson—that it really is scientifically impossible to have too many guns (or too much ammunition), but you always suspected that, didn't you? Ain't science grand?

Of course, the greatest benefit of the Smith is that it is, in virtually every way, identical to an AR carbine. The position and feel of all of the controls—bolt release, safety, trigger, magazine release, take down pin, cocking handle—is identical to that of a full-sized AR, with the exception that the travel of the cocking handle is much shorter than that of a real AR as the .22LR cartridge is much shorter. The two primary differences are that the Smith is about a pound lighter than a comparable AR, and that recoil—already very light in an AR—is all but nonexistent in the Smith.

The Smith is made primarily of polymer, and only those parts that need to be steel are made of steel and finished in what appears to be the same kind of dull black, mil-tech finish common on ARs. The forearm is a non-removable plastic with four standard sized, full-length accessory rails. The lower and upper receiver (which also has a full-length accessory rail) are also polymer.

The standard model comes with easily removable—by means of large knurled nuts--front and rear "iron" sights and no flash hider, an accessory available (nstalled) from the factory for an additional $20.00. In fact, a wide variety of accessories and finishes are available from the factory for extra cost, or you can do as I did and accessorize from the aftermarket.

Accuracy is easily on a par—within the range parameters of the .22LR cartridge—with the AR family. I chose an inexpensive yet well made Tasco red dot sight as being similar to the more expensive sights on my ARs. Unlike more expensive models with multiple, multi-colored reticles and other bells and whistles, the Tasco provides a simple, easy to see red dot. Windage and elevation click adjustments are audible and have a solid, positive feel. There is much to be said for simplicity. Turn the single rheostat control—11 separate brightness settings--to the brightness level appropriate to light conditions, and you're ready to go. You can certainly spend more than the price of the weapon on optics if you like, but when I sighted the Tasco in, I was able to shoot a 3-round group slightly under one inch from 50 yards, supported from sandbags on a bench with middling quality ammunition. Most expensive .22LR bolt-action rifles do no better, and the Smith has a standard feeling AR mil-spec. trigger rather than a ultra-light target trigger. In fact, the Smith's lock work resembles the AR mechanism, with the exception that Smith's hammer is plastic. Even so, it sounds and feels just like an AR. The Smith's barrel is not a heavy, target barrel, but it is more substantial than most .22 rifles.

One of the things I most appreciate about the Smith is its 25 round magazines which resemble standard AR 30 round magazines. These magazines cost only $20.04 direct from Smith, and are quite reliable. I've found that the key to reliability is to load no more than 23 rounds, and to load them by pulling down on the follower buttons on each side of the magazine, allowing each round to drop into the magazine rather than pushing it into the magazine under spring tension. This allows the cartridges to orient themselves in a sort of left/right/left manner and allows the nose of the top cartridge to protrude at an upward angle from the magazine lips. If the top cartridge is not in this attitude, you'll definitely experience a feedway malfunction. By the way, ten round magazines--useful for sighting in from a bench—are also available and inexpensive. I did initially have one 25 round magazine that would not feed reliably. I sent it back to Smith and received one that worked properly within a week.

You should also be sure to use a proper stance, holding the weapon firmly into the shoulder pocket. Failing to do this will often result in a failure to go into battery from a short stroking bolt, which didn't have a solid platform against which to recoil. There is no forward assist plunger on the right side of the weapon (that's a good thing with the .22LR which is a rimfire cartridge), but malfunction drills are identical to those employed with the AR. One should charge and manipulate the weapon smartly as delicate or tentative motions will tend to encourage malfunctions, but save your Incredible Hulk impressions for other weapons; the Smith is mostly made of plastic, after all, so butt-stroking others is pretty much right out, as the British would say.

As I mentioned earlier, the Smith employs a straight blowback action. The action spring rides above the bolt on a guide rod, which rides in two rails embedded at angles in its sides and attached to a plastic base behind the bolt. The recoil spring housing of the AR, in which rides the recoil spring and buffer, is non-functional on the Smith, and the plastic tube is present only as the mount for the telescoping stock. Unlike the AR, it is integrally molded as a piece with the lower receiver and cannot be removed, but it does accept properly dimensioned aftermarket stocks, like the Magpul unit I have, which is also available directly from the S&W factory. I chose this stock simply because it's the stock I use on my ARs, so why not be consistent? I also like its solid construction and unobtrusive but non-slip buttplate. Having the release mechanism protected by the body of the stock is also helpful, as I've had standard AR stocks collapse at inopportune times when hung up on gear and other objects.

I protect the Tasco sight with Butler Creek flip up scope covers, which at about $9.00 each are inexpensive and work very well. You should note that you can buy most—if not all—of the accessories I list here from sources other than those I've provided, possibly at reduced prices. However, I've generally found these sources to offer reliably good service.

I also mount a flashlight because I do the same with my ARs. We live in varying degrees of darkness half the time, yet few shooters practice shooting in low and no light situations. For less than $100, I've found that the SureFire G2 Nitrolon (polymer) flashlight and the VLTOR scout mount position the flashlight perfectly for on/off manipulation by the left hand thumb. Yes, you can purchase squeeze pads, but why add wires and additional expense and complexity when you have a perfectly good thumb just hanging around on the left side of the forearm anyway? The Scout Mount weighs almost nothing and adjusts the position of the flashlight, and clamps to the accessory rail, with a single thumbscrew.

The final accessory is a Daniel Defense accessory rail mount for one of their neat plunger-type sling mounts. Push a button to insert the solid, ballbearing plunger, and push the same button to release it. This works particularly well with single point slings, which I favor, rotates 360° and makes no noise. The only difference between the Smith and AR is that I use a Daniel Defense mount that clamps onto the recoil spring tube just behind the lower receiver on my ARs, which positions it perfectly for a single point sling, allowing the rifle to hang well on the body. I don't believe that particular mount is a good idea with the Smith as it could easily overstress or crush the plastic tube. The problem is that this forces you to attach the sling mount at the rear of the accessory rail, in front of the lower receiver, placing the center of gravity in about the middle of the gun, allowing the barrel to flip upward. The simple solution is to buy—or make if you can sew—a simple ¾" wide nylon strap with Velcro closures that wraps around the stock tube and the single point sling to keep the gun in a barrel down orientation.

My only real complaint about the Smith is its owner's manual. Most of it is obviously written with avoiding lawsuits foremost in mind. You know the type that might say something like this for a toaster: "Do not insert wet badgers connected to you by exposed copper wiring into the toaster slots." Can't you just imagine what the testimony was in that lawsuit? Lawyer: "And do you recognize this charred badger Mr. Jones?"

The Smith manual implies that if you're foolish enough to actually fire the gun, you or others could get hurt and its absolutely not the manufacturer's fault because they warned you! What is conspicuously missing from my manual is disassembly and reassembly instructions for the bolt/bolt carrier for cleaning. As I bought a rifle from one of the earliest production runs, this may have been subsequently corrected.

To take down the bolt, simply pull the recoil spring back slightly from its resting place on the black plastic base, and holding the back of the base steady, push the guide rod (the bolt will move too) slightly to the rear. There is a slot machined in the end of the guide rod, which will easily slide up and out of its holder on the top of the black plastic base if you push it back just a little. Simply slide the bolt off the rails and reassemble in reverse order. A little lubrication on the rails and guide rod are all that should normally be necessary (apart from a thin film of oil on metal parts for rust prevention, of course).

Cleaning the rifle is easy, but one should have plenty of Q-tips for small or hard to reach places, particularly around the breach face and its fixed, protruding ejector. It's important to be careful with the rifle when the upper receiver is open. This is so even with ARs, which have aluminum receivers. The single forward hinge point is vulnerable to damage with the receivers are open, and this is particularly true with the plastic Smith.

Oh yes, one additional warning: The accessory rails are plastic, so when attaching accessories, particularly scopes, keep in mind that torque specs applicable to metal rails might crush plastic rails. You'll need to figure it out by hand, again, saving the Incredible Hulk impressions for other weapons.

The Smith and Wesson M&P 22-15 is an excellent and inexpensive way to practice completely transferrable AR skills. Its light weight and miniscule recoil also makes it an excellent training weapon for any shooter, but particularly women and children who can shoot hundreds of rounds for little money.

The Joy of Lasers: Part 2

In the first article of this two-part series, we explored the rationale for lasers for rifles, particularly those with a high sight line relative to the axis of the bore. With handguns, and at handgun ranges, the rationale for a laser to eliminate the sighting problem inherent in the nature of such rifles doesn't apply, but there are still compelling reasons why lasers make substantial sense for handguns.

The handgun in the first two photographs is a Glock 26 in 9mm, commonly known as a "Baby Glock." It owes its existence to the Clinton Gun Ban and its limitation of magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Glock—and eventually other manufacturers—decided that if they were limited to 10 rounds for a decade (but only on newly manufactured magazines—there were always plenty of standard capacity magazines available) they might as well design much smaller handguns with that capacity and the Baby Glock was the first of the breed. Glock makes the baby in a variety of calibers, but the 9mm was the firstborn.

This photograph shows the front of the LaserLyte RL-1 Glock rear sight laser unit. Notice the laser on the right and the battery compartment on the left.

Here is the rear view of the sight, with the white outline virtually identical to the standard Glock rear sight, and the activation and feature selection button on the rear of the battery compartment.
As you can see, the entire unit is quite compact and rugged. But before getting too deeply into this particular unit and my reasons for choosing it, let's review what's available on the market.

Manufacturer Websites:

LaserLyte: This URL will take you directly to the Glock version of the sight.

LaserMax: Go here for LaserMax's line of effective and reasonably priced sights.

Crimson Trace: Go here for Crimson Trace's innovative sights.

Viridian: Go here for Viridian's line of exclusively green lasers. They tend to be quite large and expensive.

Insight: Go here for Insight's line of tactical weapon lights and lasers. They tend to focus on the military and police markets with more specialized and expensive designs.

TYPES OF HANDGUN LASERS: Laser sights for handguns come in three primary types:

(1) Rail-mounted sights which commonly clamp onto rails machined or molded into the frame forward of the trigger guard. Some come as a unit with an integral flashlight. Many of these types of sights work equally well with any rail-equipped rifle, such as the package featured in the first of this two part series. Some of these sights can be quite small, while others are large enough—though still small—to allow other rail-mountable accessories such as flashlights to clamp onto them.

(2) Grip-mounted sights such as those pioneered by Crimson Trace. These sights are built into grips that completely replace the grips—revolver or semi-automatic—designed for the weapon. Most position their small laser units on the right side of the frame, just above the first finger as the hand grips the weapon. Batteries and activation switches are built into the grips.

(3) Guide Rod lasers which entirely replace the guide rod/recoil spring assemblies of semi-automatic pistols. These sights leave the exterior of the pistol (they obviously do not work for revolvers) unaltered. The primary disadvantage of these units is that they are not finely adjustable for accuracy. Once installed, if your laser dot ends up 1.5" to the left of the center of your bore at 15 yards, you'll have to remember to adjust that distance with Kentucky windage when using the laser. Unless your guide rod assembly is indexed so as to fit into your weapon in only one way, the next time you install the unit, you could be 1.5" off in another direction.

There are a number of slight variations within these primary categories, and there are also some lasers designed to exploit the specific design features of individual handguns such as Ruger's LCP 380 pocket pistol. A number of manufacturers are even beginning to offer handguns with integral lasers directly from the factory, such as the Smith & Wesson Bodyguard .380. The advantage of this approach is that Smith can market a very smoothly designed, non-snag pocket pistol for only $399.00. I've not had the chance to test one, but it appears to be a genuinely ingenious design and a smart idea.

RATIONALE: Effective handgun range, for all but specialized hunting or target weapons and/or expert shooters, is usually considered to be 25 yards and less. That may not sound like much, but it's 75 feet, a quarter of the length of a football field, a considerable distance. Particularly with handguns, as distance increases, shooting with consistent accuracy becomes more difficult and takes longer.

As I mentioned in the first installment, lasers—with proper practice—can help to make the essential tasks of fast and accurate shooting easier. Lasers, with any type of firearm, do not for a moment relieve the shooter of the necessity of employing proper stance, grip, presentation and trigger squeeze. Failing in the application of any of these essentials, particularly trigger squeeze, will throw off shots regardless of the type of sight used. However laser sights do offer two enormous advantages: They help compensate for vision deficiencies when we no longer have perfect, 20-year-old fighter pilot vision, and particularly with handguns, can allow on-target shots when it's not possible to properly align, indeed, even to see, standard sights.

It’s relatively well known that most gunfights with handguns take place at very close, reach-out-and-touch each other ranges. In such circumstances, people virtually never remember seeing their sights, and often empty their weapons at each other and entirely miss. This is true for the police as well as civilians. One way that lasers can help is that from a proper ready position, the shooter need not bring the weapon up entirely to the plane of vision. The weapon—still being properly gripped and presented—can be below the sight line as the shooter need only see the laser dot on the target which will be aligned with the bore of the handgun. This allows the shooter, even when transitioning from ready to bringing the weapon on line, to see more of the target, providing greater tactical awareness.

Should you find yourself off balance, perhaps even on the ground for whatever reason, if you can place the laser dot on the target and properly squeeze the trigger, you need not see the "normal" sights at all. Of course, one should always employ all of the fundamentals, unless it's impossible but you still desperately need to shoot. As distance increases, this becomes more difficult, but at normal handgun ranges, it is a viable possibility for desperate situations.

As I mentioned in the first installment, green lasers are generally more visible under the entire range of environmental conditions than red lasers, but they are also considerably more expensive, often costing twice as much or more than their red brethren. At normal handgun ranges, this difference is greatly lessened, and in dim light conditions, and particularly at night, it's essentially a non-issue.

Do keep in mind that while lasers are particularly visible at night, we always have an absolute obligation to be certain of our targets. Simply because you can place a laser dot on a target doesn't mean you can legally shoot it. A high quality "tactical" flashlight is a necessity for night shooting with or without a laser sight. Positive target identification is never optional.

The final advantage of lasers I'll mention is in training. Handguns are simply more difficult to shoot accurately at just about any range than rifles, whose much longer sight radius, solid contact with more of the body, and shorter and lighter triggers make the fundamentals of shooting easier to accomplish. To teach proper trigger control, an old revolver shooter's trick (taught to me by an old revolver shooter) was to balance a coin on the front sight (on its flat side, not the edge; that would be a real Zen trick!) while practicing dry firing. When you could drop the hammer on as many empty chambers as you pleased without dislodging the coin, you were able to smoothly and consistently pull the trigger without disturbing the sights, which is not a simple matter with revolvers. A laser dot provides a real-time image of exactly what the shooter is doing wrong and right in terms of the trigger. It can also diagnose faulty stance, grip and presentations.

LASERS AND ME: I bought my first Glock 26 when the first one arrived in my local gun store shortly after the Clinton Gun Ban took effect. I carried it with its original sights for many years, and always found it to be a very concealable, accurate and utterly reliable handgun. But as I grew older and my close range vision began to weaken, the front sight grew more blurry. Glasses helped, but they have their own difficulties. All of the skills I worked so hard to attain and maintain served me well, but why work so hard unnecessarily?

My first laser was the Crimson Trace model for Glocks. It's an ingenious design that wraps around the backstrap of the G26 and is secured to the weapon by replacing the pin at the backstrap, which runs completely through the frame, with a slightly longer pin. It does make the grip more bulky with swells on each side to contain the two batteries, and the laser itself sitting above the hand on the right side of the weapon.

The laser dot was relatively large and quite clear, and I found the unit to be completely reliable. However, I did experience some difficulties. When I first turned it on, I noticed that the dot seemed to be at about half strength. I returned it to the factory and they had it back, in perfect working order, within a bit more than a week. Once sighted in, it remained rock steady—for several years—but more about that shortly.

For me, the best feature of the unit was its rear activation button on the center-back of the backstrap. Gripping the G26 correctly would activate the laser, and I could, by simply slightly relaxing my grip, turn the laser off. Squeeze, and it was back on. That's tactically handy. The problem is that some people's hands simply don't work with this type of switch and its placement in much the same way that some people have a hard time with the grip safety of the Colt 1911.

But there is no free lunch, and I noticed several problems with the sight. When putting my trigger finger in register (extended straight, in contact with the frame and out of the trigger guard), I tend to prefer to elevate it slightly and place its tip in contact with the slide. Doing this obscured the laser, forcing me to readjust my grip. The position of the laser also interfered with some holsters, particularly inside-the-waistband types which a weapon like the G26 might often inhabit.

The most annoying issue was that when racking the slide with a proper grip—left hand cupping the top of the slide, thumb toward the shooter's face—the laser unit got in the way of the tips of my fingers, forcing me to slightly rotate my wrist to avoid hitting the sight. It wasn't enough to convince me that it would be a potentially dangerous issue, but it was annoying and required some adaptation. Still, I could and did adapt to these comparatively minor issues.

When LaserLyte came out with rear sight lasers, I was intrigued. The design seemed to potentially address everything I found unsatisfactory with my Crimson Trace sight. My mind was made up when after somewhat more than two years, I noticed that the mounting system of my CT sight no longer held the unit rigidly to the polymer frame of the weapon. Enough play had worked into the unit so that when I gripped it firmly—and correctly—the point of impact would shift laterally. I suspect that this was a design issue as the unit and the Glock's frame are polymer. The frame of the Glock didn't change, but the laser unit was retained by a thin pin with relatively little purchase on each side of the frame, and I suspect time and daily use simply enlarged the pin holes enough to cause the effect I experienced. A tiny variation in a sight at the weapon is more than enough to cause a substantial variation at the target, which only gets worse as distance increases.

So when my wife and I recently decided to upgrade our Generation I Glocks for Generation III G26s, we got the LaserLyte sights too. Each sight comes with everything necessary to remove the standard sights and install the laser sight, but we had our local dealer do it with his more expensive sight tools.

The sight is really quite small, and is solidly made of steel rather than plastic or aluminum. Like all lasers of its size, the adjustment wrench is very small and easily lost (plan ahead), but the adjustment mechanism is precise and once set, doesn't drift, or at least not in the 500 or so rounds I've fired through the gun since getting the sights installed.

It is a 5 milliwatt laser-the most powerful the law allows—and the dot is of comparable size and brightness to every other red laser sight I've seen or tested. It retails for $199.95 (Hey! it costs less then $200, honey!) and is powered by four small 37 watch batteries which slip into the battery compartment on the left by means of a knurled screwcap. According to LaserLyte, the batteries are good for five+ hours in constant-on mode and 10 hours in pulse mode. My Crimson Trace sight was rated for three hours (it only had constant-on mode) and was still going strong despite daily use after 2.5 years when I traded it in.

The sight has several neat features, which include what is essentially a electrically powered rear night sight with the appropriate green Tritium-like glow. With a Tritium (the radioactive element common in analog watch faces) front sight (available separately from various manufacturers, you have a complete night sight set as well as a laser. Hit the activation button on the back of the battery compartment, which activates positively and is easy to do with either thumb, once and the green night sight comes on. It can be adjusted to constant-on or pulsing configuration. However, it is really only usable in near-dark or dark conditions, precisely like a night sight relying on radioactive elements. However, unlike such sights, there is no half-life and full function can always be restored with a battery change.

Press the button twice and the laser is activated, again with a choice of constant-on or pulsing function. I recommend the pulsing configuration as it not only doubles battery life but is substantially easier to see under the full range of conditions. Pressing the button a third time shuts the unit off. There is also an automatic shut off feature that engages after five minutes regardless of whether you are in night sight or laser mode. After five minutes a tiny red LED in the back of the laser unit will pulse for one minute to let you know that you're on borrowed time. Pressing the button again within that minute will reset the countdown.

While I've had the unit a relatively short time, it does address all of the issues to which I had to adapt with the Crimson Trace unit. There is no alteration of the grip, I can place my trigger finger in register as I please, the sight does not interfere with any holster I own or might consider owning, and I can manipulate the slide with the proper grip.
The only issue I've noticed is that using the built in "iron" sights is taking me a bit of time to adapt as my eyes tend to be drawn to the two Mickey Mouse-like ears at the upper edges of the rear sight if I don't focus as well as I should. I've no doubt I'll be able to rewire my brain to deal with this, which is an issue of some importance. Some people ask: "Well lasers are nice, but what happens when you run out of battery power." You simply revert to the iron sights. You need to practice with both.

I should clear up any misconception about Crimson Trace sights. They make quality products and I was generally pleased with my sight. With any consumer product, there is no such thing as absolute perfection applicable to all. My wife's sight—identical to mine—did not show the same wear problem, but she does not carry as often as do I nor is her grip as strong. I suspect that the CT sights that are more solidly mounted, such as their Colt 1911 models and others, would never suffer from the problem I observed.

If you're considering the LaserLyte sight—and they have models for many popular semi-automatic handguns—you need to be aware that the newest model of the sight—which I have—is different in function from the initial production runs. In fact, circa mid-July, 2011, even the specifications on LaserLyte's web-site reflect the old system which had no night-site and was constant-on with the first button push, pulse with the second, and off with the third. I spoke with LaserLyte before writing the article and they assured me that they are going to update things in the near future.

One additional compelling reason for laser sights is that smaller, pocket pistol-type handguns such as the Ruger LCP generally have very small and mediocre sights. Virtually none are adjustable because most are little more than molded or machined slots and grooves in the top of the slide. Granted, such weapons are not designed for great accuracy at long range, but a laser can bring a degree of precision not otherwise possible with such weapons.

Laser sights are certainly worthy of your consideration, and I've found the LaserLyte sight to be an excellent choice.

The Joy of Lasers: Part 1

Technology provides us with entertainment and innovations that have become, in many ways, necessities. I am old enough to have learned to type on a manual typewriter, physically flinging the carriage back into battery at the end of each line. In high school, back in the 1400’s, I witnessed and embraced the invention of such wonders as the cassette tape, the touch-tone phone and all-transistor guitar amplifiers. I bought my first home computer, an Apple, in 1986 and have ridden the wave of innovation that flowed from what was then considered the enormous 20 megabyte hard drive of that first machine. So I often take a moment to appreciate the wonder of the technology that drives my iPhone4, which in very real ways puts the world in my pocket.

One innovation that is a boon to shooters, casual and professional, is the laser. Contemporary lasers are small, weigh little, and are relatively inexpensive and very effective. One of the best things about lasers is that they are actually a highly effective solution to real world problems rather than the many ingenious solutions to non-existent problems so common in the firearms world.

Note in this first photograph my pre-ban Colt with a few modern enhancements, the most noteworthy of which is the LaserMax Uni-Max Value Pack for Rifles (go here), which retails for about $189.00 these days. All of the goodies in this post are available direct from the factory. Disclaimer: I am not being paid by LaserMax, nor did they supply this unit to me.

The package consists of four elements: The Uni-Max ES laser itself, which is essentially an off-the-shelf 5mW unit (the most powerful the law allows) which works equally well with handguns and rifles and comes with a crossbolt-type activation switch which works quite well by itself. It also has a built in rail that allows the mounting of any rail compatible accessory—such as a flashlight—directly to the laser. The package also comes with a momentary-type activation switch, which neatly replaces the crossbolt switch and has only a 6” straight cord which is far better than the lengthy coiled cords that come with some switches.

The really neat part of the package is the MantaRail system which is a neat polymer/silicone sheath for the momentary switch which easily clamps onto a standard rifle rail and is as easily removed. This eliminates adhesives and Velcro, neither of which work well in this application, and it comes with two end caps and three polymer cord routing clamps called, amazingly enough, “MantaClamps.”

As you can see, I prefer the simple expedient of two small cable ties that are cheap and easy to remove--via wire cutters--and replace. The sheath also solves another common momentary switch problem: they tend to become quite hot—electrical resistance--if left on very long. The silicon sheath effectively insulates the fingers from any such discomfort. I chose to mount my switch and laser on the right hand side of the handguard, but they can easily be mounted on adjacent rails.

But wait a minute, aren’t lasers really difficult to see at long range and in bright sunlight? Indeed they are, particularly red lasers. Green lasers are generally more visible, but are substantially more expensive ($170.00 more for the same package). So what’s the point? Close Quarters Battle or CQB. Or for the civilian, using a carbine in the home defense role. If you need to take 100 yard shots indoors, you’re probably Al Gore or John Edwards and you don’t like guns, at least not when the little people own them.

One of the primary difficulties with any rifle with a high sight line relative to the bore is that at closer ranges, say 25 yards and less, rounds will impact below the point of aim. With the AR-15 family, this means that with iron sights or with an optical red dot sight zeroed for 100 yards, bullets will strike at point of aim at 100 yards. But move to 25 yards or closer and bullets will strike 3” or more below the point of aim.

So what? Just remember that and adjust your aim upward three inches. Unfortunately that’s not a good idea in CQB. Raising the muzzle to compensate obscures the shooter’s view of what they intend to shoot, and in the heat of battle, remembering the necessity for Kentucky windage is easier discussed than accomplished. When it’s necessary to deliver a precise shot at close range, it’s best to know exactly where that shot is going without additional computation and adjustment, and even better, to be able to have your head up and your eyes on your potential target. That’s where lasers come in.

With an optical sight zeroed for 100 yards and the laser zeroed for 25, it is easy to instantly transition from sight to sight while moving closer to the target. The same mounting and target acquisition motions (presentation) are used for either sight, but with the laser sight at close range, it’s great to be able to simply look directly at the target rather than through a scope. It does take some practice to condition the brain to see and respond to the laser dot rather than an illuminated reticle, and some practice to work out the slightly different muscle memory required, but it’s not difficult.

One of the other advantages of this particular laser is that it can be set for pulse mode, which even with a red laser, produces a much easier to see dot, even in bright sunlight. Indoors, even with bright artificial lighting, the dot is brilliant and easy to see. Many manufacturers market green lasers with the claim that they can be seen at 100 yards, which may be true, but not necessarily for everyone. Perhaps young people with fighter pilot-like vision can instantly pick out a laser dot on any target at 100 yards, but it’s not always an easy or quick task for me. On the other hand, it’s a piece of cake to immediately align a properly sighted in optical sight at that, and greater, ranges.

With the laser, bullet impact is right on, and for most people, accuracy, and particularly speed, are enhanced. The eye is naturally drawn to the pulsing dot, which can substantially decrease the time required to place accurate fire on any target. This does not eliminate the need for proper stance, trigger control, grip and presentation, for if one becomes lazy, they’ll lose time looking for a laser dot that is anywhere other than the target. In other words, you still have to present the weapon as though you were using iron or optical sights. Leave shooting from the hip for the movies.

Using a rifle in the proper ready position with the laser activated provides several advantages. A bad guy noticing—because you have told him—a pulsing laser dot dancing around just below his belt line might be readily encouraged to cease hostilities. With the dot visible and already aligned with the centerline of the target, it is simplicity itself to point in from ready and fire the instant the dot reaches center mass, all the while keeping your attention and both eyes on what is happening in front of you.

The laser with this package is easily adjusted for windage and elevation with the supplied allen wrench, but know that the wrench is very small and easy to lose. Once aligned, the sight tends to stay in alignment. The laser unit weighs very little, is low profile (unlikely to hang up on anything) and quite rugged and is available individually for $149.00. The MantaRail system with the sheath, end caps and three MantaClamps retails for $34.95 and is a great solution for any momentary switch/laser combination from any manufacturer. Once mounted—it’s easy to position and remove—it stays put.

I’m pleased with the quality and utility of this LaserMax sytem and use it on several of my AR systems. I suspect you’ll be equally pleased.

Next Friday: Part 2 of this short series on lasers for handguns.

Steyn On Fast And Furious

If you have not read Mark Steyn, this article in National Review would be an excellent introduction to the work of one of the best writers and most insightful pundits writing today. His book America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It should be required reading in the classrooms of America and for every American citizen. This National Review article discusses governmental accountability using several examples, but focusing on Fast and Furious.

As you know, Bob has been in the forefront of breaking the Gunwalker story in the blogosphere and on the radio across America, and his pioneering efforts--and the efforts of others--seem to be making a difference. Fox News Sunday discussed the case today, unfortunately only in their "Panel Plus" feature which is available online (here). In that excerpt, Juan Williams, who is often quite reasonable, claimed that 70% of guns used in crime in Mexico were traceable to the US--a claim that has been repeatedly debunked--and tried to portray the scandal as a political vendetta against Eric Holder, largely perpetrated by the NRA. Mara Liaison, the other liberal member of the panel, agreed that it is a genuine scandal but suggested that it was due in part to the fact that there has not been a director of the ATF for 4-5 years, alleging that this was because the NRA didn't approve of anyone nominated by Republicans or Democrats. Sigh.

And in the "How Tone-Deaf Are These Guys Anyway?" department, we learn from Fox News (here) that the Justice Department and White House are working hard on gun control measures that they plan to release in the near future. Perhaps it would help if the Obama Administration stopped preventing federal law enforcement officers from doing their jobs, didn't stonewall and lie to Congress, and stopped giving guns to murderous foreign and domestic criminals? Read this one only if you have taken your blood pressure medication and have secured easily breakable items.

The beat goes on. Don't you go on without reading Steyn.

West: Obama Must Fire Holder, Or He Is Complicit in Fast and Furious

The outspoken Congressman from Florida tells it like it is.

"The president needs to realize that Eric Holder needs to be removed from the Department of Justice," West said after detailing why he thinks Holder should appear before an investigative committee to testify about how the DOJ has handled its response to the Operation Fast and Furious investigation. "Or else I believe President Obama is complicit and he is in approval of the actions of his attorney general."

Gill followed up by asking West if he thought a special prosecutor was needed to investigate Operation Fast and Furious. West said he thought so, adding that the mishandling of the operation is a part of a "trend" he sees forming at the DOJ. West said the way Holder has handled Operation Fast and Furious is reminiscent of how he handled the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation scandal.

First Down: Acting ATF Director Melson Likely Out in Gunwalker

The wheels on the bus go bump-bump-bump:

Andrew Traver was nominated in November by President Obama to become the permanent ATF director, but his nomination has been held by objections from groups that say Traver is hostile to the rights of gun owners.

Nonetheless, Traver's return to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole could be the first step toward ousting acting director, Kenneth Melson.

Melson is complicit in Gunwalker and is the logical sacrificial lamb for the Obama administration.

I suspect he will not be the last to fall.

Update The Examiner says that while Melson needs to go, he is hardly the only one, and that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder must resign as well.

That Melson should be removed is obvious, as should other senior ATF officials in Washington and in the field. But Gunwalker could not have gone as far as it did without the approval of senior Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, which is why The Washington Examiner last week called for Holder's resignation. Holder should have stopped the program as soon as he found out about it if he was aware of it. And if he didn't know such an outrage was being perpetrated on his watch, he clearly isn't up to the job of managing the Justice Department.

Add Janet Napolitano to the mix and we're starting to get close to bringing those responsible to account.

Was Gunwalker Designed to Affect U.S. Laws Through Cartel Violence?

I've been working the available evidence since last night, and there are enough smoking guns (literally and figuratively) to begin wondering if generating violence to justify gun control proposals wasn't precisely the point.

Bloggers Are Good People

Met up with a bunch of folks participating in the Lucky Gunner Blogger Shoot last night, and quickly fell in with John Donovan of Argghhh! and Dustin of LuckyGunner.com and had a nice conversation with them, and briefly met some of a substantial group of bloggers.

I'm going to refer you to Bob's Gun Counter for blog coverage of the rest of the event, and will post live updates to Twitter as I can.

Be Jealous, Kids. Very. Jealous.

I'm relaxing at the hotel in Lenoir City, TN right now.

Why should that make you jealous? I'm here for the LuckyGunner Blogger Shoot. Cool people. Cool firearms. Unconfirmed rumors of armor. And a minivan that is about to get a close and personal feeling of the power of civil war-era cannon.

The meet-and-greet is in a few hours, and we get down to blowing holes in things tomorrow and Sunday. I'll post video and write-ups as possible.

NY Daily News Writer Corners the Market On Ignorance

Considering the competition for that dishonor, NY Daily News writer Joanna Molloy really had to go out of her way to prove her ignorance, and in Ex-NYPD top cop Bill Bratton pushing for overdue ban on assault-weapons ammo clips she certainly does her best, encapsulating several decades worth of ignorance—not to mention stupidity and laziness—in just the second sentence of a dim rant.

Former New York top cop Bill Bratton has joined forces with the city's Citizens Crime Commission to support the ban on assault-weapons ammo clips that have been used in virtually every mass murder since 1984.

We can start by stating with absolute authority that assault weapons ammo clips have never played a part in a mass murder. Not before 1984, and not since.

Never. Ever. Happened.

Ammo clips are nothing more or less than strips of metal—typically spring steel—that hold one or more ammunition cartridges by the base. The rifles of both sides in World War I used ammunition clips. So did the rifles of World War II and Korea, from Mosin-Nagants designed in the 1890s to Enfields and Garands and SKSs that were obsolete by the 1950s.

Below, we see an example of the 8-round en-block clip of the M1 Garand on the left, and the 10-round stripper clip of the SKS rifle on the right. The most common clips in America, they have never been an accessory in any mass murder.

Oh, but I'm being completely unfair, aren't I?

Poor befuddled Ms. Molloy is but a journalist, and can't be expected to tell the difference between a clip and a magazine any more than she should be able to tell the difference between a car and a truck or a cat and a catfish.

A clip holds bullets to load magazines. It is the difference between a gas pump and a gas tank, or a Democrat and a Republican. It's so hard.

But back to Ms. Molloy's contention that "assault-weapons ammo clips that have been used in virtually every mass murder since 1984." Even if we generously allow her to plead obvious ignorance and substitute clip for magazine, her claim still fails to be true.

Arguably the most infamous school shooting in America took place at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used as their primary instrument of death a Hi Point 9mm carbine that was designed specifically to comply with the very Ban on Scary-Looking Guns that Molloy would see re-implemented.

Richard Farley killed seven without using a single assault weapon in his 1988 murder spree.

The 1998 Westside Middle School Massacre was perpetrated by two kids armed with rifles with standard capacity magazines.

Patrick Henry Sherrill is the reason for the phrase "going postal," and used a pair of .45 ACP pistols to kill 14 of his co-workers in 1986.

Terrorist soldier Nidal Hassan shot up Fort Hood with a pistol.

Atlanta trader Mark Barton killed 12 with a pair of handguns and a hammer in 1999.

Just last year, Omar Thorton used a pair of standard-capacity pistols to kill 9 at a Connecticut beer distributorship.

Seung-Hui Cho perpetrated the Virginia Tech massacre of 32 of his fellow students using standard-capacity magazines in a Glock 19 and Walther P22.

Jiverly Antares Wong used a pair of standard-capacity pistols in Binghampton, NY in 2009.

Shall we go on?

Jeff Weise killed 9 in Red Lake Minnesota using handguns and a shotgun. Likewise, the North Illinois University shooting was perpetrated with pistols and a shotgun. Charles Carl Roberts, infamous for the Amish schoolhouse shooting in 2006, used a 9 mm handgun, 12 gauge shotgun, .30-06 bolt-action rifle. Kip Kinckel, Eric Houston, and Charles Andrew Williams also committed their mass shootings without using any assault weapons.

Purely as a matter of empirical fact, assault weapons and their magazines have been used in just fraction of murders of any kind.

But NY Daily News employee Joanna Molloy isn't acting as a responsible journalist, informed editorialist, or critical thinker. She is an ideologue dedicated to deceiving her readers in order to get them to agree with her.

Come to think of it, Joanna Milloy isn't ignorant. She knows exactly what she is doing. The only question is whether the NY Daily News finds this sort of deception acceptable.

Not Today Dear, I Have a Headache

Not much in the way of productivity today until I get this migraine/cluster whatever-the-Hell-it-is headache under control. In any event, I have a review of Butler Creek magazine loaders up at LuckyGunner for American shooters, and a post up at Pajamas Media about the guns favored by certain Mexican shooters, and from whence they came.

Consider it my contribution to multiculturalism.

The Second Amendment and Self Defense Post Heller and McDonald

The good folks at Pajamas Media, who are kind enough to publish our work from time to time, have posted an article I wrote on the fate of the Second Amendment and self defense post-Heller and McDonald. The battle for liberty is far from over, and the near-term fate of the Second Amendment may well be one of the most obvious indicators of the loss of individual freedom. I suspect you’ll find it interesting. Go here.

The Deadly Political Correctness of Gun-Free School Zones, Part III

The first two installments of this series (available here and here) raised the issue of arming school staff, and raised and answered many of the primary objections. Still, how can school officials be convinced to accept concealed handguns in schools? How can risk-averse superintendents and school boards see the danger that we face? Can hard-core liberals be persuaded to accept reality? I hope to provide some possible answers in this, the final installment of this series. I’ll provide, first, some useful information on the relevant federal law (go here for more complete information).

In 1990, the Gun Free School Zones Act was written into law as part of the Crime Control Act. Among its provisions was a blanket prohibition on all firearms within 1000 feet of a school. The act relied on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, asserting that Congress had the power to enact the law because most firearms probably had at some point moved in interstate commerce. The law basically turned huge portions of the nation into gun-free zones, making their perfectly law abiding owners liable for arrest and prosecution merely due to their unwitting proximity to a school.

In the 1995 Lopez decision, the US Supreme Court struck down the law, ruling essentially that the Congress couldn’t write any law they wanted by claiming some Commerce Clause involvement. The Congress--Bill Clinton was then President--reenacted the law with a few minor language changes, but it was, in essence the same law, but without the 1000’ foot provision. This law has been upheld, for instance, in the Dorsey case (2005) by the 9th Circuit Court, which is infamous as the most liberal in the nation and also, the Circuit most overturned by the Supreme Court.

Here is the relevant text of the law:

Title 18 U.S.C §922(q), The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 States:
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities

The Federal government generally does not enforce this particular law, in fact, the law notes that it does not intend to occupy this particular field of law, leaving such things to local and state authorities, but one of the primary problems with federal intervention into what should rightfully be the exclusive territory of the states is that federal enforcement of such laws tends to be selectively arbitrary and capricious. One should always be aware of the firearm laws of their state and city, for it is those that are generally the controlling authority. Federal intervention in these matters tends to be dependent on the political leanings of the party in power. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the federal government would be more likely to involve itself in local issues under a Democrat, anti-gun president.

The effect of all of this is that those licensed by a state to carry concealed weapons may do so in school zones in accordance with state law. Those not licensed may carry only unloaded and secured guns on school grounds, though again, federal involvement is unusual and generally only occurs incident to arrests for other crimes.

Let’s return to some of the more common questions and objections relating to the issue.

Q: AREN’T GUNS ONLY USED FOR BAD PURPOSES?

Guns are used as often as 2.5 million times around the nation each year to thwart crime, usually without firing a shot. Even the notoriously anti-gun Clinton administration carried out a study, hoping to prove the opposite in support of even more anti-gun legislation. To their surprise, they discovered from one to one and a half million incidents per year of honest citizens using firearms to protect themselves and others against criminals. They attempted, unsuccessfully, to quickly and quietly bury their results.

Q: AREN’T GUNS FAR TOO DANGEROUS TO BE AROUND CHILDREN?

(Updated 05-02-11) Firearms have been a part of the raising of American children since before the founding of the republic. The number of yearly firearm accidents has been, for decades, dramatically declining. Since the all-time high in 1904, the overall accident death rate has dropped 94% despite the fact that the population has more than doubled and there are, per capita, far more firearms in American hands than ever before--Barack Obama has been the best firearm salesman in American history--accidents are at their lowest level in more than a century.

During his presidency, Bill Clinton was fond of deceptively asserting that 11 or more children die each day by gunshot. To reach this figure, one must count people as old as 24 and more as “children” and include, for example, 19 year old drug dealers killed in turf shootouts, or 20 year old robbers shot by the police or citizens defending their lives.

In reality, for actual children (14 years and under), the daily rate is 1.2 (in the entire country). For children ten and under, it is 0.4. In 2000 (the most recent year for which complete National Center For Health Statistics are available), for example, just over 400 children (14 and under) died of gunshot wounds from all possible causes. Circa 1995, nearly 2900 died in automobile accidents, nearly 950 drowned, and 1000 died of burns. Even bicycle accidents kill more than gunshot injuries. While the death of any child for any reason is tragic, we don’t keep children out of cars and away from water and bikes.

That so few children are injured by gunshot each year is welcome news, but it doesn’t lessen the potential threat and the damage that will be done when an attack occurs. The world has changed. The only rational argument is for effective responses to realistic potential threats. Again, one must balance the potential threat and the potential benefit of any given solution. If all that matters is raw numbers, how can we justify allowing children near cars, water, anything that might produce a burn or even bicycles?

Q: ISN’T THE LEGAL LIABILITY FOR GUNS IN SCHOOLS JUST TOO GREAT?

That we live in a ridiculously litigious society is a sad fact of life. Parents sue schools if their daughters aren’t picked to be cheerleaders or if their sons don’t make the first string football squad. One may use the threat of potential litigation to avoid implementing any program or policy, but the potential liability for the misuse of a firearm is the same on and off school property. Absent a specific state statute, school grounds do not impose any greater legal burden on those carrying a firearm than is found on a public sidewalk, and the requirements for the use of deadly force remain the same whether one is on a playground or the street adjoining it.

Playing high school football is statistically far more dangerous than school shootings, yet we do not abolish football over liability concerns. Anyone carrying a firearm must always take affirmative steps to ensure that it is not misused by themselves or others. Such concerns are an eloquent argument not for disarming victims, but for good training, situational awareness and adult responsibility.

Of course, repeal of the 1995 law would be a practical necessity, but potential liability issues must be primarily addressed by the state legislatures. As many states require schools to be “gun free zones,” it would be necessary--as a first step--for their legislatures to repeal such statutes and authorize the carrying of concealed weapons on school grounds. In Texas, for example, state law allows school boards to authorize the carrying of concealed weapons by those so licensed by adopting a written policy or giving written permission. As education and tort law does differ in the various states, liability issues should be dealt with in the same way.

A sort of “Good Samaritan” law could be written absolving teachers and other staff members of liability so long as they were properly trained and vetted and acting reasonably in response to a deadly threat--just as we expect police officers to act. Such a law obviously must not shield anyone from the consequences of reckless, malicious or foolish behavior or outright negligence--just as the police are not so shielded.

If the strongest case one can muster against armed teachers is that they are too unstable to bear such responsibility, what are such emotional and mental defectives doing in classrooms when millions of citizens with less education carry concealed weapons off school property without incident every day? It should be remembered that teachers are stringently vetted before being allowed to teach. Fingerprinting, credential verification, background checks, references, criminal history checks, are all an essential part of the hiring process for any teacher. Virtually every teacher in America is vetted at least as thoroughly as any citizen who receives a concealed carry license. Indeed, mistakes are sometimes made, but because those who hire teachers must themselves be hired from the human race, and because they must choose teachers from the same inherently flawed pool of applicants, this is rather like observing that oranges are orange and that all oranges are thereby fatally flawed.

It may be worthwhile to consider the potential liability (to say nothing of the horrendously negative public relations fallout) inherent in doing nothing in the face of known terrorist threats when the worst case scenario comes to pass. The MSM has also done a fine job of hiding the fact that from one to 2.5 million Americans successfully defend themselves and others with firearms each year, most without firing a shot. If a school’s only response amounts to “duck and cover,” defending a gun free school zone policy after the fact will suddenly become a very uncomfortable proposition, at Virginia Tech and elsewhere.

THE WORST CASE SCENARIO:

Regardless of how one feels about the foreign policy of a given presidential administration, America has been embroiled in a war with terrorists since at least the Carter administration, and nearly 800 Americans had been killed around the world by terrorists prior to 9-11. It was only 9-11 that made some realize that it might be wise to act as though we were fighting a war against those who had long since publicly declared war on us. We also know that our terrorist enemies desperately want to carry out attacks in America and in American schools. Recently gathered intelligence suggests this and they have elsewhere used this tactic--old hat for them but new to us--for decades. It is equally sobering to realize that our own domestic brand of terrorist, juvenile or adult, always has been present.

The arming of school staff is not a panacea. It cannot replace competent, practical identification and intervention programs--which include intelligent, aware teachers simply keeping their eyes and ears open--which might help to stop some school shootings before they begin. It is, rather, a very low or no cost protective measure for worst case scenarios that has the great benefit of providing credible deterrence if properly publicized. Arming staff is like providing fire extinguishers. Most teachers will complete an entire career without needing a fire extinguisher, but when they do need one, they need it immediately, badly, and nothing else will do. So it is with firearms.

I’m about to provide a scenario based on reality. Remember that I have been there and done that, in the classroom and in the responding police car. A law enforcement agency in which I served as a SWAT operator actually responded to a juvenile shooter in a large high school. In that case, the police again had no real effect. The shooter absent-mindly put down his shotgun in the classroom where he was holding fellow students hostage and a quick thinking youngster grabbed the shotgun, ending the affair. Miraculously, no one was injured. The scenario I propose allows generous response times for the police, and the actions of the killer are likewise based on real events and practical knowledge of the criminal/terrorist mind, of tactical reality, and of school design and procedures.

WARNING: This scenario is somewhat graphic and entirely realistic. The mere idea of anyone shooting helpless children in a school is horrendous and sickening to rational people, but considering such a scenario before the fact and drawing reasonable lessons from it is far better than doing so after the fact of an actual attack.

CONSIDER THIS SCENARIO wherein a single active shooter, an adult, armed only with a shotgun and a revolver, two common, non-military looking firearms, enters an elementary school in small to mid-sized town USA. Unhinged over imagined grievances, he is determined to kill as many students and teachers as possible and has several hundred rounds of ammunition stuffed in his pockets. He does not plan to survive the assault; he will kill himself or force the police to do it. Your eight year old daughter is in the fourth classroom he will enter.

0830: Monday. School has been underway for only a half hour. The morning traffic crunch won’t begin to slacken for at least another 45 minutes. The shooter enters the school--the doors are unlocked--and makes his way to the first classroom in the hallway left of the door. His choice of this hallway is entirely random; he simply decides to go left rather than right, a choice that in this case will spare the lives of the students and teachers in the right hallway. He knows the school has no liaison officer that day and that no one in the school is armed. A phone call asking to speak to the liaison officer (the secretary politely told him that the liaison officer is only in the building on Tuesdays and Thursdays--he is shared with two other elementary schools) and prominently posted gun-free school zone signs have made him certain of those facts.

0832: The first gunshots ring out causing confusion, but not instant panic. What are those noises? Is the sixth grade studying the Civil War again? Is someone watching a movie? Did someone drop something heavy? Are they making noise repairing something again?

0835: A nearby teacher finally realizes what is happening, and horrified by a glimpse of the shooter and what he is doing in that first classroom, frantically tries to call 9-11 on her cell phone. All of the structural steel in the building and nearby wireless computer transmitters interfere with the signal and she is unable to make contact. Hysterically weeping and in a panic, she begins the 200 yard dash to the office.

0837: A call finally goes out from the school office to the police. They relay the room number and the name of the teacher occupying the room where the panicked teacher saw the shooter, but this information means nothing to the responding officers who have no idea how the school is laid out. None of them have ever been inside the building. Even if they had, it’s unlikely they’d remember anything about one of many schools in their community. It takes the dispatcher 15 precious seconds to clarify that the room is in the east side of the building. That has some meaning to the officers. The shooter has reloaded and is entering the next classroom in line. The door is locked, but a kick makes short work of it, as it will every randomly locked door he encounters. He spent five minutes in the first classroom. Twelve children and the teacher are dead. Seven more are wounded and two will die within the week. Miraculously, the shooter overlooked two children who happened to fall under the bodies of their not-so-fortunate classmates. His bloodlust is overpowering; any inhibitions he had against killing children have melted away. He is now faster and more efficient.

0838: The call goes out to officers patrolling the city. Only four are on duty. One is handling a life-threatening emergency and cannot get away. Of the remaining three, the nearest officer is three minutes from the school. Another is five minutes away, the third, probably six minutes away. Various administrative and investigative officers hastily get the word and rush to respond from their centrally located police headquarters, but they will take much longer to arrive, which is the case with the two available sheriff’s deputies and the single available highway patrolman who rush to the school from many miles away, fighting early morning traffic all the way.

0841: Only 11 minutes have elapsed. The shooter has finished with the second classroom. This time he was more methodical and everyone in the classroom is dead or dying. He is reloading on his way to the next in line. The young female principal, shaking with fear, bravely approaches the DT in the hallway and tries to reason with him. The first officer, alone, arrives and sprints toward the east side of the school. He enters and pauses, hearing nothing for several seconds until a single gunshot rings out, followed by several long seconds of silence. Room numbers are on small signs above each classroom door and he cannot see them unless he is actually in a given hallway and close to the doors. He desperately listens, hoping to orient himself as quickly as possible.

0842: The officer again hears gunfire as the shooter enters the third classroom. He draws his handgun and moves, quickly and carefully, in the general direction of continuous, muted gunfire, but is unfamiliar with the building and makes several wrong turns, losing precious seconds. He knows that he must act immediately, but he knows that if he blunders into the shooter unprepared, he will do no good at all. He has to know where the shooter is before he commits to action. He hears what sound like shotgun and handgun fire; could there be more than one shooter? This makes him more cautious and slower, only a few seconds slower, but every second matters. He stops to radio his observations--and to ensure they are heard and understood (the structural steel of the building makes radio signals weak and intermittent)--before he continues.

0844: Two other officers arrive and radio the first officer who pauses to radio directions. They hurry toward him as he moves toward where he believes the shooter to be. The killer has finished shooting and reloads. Only the teacher and two first grade students, all wounded, will survive in the classroom he is about to leave. He steps into the hallway and seeing the officer, who is kneeling over the bloody body of the principal, trying to see if she has a pulse, takes several shots. The first buckshot round misses, shattering a trophy display case in a deluge of glass, wood and plastic. The second strikes the officer’s bullet resistant vest which stops most of the pellets, but several penetrate his shooting arm, numbing it and causing him to drop his handgun just as he is about to fire. In shock, feeling as though he is trying to move through molasses, he struggles to pick up his handgun with his left hand, but it is too late to engage the killer who enters the fourth classroom. Less than three minutes have elapsed from the moment the first officer entered the building until his encounter with the killer.

0845: Fifteen minutes into the incident, four minutes past the arrival of the first officer. The two additional officers arrive and drag their wounded partner, still struggling to raise and fire his handgun, down the hallway, out of the line of fire, just in time to see the killer enter the fourth classroom where your daughter, like the other children, is trying to hide behind a frightened but courageous female teacher who will be the first to be shot. She will live, but will have a single kidney for the rest of her shortened life. Many of her students will not be so fortunate. The officers do not have time to fire a single round before they hear multiple rapid gunshots echo from the classroom down the hall. The shooter knows he has little time left. Leaving their wounded comrade, they leap over the body of the dead principal and rush toward the open door of the classroom, gunshots echoing in their ears...

What happened? Did the officers corner the killer in the classroom and prevent further deaths (other than those already littering the classroom floor)? Did the killer shoot himself or was he shot by the officers? Did your daughter survive?

But it wouldn’t happen like that! The police would surely be there much more quickly and would know exactly what to do. Perhaps a single officer, in the finest martial arts hero style, would disarm the suspect without firing a shot, beating him mercilessly for daring to threaten children, for not heeding the good intentions of the gun free school zone message, preventing a single injury...

Unfortunately, the time frames I’ve suggested here for police response are generous; any honest police officer will confirm that. This does not reflect badly on the police, but is merely a reflection of the realities of time, distance, traffic and the fog of battle. The police did not enter the building at Columbine for many hours. If that time was reduced by 80% would it be fast enough, considering that the killer is on his way to your daughter’s classroom? Would a 90% reduction comfort you? In Pearl, Mississippi, at the Appalachian Law School, at Virginia Tech, the police had no role at all in stopping the killers. This has been true for virtually all school attacks. Even if the killer fires only five rounds in each classroom, would you be satisfied? Would you consider the odds to be in your daughter’s favor?

Remember that in this case, there was a single killer--not a dedicated terrorist--armed only with two widely available, unremarkable firearms. Imagine the consequences if there were multiple killers, dedicated terrorists all, with more effective weapons, even explosives. Imagine that one or more were detailed to hold off the police as they arrive, giving their fellows more time to kill. Would the police response be more, or less effective under these circumstances? How much greater would be the death toll?

But doesn’t this scenario demonstrate the necessity of disarming everyone? Let’s assume that we can wave a magic wand and roll firearm technology back before the invention of gunpowder. Remember that during the Medieval period--and millennia before--thousands of people were often killed in a single day in various battles, killed with the kinds of weapons we would consider very crude indeed. Yet those same weapons are readily available even today, and even if they weren’t, are easy to make. Remember too that honest citizens are not now, nor have they ever been, the problem. They will obey the law; they have no desire to harm anyone. Disarming ourselves in the face of those who will not obey the law and who do wish to harm others is unspeakably foolish and dangerous. The problem, in 500 AD and now, is not tools but human nature. Evil existed then; evil exists now.

Would you want teachers, trained and prepared, to be armed and able to protect your daughter, to have the opportunity, then and there, to stop the attack, or would you be satisfied with the non-violent, peaceful, safe-feeling and comforting message delivered by a few small metal signs, and the protection provided by a locked door and a 3/4” thick particle board desktop? The odds, thankfully, are probably in your favor, but some people always run afoul of the odds, and there is no reason that some people cannot include your daughter.

If you would honestly choose the message and the signs, then by all means, live your convictions and post a conspicuous “WE ARE COMPLETELY UNARMED” sign on your front lawn. If you honestly wouldn’t do that, perhaps it’s time to join the ranks of those who recognize that times have changed, and that a kind of danger unique in American history faces us. Perhaps it’s time to recognize that this danger can and must be addressed, and that there is one way, and only one way, to do it effectively.

The Deadly Political Correctness of Gun-Free School Zones: Part II

The first installment of this series (available here) outlined a dangerous and very real issue facing American schools today: The likelihood of attacks by active shooters, whether disaffected or deranged citizens, or Islamic terrorists, foreign or domestic. This article will deal primarily with ways with which the problem may be successfully dealt, and with commonly raised objections to the only truly effective way to protect our children if a worst-case scenario occurs.

QUESTIONS, ANSWERS AND SOLUTIONS:

There is one simple update in school policy that can change American schools, as has been the case in Israel, from soft to hard--or at least harder--targets: allow teachers and other school staff to carry concealed handguns. This policy can be implemented at no cost to schools and mechanisms, both legal and practical, are already in place. Only two American states completely prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns, though it is likely, circa April of 2011, that this will change in Wisconsin. The rest allow it subject to records checks, testing and licensing. However, several states allow any law abiding citizen who is not otherwise disqualified by mental illness or past criminal status--Wyoming is the most recent--to carry a concealed handgun with no state testing or licensing. These laws have been a uniform success in that every state that has passed a concealed carry law has seen reductions in violent crime, mass shootings, and no corresponding increase in shooting incidents. The kinds of wild west shootouts anti-gun activists predicted would break out at the slightest provocation have simply failed to materialize.

Those licensed to carry concealed weapons have been, unsurprisingly, uncommonly law abiding, and only a tiny percentage (commonly much less than a single percent) have had their licenses suspended, most for technical violations of the law such as unintentionally carrying a handgun into a prohibited area. Concealed carry has been so universally successful and beneficial that no repeal legislation has been seriously considered, let alone passed. Circa Spring, 2011, concealed carry is allowed on school grounds only in Utah and Colorado, but 13 additional states are debating the issue, including Texas, where a bill that would allow concealed carry on state college campuses is being debated.

Q: SCHOOLS ARE GUN-FREE ZONES. WON’T GUNS MAKE SCHOOLS MORE DANGEROUS?

Gun free zones? Yes, but only for those who obey the law, and are, as a consequence, no threat. The fact that schools are “gun free zones” did not stop the Columbine killers or any other maniac intent on harming school children, nor will it stop those intent on harm in the future. The laws ensure only that schools are easy targets. In truth, they are victim disarmament zones, special preserves where shooters can be assured that they will have ample time to kill before any police response can be organized. A gun-free zone sign in front of a school provides only a false sense of security to parents, but is comforting indeed to killers who may be certain that their victims will be unarmed and in a very poor position to resist them.

Very few people are comfortable with the idea of prominently posting a sign in front of their home advertising the fact that they are unarmed. Yet some are delighted to see essentially the same sign in front of their children’s school. Signs and laws confer no protection. They suggest and provide for only the possibility of punishment after a violation of the law. The people who threaten our children don’t play by the rules of the American criminal justice system, and boldly standing ready to prosecute school murderers who commonly kill themselves during their attacks is, at best, an exercise in futility. Only the affirmative acts of those prepared to effectively defend themselves and others offer real protection.

Q: TEACHERS CARRYING GUNS?

One significant reason that violent crime has uniformly declined in right to carry states is that even though only a small fraction of the population carries a concealed weapon, the likelihood is high that some honest citizen will be carrying a handgun virtually anywhere at any time. Knowing this, criminals can never know who will be armed and must assume that everyone might be. Therefore though only a small portion of the honest population carry concealed weapons, they provide a protective, deterrent effect for the general public far out of proportion to their numbers.

Those already licensed for concealed carry provide a ready pool for schools. Many people assume that the police are all expert shots. Not so. Many police officers are required to qualify with their firearms only once a year. The courses of fire are commonly not demanding and passing scores generous. Many officers fire their weapons only on those occasions (and clean them less often).

Shooting skills can be learned by virtually anyone, and a great many citizens exceed the police in shooting skill. This is not to denigrate the police in any way--they do a difficult job well--but putting on a police uniform does not endow the wearer with magical shooting powers beyond the reach of civilians. Most teachers are women, and firearms teachers know that women often make the best students, usually lacking the preconceptions and ingrained bad habits present in many men.

Publicizing that teachers are allowed to carry, suggesting that they are carrying, but taking pains to ensure that no one knows who or how many in any given school, will confer upon all teachers, students and schools the benefit of making every school a harder target. No one should be required to carry a firearm against their will. Even if one school in a district has no one on campus carrying a concealed weapon, as long as the public doesn’t know that but reasonably believes that some are, the school retains the deterrent effect of appearing to be a harder target.

If you were planning a school attack and knew that the Smallville School District allowed concealed carry on school property, even encouraged it, but the Pleasantville School district next door did not, in which school district would you be more likely to attack? Terrorists are deterred only when they believe that their mission might be thwarted, which tends to cause them to shift to a softer target. At the moment, virtually every American elementary and secondary school is a soft target.

Q: CAN’T WE SECURE SCHOOLS WITH METAL DETECTORS, LOCKS AND OTHER METHODS?

As I previously noted, only recently have architects begun designing schools for greater security. However, the very nature of schools mitigates against effective security. Particularly in secondary schools, teachers, students and others are constantly coming and going, and a large number of exterior access doors are mandated by fire codes. Metal detectors do not protect against anyone who intends to kill, and security guards are often the first killed, as was the 2005 case at Red Lake High School in North Dakota. A 16 year-old student began his attack by killing the school’s only security guard. The shooter killed a teacher and five students and wounded 14 others before briefly trading gunfire with the police and killing himself in one of the relatively few school attacks in which the police played at least some part in stopping the shooting.

Strong locks and substantial classroom doors are certainly a good idea, as are video systems, comprehensive intercoms and other security measures, but they are expensive and as such, are often set aside for other priorities.
Good security design of school facilities can slow determined killers, but cannot stop them. By all means, employ these methods, but that’s not the point. The more capable and determined the shooter(s) the more likely it is that such passive methods will be of little or no value. The question is what works when these methods have failed, when a killer is present and ready to kill?

Q: WON’T STUDENTS STEAL TEACHER’S GUNS? WON’T TEACHERS LOSE OR MISPLACE THEM?

Anyone carrying a firearm must carry it on their person, invisible, safe and secure from theft. Handguns can’t be locked in cabinets, left in purses or desk drawers; they are not secure and will be useless if their owner is confronted by a deadly threat while thus unarmed. A handgun in a lockbox in a teacher’s classroom will be less than useless to the teacher confronted by a shooter in the hallways of their school. The most effective known weapons locked in an armory are useless to people under attack anywhere else, particularly if they don’t have the key.

It is difficult or impossible to detect a concealed handgun if it has been carefully chosen and concealed. Carrying a firearm entails the absolute responsibility to keep it from unauthorized or dangerous persons. This is all a part of competent training, and requires changes in mindset, behavior and wardrobe.

Carrying a concealed weapon, on or off school grounds, is clearly not for everyone, but is not unreasonably dangerous. By this I mean that when we leave our homes every morning, we assume a great many reasonable risks. Driving represents one of the most real and serious risks we face every day, yet we tend to think nothing of it. We trust average citizens each and every day with weapons far more destructive and deadly than handguns: automobiles. Driving is the most complex, demanding task that we do every day, far more difficult than shooting, yet we require less training, background checks and testing for drivers than that required for concealed carry and think nothing of it. Uniformed police officers who carry their weapons openly are far more likely to be the victim of an attempt to take their weapon than anyone discreetly carrying a concealed handgun in any setting.

Fortunately, there is an experience model. In all of the years of teachers carrying concealed handguns in Utah, there has never been an instance of a student obtaining and using a firearm taken from a teacher. While the theft of a handgun is always a possibility, all of life is a matter of balancing risks, of balancing the good against the bad. The potentially life saving effects of concealed carry during a worst case scenario clearly outweigh, by an enormous margin, the potential negative effects of a lost or stolen weapon.

Q: WE PAY THE POLICE TO PROTECT US. SHOULDN’T WE LEAVE IT TO PROFESSIONALS?

It’s true that police officers love to catch really bad guys, but the police have no duty to protect any individual citizen. On June 27, 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. In this case, the estranged husband of Gonzales defied a restraining order and kidnapped their three daughters, ages 7-10. Over many hours, the police were repeatedly called, even begged to act. Mrs. Gonzales even went to the police station in person and plead for their help, but they did nothing. Shortly thereafter, Gonzales’ husband committed suicide by cop by firing on the police station. His three daughters were found dead in his vehicle. He murdered them before attacking the police station.

The court affirmed decades of lower court precedence in holding that the police have a duty only to deter and investigate crime for the public at large but not for any individual; the police could not be held liable even though they did nothing to assist Gonzales despite her repeated, obviously valid and pitiful pleas for their help.

This might seem outrageous, but it is rational and necessary. Most people would be amazed, even shocked, to learn how few officers are patrolling their community at any time of the night or day. It is impossible for the police to guarantee protection to any individual, and if they could be successfully sued for failing to provide such protection, what city could possibly afford a police force? Police agencies are always understaffed. As a consequence, they staff their shifts with the most officers when most are required: evenings in general and Friday and Saturday nights in particular. Police agencies virtually always have the fewest officers working during weekday shifts when school is in session.

Indeed, the police love to catch bad guys in the act, and would love nothing more than to stop school shooters, but the police are primarily reactive rather than proactive. There aren’t many of them, and they’re not well prepared to deal--in terms of weapons, training or procedures--with actual terrorism which employs military methods, weapons, tactics and objectives. It is true that more police agencies are changing their response models and training regarding school shootings, but we are all responsible for our own--and our families’--personal safety. No matter how well trained and prepared responding police officers might be, the immutable issues that matter are time and distance. Unless officers are present--within easy handgun range of the shooters--when an attack begins, many children and teachers will die before they can arrive.

Q: WHAT ABOUT SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICERS?

Some schools have armed police officers on their campuses during school hours, more have part time officers, but most have none. School liaison officers are expensive; they are of little use to a day to day patrol force, yet their salary must come, in part or completely, out of a police budget. Even if a school has an assigned liaison officer, the odds that the officer will be on campus when an attack occurs, or will be in the part of the building necessary to take immediate and effective action are small. Such officers duties do not consist only of walking continuously around a school. For most, that’s a very small part of their daily routine. Many schools have the population of small towns, and modern schools are like mazes to those who don’t work in them daily. Those most likely to know who doesn’t belong on a campus and what is happening on a moment by moment basis are those who work there--the teachers.

Time is no longer on the side of the good guys. When an active shooter or shooters enter a school, if they are not engaged and stopped immediately, the only factor determining the eventual death toll will be their good will or lack of marksmanship. Many schools do not have intercom systems, so a teacher seeing an armed attacker in a hallway may have no way--other than their own cell phone, which may or may not work inside the school--to notify the office, warn other teachers, or to call the police.

Q: WON’T TEACHERS WITH GUNS JUST MAKE A BAD SITUATION WORSE?

Worse? Worse than what? Worse than active shooters intent on killing as many students and teachers as quickly as possible? Worse than terrorists feverishly wiring explosive charges? When an armed attack on a school occurs, “worse” has arrived. The only issue thereafter is how deadly things will become, and if the good guys have no effective response, “deadly” will be measured by the amount of time available to the killers to run up the final body count.

Unlike feel good gestures, arming teachers is one of the simplest and most effective measures that can have a positive effect if the worst case scenario occurs--ask the Israelis. If it never occurs, the school environment remains unaffected, except for the positive benefits of deterrence.

Teachers who hold concealed carry permits currently live a schizophrenic legal/professional existence. Standing on the sidewalk in front of a school, they are trusted upstanding citizens who have willingly, and at considerable expense in time and money, submitted to rigorous vetting by the state. Step onto school property and they instantly become potentially crazed killers, liable for firing and lengthy jail sentences. The determining factor? Geography.

Does the value of a teacher’s or student’s life change depending upon where he or she stands relative to a school property boundary? Should children be under the protection of their parents who hold concealed carry licenses be deprived of that protection merely because they step on school property, crossing an invisible line? Does a gun-free school zone sign confer magical protective properties on the real estate behind it, forcing the most deranged or homicidally determined to obey that law even as they doggedly prepare for mass murder? Unless this kind of magic exists, the only thing worse than an armed attack is failing to prepare for it, and therefore, having no effective response when it occurs.

Q: WON’T ARMED TEACHERS MAKE THINGS MORE DANGEROUS FOR RESPONDING POLICE OFFICERS? WON’T THEY SHOOT ARMED TEACHERS BY MISTAKE?

Most teachers wear identification cards and look a lot more like teachers than killers. Police officers are trained not to fire their weapons without being absolutely sure of their targets. Every police officer knows that they are, morally and legally, absolutely responsible for every round they fire and that they will frequently be required to walk into ambiguous situations. They train for these scenarios. Officers knowing that teachers might be armed makes friendly fire incidents less, rather than more, likely.

It is true that police officers sometimes make mistakes and injure or kill innocents. But again, the issue is one of balance. Should the mere possibility of mistakes prevent us from providing the best, most proven method of protecting the lives of our children at school?

Q: SCHOOLS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SAFE, SECURE ENVIRONMENTS FOR OUR CHILDREN. DON’T GUNS IN SCHOOLS GIVE STUDENTS THE WRONG MESSAGE?

Indeed, schools must be safe and secure environments for our children. Historically, this has been the case, but never has there been a clear and present--and often demonstrated--danger like that we now face. Never has it been more vital that those responsible for the safety of children entrusted to them at school deal with that responsibility rationally and effectively. Locks, doors, video, passive security measures are all nice to have, but the question that each and every parent must ask is: “what will you do if the worst case scenario comes to pass? How will you protect my child?” Unless the answer is to effectively deter attacks, and to meet deadly force with deadly force, your children are “protected” only by rhetoric, only by small, metal signs. School shooters have not, to date, been impressed, deterred, or stopped by rhetoric or by signage.

The true gun free school zone message is that we are not responsible for our own safety and security; someone else will protect us. It represents magical thinking: A thing is so because we say it is, because we sincerely wish it to be. Pity the poor Virginia Tech official who, months before the shooting, after the defeat of a law that would have allowed students and faculty to carry firearms on campus, smugly proclaimed that everyone could, as a result, feel safe. No doubt he and others felt safe for a time, but feelings and reality are often quite different, an irony that one can only hope will haunt him, and will certainly haunt the surviving relatives of the victims, for the rest of their lives.

We are all, by law and common sense, responsible for our personal security. Refusing to take affirmative measures to protect ourselves and our charges is an abrogation of responsibility and teaches weakness, helplessness and victimhood. We have established gun free school zone policies to lull ourselves into the belief that such “zones” are safe, to “send a message” about what we believe to be important, to advertise our belief in peace and safety and niceness. Unfortunately, reality dictates that such signs will be obeyed only by the law abiding and that they empower, even encourage those who would harm others. There are truly evil people abroad in the world, and any one of us may have the misfortunate to meet one of them at any time of the day or night. Do we really want to teach students to ignore reality and rely only on feel good/feel safe measures in this, or any other situation?

A recent focus in schools across the country is the prevention of bullying. Programs are being developed and large amounts of money being spent. There is little doubt that some children subjected to bullying, particularly where school authorities do nothing, commit suicide or otherwise suffer. But if we are willing to devote so much energy and so many resources to this issue--and it is surely reasonable to take prudent steps to prevent bullying and to effectively and immediately punish it when and where it occurs--why are so many educators and others unwilling to address an even greater and more potentially deadly danger?

PARTING THOUGHTS:

As regular readers know, I am a teacher of high school English. I’ve been fortunate to have some 15 years of experience in this wonderful and vital endeavor and have also had the pleasure of teaching college. These experiences have given me considerable insight into the culture of education.

Many educators, many of those in positions of authority in education, are liberals. As such, their views of those who own guns tend to run the gamut from disapproval to believing them to be barely sentient lunatics ready to kill the innocent at any moment. Some really have an irrational, visceral fear and loathing of firearms, as though inanimate objects have magical, evil powers capable of infecting those around them. It should hardly be surprising that such people would reflexively oppose what I’m suggesting.

However, the times are changing. Only a few years ago, before the Heller and McDonald decisions by the Supreme Court finally established the Second Amendment as a fundamental American right enforceable on state and local governments, the kinds of laws now being considered and increasingly passed would have been thought impossible. Anti-gun forces still exist, but are more and more marginalized. The field of education is one of their last power bases.

In the final installment of this series, which I’ll post next Monday, I’ll lay out a very realistic scenario that may help to persuade otherwise reluctant parents and school board members. It is my hope that America won’t have to suffer through a Beslan-like attack--or many such attacks--in an elementary school before our schools implement the only effective means of stopping those who would harm our children. Never has the danger been greater, yet never has the possibility for effective change been greater.

The Deadly Political Correctness of Gun-Free School Zones

Terrorists attempting attacks on American soil have, of late, had a run of bad luck. An underwear bomber succeeds mainly in torching his “junk” on an airliner; a car bomber is thwarted by an alert citizen in Times Square; would-be bombers are stung by the FBI in Dallas and Baltimore, and no doubt, other plots have been thwarted in earlier stages of execution, plots about which most will never know so that the methods and sources of our police and intelligence agencies might be protected, unless Julian Assange, the New York Times or similar internet/media vermin get their paws on the information.

But such good fortune has not been universal. During the seven years of the Bush Administration following 9-11, there were no successful terrorist attacks on American soil. In the first two years of the Obama Administration, hope and change have produced multiple successful attacks, including the Fort Hood attack, which cost 12 deaths and 31 injured. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), commenting on the report on that act of domestic terrorism, observed that it was not only preventable, but was the result of a climate of political correctness. It is that particular kind of attack that is likely to be the wave of the future. Due to misplaced, misinformed good intentions and political correctness run amok, America is particularly vulnerable.

Consider the case of obscure Florida minister Terry Jones, leader of a small flock, who burned a Koran in early April, 2011. Around the world, a few days later, Afghan President Hamid Karzai decried the burning and his citizens went berserk, attacking a UN compound and killing seven UN workers, as many as five fellow Afghan Muslims, and injuring 20 or more.

In response, Senator Lindsay Graham was upset that he could not punish the pastor or anyone who would burn a Koran. President Obama likewise “deplored” the Koran burning, but also got around to expressing his disapproval of those who killed innocents. While the Florida paster is certainly unwise, and book burning is the act of a Luddite, the politically correct response, by an American senator and the President--among many others--should give us all pause. There is no moral equivalence between burning a book and the brutal murder of innocents, none. It is particularly ironic that one of those killed was a 33 year old Swede who, according to media accounts, “worked for human rights.” That the default position of so many of our civic “leaders” is to blame anyone but those responsible for inhuman crimes is a symptom of a dangerous strain of emotionalism and illogic abroad in contemporary America, of political correctness elevated above all else.

Many Americans give lip service to the idea that everything changed on September 11, 2001. For our schools, however, that process of change began on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado. Unfortunately, far too many, and particularly educators, have learned the wrong lessons.

School shootings and terrorist attacks on schools are notorious primarily because they are relatively rare. Students are, statistically, more likely to be killed in an automobile accident, struck by lightning or hit by a meteor than to be involved in a Columbine, Virginia Tech or Beslan-like attack. That is the good news.

The bad news is that intelligence agencies have, for some time, been developing information that indicates that terrorists intend to strike soft targets in America in the same ways that they have struck soft targets in other nations. And even if such intelligence did not exist, it wouldn’t take Nostradamus to forecast the likelihood of such attacks. Terrorists know that it will be difficult to again turn an American airliner into a flying bomb, and so they have resorted to tactics such as suicide bombers wearing binary liquid or semi-liquid explosives. The recent Russian sale to Venezuela of advanced, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles has opened up another possible avenue of attack, particularly since intelligence is also indicating that terrorists have been--and almost certainly are--entering America over our porous southern border. Of course, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano continues to claim that the situation on the border is better than ever. Thus, under the Obama Administration, is the future apparently to be won.

Mass, coordinated attacks originating from abroad are always possible, but perhaps the greatest current danger comes from homegrown jihadists who do not have consistent ties to foreign terror masters. Such neophyte jihadists have, to date, often made mistakes that have allowed law enforcement to intercept them, but as has already been noted, not every one of them has been so careless, and many will not be so careless in the future.

An allied danger is the disaffected citizen who, for whatever reason, decides to attack innocents and go out in a blaze of deranged glory, the Virginia Tech killer--who would certainly have liked me to mention his name--being only one example. For such killers, attacking undefended, soft targets like shopping malls, churches, theaters and schools will almost certainly become much more attractive. Unlike plots involving substantial amounts of explosives, or other military ordinance, such attacks require nothing more than a few pockets-full of ammunition and commonly available, non-military (not fully-automatic) firearms, and if the plots involve only one or two killers, particularly if they are closed-mouthed, they are virtually impossible to intercept and prevent.

Due to an unfortunate and outdated mix of social, academic and legal factors, schools are uniquely vulnerable to attack. The feel-good trend of the 80s and 90s to declare school zones “gun free,” to “make a statement,” may have impressed those who believe that statement making is a good in and of itself and would doubtless have unjustifiably raised their self-esteem to stratospheric heights. However such high-minded statement making has not served to provoke good will in those who have attacked schools or who are currently looking for a soft target.

For most schools that have considered the possibility of such attacks (most have not), response to an armed attack amounts to little more than locking classroom doors, and reminiscent of early Cold War duck-and-cover drills, overturning and hiding behind desks, relying on 3/4” particle board desktops for protection from bullets and bombs. Doors and desks don’t provide effective protection from either. Only coldly sober, rational tactical thinking, planning and action can prevent or ameliorate terrorist attacks. Hiding, particularly hiding poorly, provides no real protection. Unfortunately, tactical thinking remains off the radar of most educators, and only recently has any tactical thinking gone into the construction of school facilities.

Attacks by “active shooters,” whether Islamist terrorists or non-ideological, domestic juveniles or adults, have many elements in common. All have missions in mind, and for most, survival is decidedly secondary. Most expect to die, either through suicide or by means of the police (forcing the police to shoot them, AKA “suicide by cop”). Both types have no interest in negotiation, and on the rare occasions when they speak to the police at all, it is merely a means of obtaining greater publicity or playing for more time to rape, torture and kill helpless victims. Both care about police intervention only because the police might interfere with their plans. The police, who behave in legally proscribed and predictable ways, do not deter their attacks, and unlike common criminals, they have no reluctance in killing police officers. They plan their attacks with the goal of causing the maximum damage--usually in loss of innocent lives-- in the shortest time, which tends to produce the most and most lasting publicity and/or the greatest glory for their cause and themselves in whatever hellish afterlife they covet.

At the Virginia Tech attack in April of 2007, the killer, pausing after two initial murders, prepared and mailed a package of video, writings and photographs to NBC, which copied everything before bothering to call the police to turn over the originals, and blitzed the airwaves for days with the killer’s lunatic pronouncements. In short, the media gave him exactly what he wanted. In arrogantly and mindlessly defending their actions, NBC made clear to any and all future killers that their insane manifestos would receive a similarly warm welcome from the media. This was not lost on those considering similar atrocities.

LESSONS: All active shooter threats, regardless of ideology or motivation, are equally dangerous. It must now be assumed that those attacking schools will not behave as common criminals, won’t play by the rules of the criminal justice system, do not intend to survive and will kill as many innocents as possible as quickly as possible. Negotiation is likely futile. The press will be on the side of the terrorists in their publicity seeking desires.

The Columbine killers tried to kill as many teachers and students (15) as possible before they were stopped. Considering the time afforded them by the police, it is amazing that hundreds weren’t killed. The police were ineffective because they relied upon an outdated response model that assumed that the attackers were common criminals, wanted to negotiate, and that time was on the side of the police. A school liaison officer did trade a few rounds of gunfire with the shooters, but quickly withdrew, doing as he had been taught: contain and control, let the professionals--Special Weapons and Tactics--handle it. By the time a SWAT team assembled, organized and entered the building, the murderers had already killed their classmates and themselves, and a wounded teacher who might have been saved slowly bled to death over the course of many hours. The Columbine killers brought a crude propane tank bomb, hoping to set off an explosion that would kill scores, but were not able to cause a detonation. The Virginia Tech killer, who chained shut doors to keep victims in and the police out, also had more than enough time to kill 32 innocents before killing himself. He was armed only with two common handguns. The response of the police at Virginia Tech was many times faster than the Columbine response, yet they had no role in stopping the murderer, and their faster response mattered little to the victims or their families. In fact, the number of cases where the police have had any actual role in stopping an active shooter are vanishingly small.

LESSONS: In order to save lives, attackers must be immediately engaged and neutralized. Time is not on the side of the authorities and is absolutely not on the side of the victims. By the time a SWAT team--even if one is available--can be mobilized, arrive and formulate a plan, their only useful task will be in helping to remove the dead.

The 9-11 terrorists had no short-term goals save killing as many Americans as possible. There were no demands, no negotiations, nothing to contain or control. It was the passengers of Flight 93, the airliner the terrorists intended to crash into the White House or Congress, alerted by cell phone to the terrorist’s intentions, who changed the response model independently of the authorities. Crying “let’s roll,” they overwhelmed the terrorists, forcing the plane to crash in a Pennsylvania field, far short of the terrorist’s target. Terrorists now know that American airline passengers will not meekly wait for the authorities to save them. As positive as this development is, it tends to focus terrorists on softer targets.

Few are as soft as schools, as the world learned at Beslan, Russia during several days that began on September 01, 2004 when Islamic terrorists blew up a school, killing more than three hundred and wounding hundreds more as the culmination of three days of rape, torture and murder. This tactic should not have been a surprise, and would not have been a surprise had the mainstream media honestly done its job in the past. Israel has suffered the threat and reality of terrorist attacks on schools for decades. These attacks have been, at best, underreported in the American media, but one particular aspect of these attacks, and the most effective response to them--in Israel and potentially in America--has been ignored, even suppressed by the MSM: the use of firearms by school staff to deter and stop school attacks.

LESSON: Terrorists have been attacking schools and students, throughout the world, for decades. Domestic active shooters have been doing the same in America for decades. The threat is real and is already present. What is new is the potential for an escalation in the number of attacks and in their deadliness.

Living with terrorism in a way that is, for the moment, foreign to Americans, the Israelis have adopted practical responses to terror. For decades, Israeli teachers have been armed, even with true assault rifles (there is no such thing as an “assault weapon,” which is an anti-gun/MSM invention) and submachine guns, changing soft targets to hard targets, deterring attacks and preventing or minimizing the loss of life when attacks occur. As a result, school attacks are rare.

A January 25, 2008 attack on an Israeli High School by two armed terrorists ended with only slight wounds to the two school counselors who used their handguns to quickly kill the terrorists. That’s right: two armed school counselors protected their own lives and the lives of their students. They were not police officers, commandos or action heros, but school counselors. This story received scant attention in the American press, which continues to downplay or ignore Israeli, and many similar American, success stories, and routinely ignores the one to two million (or more) times each year that honest citizens use firearms to stop criminal assault, usually without firing a shot.

In Pearl, Mississippi on October 01, 1997, a crazed adolescent armed with a rifle shot nine students, killing two and wounding seven. Who has heard of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick who stopped the rampage, saving untold lives? Virtually no one, because he used a gun to overcome the shooter. Myrick ran a quarter of a mile to his car, which was parked off school property to comply with the federal law then in force (but since overturned) prohibiting firearms within 1000 feet of a school. Retrieving his handgun, he ran back to the school and confronted the shooter, disarming him and holding him for police. Media accounts, when they mentioned Myrick, virtually all failed to mention the presence and role of his handgun.

On January 16, 2002 at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia, a crazed student went on a shooting rampage, killing three and wounding three. He was stopped by two fellow students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges, who ran to their cars to retrieve their handguns. At gunpoint, they ended his killing and held him for police.

Dr. John Lott, in his book “The Bias Against Guns,” recounts how he conducted a Lexis/Nexus search of the news stories surrounding this event. Of 208 news stories throughout the nation in the week following the attack, only four mentioned that the attack was stopped with the use of firearms. Only two reported that Gross and Bridges actually pointed their guns at the shooter. In his book, “Arrogance,” former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg wrote of his surprise, upon reading Lott’s research into the incident, that the MSM would leave out such a noteworthy and essential detail. Conducting his own research, he discovered that Lott was correct. Goldberg wrote: “Only a tiny handful of reporters in the entire country were willing to report an essential part of the story: that it wasn’t just the killer who used a gun on campus that day, but two of the rescuers too.”

Considering media treatment of the issue, it is hardly surprising that so many Americans buy into the false and deadly promise of safety of the “gun-free school zone.” It is unsurprising that most Americans do not recognize the very real threat of school attacks by terrorists. In the two most deadly American school attacks--Columbine and Virginia Tech--the police had no role in ending the killing, another fact which has gone unmentioned by the media. For school attacks, this is overwhelmingly the rule, not the exception.

LESSON: If the goal is saving lives--and where school children are involved, what more important goal exists?--force must be met, immediately, with equal or greater counter-force. The police virtually never arrive in time to make a difference.

Please keep in mind that I am not denigrating the police. I was a police officer for nearly two decades. That is why I understand the reality of police response time. The police love to catch dangerous criminals in the act. It’s what they live for, but in the real world, unlike television, catching bad guys in the act, or preventing their crimes, is uncommon precisely because most bad guys take pains to avoid being caught and because there are, relative to the size of any community, few police officers.

In installments two and three of this three-part series, I’ll elaborate on the difficulties the police face in responding to active shooters, and on the realities of time and distance that frustrate their response. I’ll also propose a means to harden schools, and address the arguments against that proposal.

Me? Own A Gun? Article 5: Cartridges and Carrying

In this final installment of the five part series (the first four installments may be found here, here, here and here), I’ll explore the basics of cartridge and holster choice, and add a few interesting additional tidbits. I hope this series has been useful and informative.

CARTRIDGE CHOICE:

Cartridge choices for handguns are relatively simple. For revolvers, the .38 special and .357 magnum predominate. One can also obtain revolvers in .44 special, .44 magnum and larger, specialized cartridges most commonly used for hunting, but for most people choosing a revolver, the choice is .38 special or .357 magnum. The .357 is nothing more than a .38 special with a slightly longer case which allows more powder, greater bullet velocity, and therefore, more power. Smaller revolvers like the Ruger LCR are chambered only in .38 special (there is a .357 model with a different model designation), and while any revolver chambered for .357 magnum will also fire .38 special ammunition, the opposite is not true. It would be wise to consider .38 special to be the smallest cartridge appropriate for self defense in revolvers. Smaller calibers are available, but there is no advantage in size or otherwise in such weapons. Revolvers chambered for .357 magnum and larger calibers are themselves larger and heavier, often much larger and heavier than smaller, short barreled revolvers chambered in .38 special.

Common cartridge choices for semiautos are somewhat more numerous: .380 ACP, 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP predominate. Again, there are a variety of other available cartridges, but these are the primary four. Of the four, the .40 S&W is the most recent, having been developed from the 10mm cartridge as a shorter cartridge with less brutal recoil characteristics. It does approximate the performance of some .45 ACP ammunition with lighter bullet weights, while being physically small enough to use the same frames and slides as guns chambered in 9mm. Generally speaking, none of these cartridges is interchangeable. With semiautos, one should load and fire only those cartridges for which a given handgun was designed. In this genre, the .380 is generally considered the smallest cartridge effective for self defense. Handguns chambered for it, such as the polymer Ruger LCP, can be very small and light indeed, but as with very small and light revolvers, tend to have mediocre sights and triggers and because of their very light weight and small size, tend to impart considerably more recoil energy to the shooter. This usually results in equally mediocre accuracy.

Cartridges are commonly named for their bore diameter and developer, or to clearly differentiate them from similar cartridges. The .357 magnum, for instance, fires a bullet whose diameter is 357/1000 of an inch, and the “magnum” designation is intended to denote a more powerful version of the .38 special, which fires a bullet of the same diameter. The .40 S&W fires a bullet of 400/1000 inch diameter, and major development work was done by Smith and Wesson. It is essentially a development of the 10mm cartridge, but the case is slightly shorter to allow smaller framed weapons to fire it with less recoil. Again, the .40 S&W designation clearly differentiates it from 10mm ammunition, though both fire bullets of essentially the same diameter. While it is possible to fire .40 S&W ammunition in a handgun chambered for 10mm, the opposite is not true, and it is always best to fire only that ammunition for which a gun is specifically chambered, particularly with semiautos.

BROAD AMMUNITION GENERALIZATIONS:

For self defense, only jacketed hollow points should be used. Hollow points have the greatest likelihood of expending more of their energy within a target--thus having the maximum stopping effect--and the least likelihood of over-penetration and ricochet as they will tend to “mushroom” or fragment on impact with solid objects. Full metal jacket, or “hardball” ammunition--lead bullets fully encased with copper and with rounded noses--are military issue due to international treaties and because of the military need for greater penetration of cover. In the military context, it is often better to wound than to kill an enemy. A wounded enemy takes three people out of the fight: the wounded soldier and two of his comrades to carry him. This kind of ammunition is entirely appropriate--and much cheaper--for practice, but not for daily carry.

Practice ammunition, whether with lead bullets or jacketed bullets, is generally substantially cheaper than carry ammo, however, it is often of lower power and will therefore have different recoil, report and muzzle flash characteristics than carry ammo. In fact, some light-loaded practice/target ammunition may cause malfunctions in some semiautos. The lesson is to practice, upon occasion, with the ammunition you intend to carry.

Another significant issue is ammunition cost. If you’re going to be truly proficient, if you’re going to have the confidence that will help to ensure that you’ll likely be able to avoid using a handgun, which should be your preferred outcome, you must practice--and practice correctly--regularly. Anyone can learn to shoot, but shooting well under pressure is an acquired skill, and a skill that is degraded without consistent, correct practice.

For all of the ammunition that follows except the 9mm, the cost was derived by multiplying the per box (50 rounds) cost by 20. Revolver cartridges and the .380 can be sometimes difficult to find in 1000 round lots, but when purchased in that quantity, one can usually save $20 or so over the per-box price. The prices listed are quite close to those of other brands currently for sale on the discount ammo market. Hollow point ammunition suitable for concealed carry normally comes in 50 round boxes, but every manufacturer markets ammunition claimed to be nothing short of miraculous in 20 round boxes at much higher prices. As you can see, 9mm ammunition is generally substantially cheaper than any other popular caliber.

In revolvers, .38 special ammo is generally cheaper than .357 ammo of the same type. In semiautos, 9mm ammo is generally much cheaper than the other three types and is generally much more readily available. Checking prices at Midway USA (a popular supplier of ammunition and all things gun) in early April 2011 for roughly comparable practice FMJ (full metal jacketed) ammunition (per thousand rounds ), I find (bullet weights are expressed in “grains”):

Magtech .38 Special, 158 gr. lead round nose, 1000 rounds, $287.80

Sellier & Bellot .357 Magnum, 158 gr. FMJ, 1000 rounds, $459.80

Sellier & Bellot .380 ACP, 92 gr. FMJ, 1000 rounds, $339.80

CCI Blazer 9mm, 115 grain FMJ, 1000 rounds, $219.00

Magtech .40 S&W, 180 gr. FMJ, 1000 rounds, $323.80

Magtech .45 ACP, 230 gr. FMJ RN, 1000 rounds, $377.80

By way of comparison, 1000 rounds of .22LR ammunition--and there are many models chambered for this caliber in revolvers and semiautos--can be had for about $35.00. However, .22LR is not a good choice for a self defense arm, though for a backup gun meant to be used only at near contact range as a last resort if a primary arm is lost or out of ammunition, it is a reasonable choice. That said, the .22LR is a very versatile--and obviously inexpensive--cartridge and no shooter should be without at least one .22LR rifle, and arguably, a .22LR handgun, but more about that later. As the Texas Ranger suggested earlier, in ammunition, bigger is often better.

Consider the Moro uprising of 1899-1913. The Moros, Islamic revolutionaries in the Phillipines, fought a protracted jungle war with the US Army. This was America’s first real war against an Islamic enemy and its first jungle war. The Moros were small in stature, being only a bit over five feet tall on average, but were fierce, dedicated and prone to atrocities. Many would drug themselves prior to combat, lowering their resistance to pain and increasing their homicidal rage.

At the time, the US Army’s issued handgun and cartridge was a .38 special which was quickly discovered to be wanting. The round nosed lead bullets fired at slow velocities might inflict wounds on a charging, drug crazed Moro that would eventually result in his death, but proved to be exceptionally poor in stopping such charges, even with multiple hits in vital areas.

Desperate for a better gun/cartridge combination, the Army adopted what is perhaps authentic American genius John M. Browning’s most enduring design: The Colt 1911 pistol in .45 ACP. Large, heavy and reliable, the 1911 fired much heavier jacketed .45 caliber bullets that proved to be excellent man stoppers, often immediately dropping Moros with a single hit. The model 1911 in various configurations and the .45 ACP have been very popular since.

This brings up one of the classic shooter controversies: 9mm vs. .45ACP. The basic argument is which is best, a larger/heavier, slower bullet, or a smaller/lighter but faster bullet? Proponents on each side often engage in lengthy proofs in the popular gun press fraught with righteous anger and disdain, supported by scientifically derived (or not) ballistic tables and anecdotal evidence of horrendous failures of the cartridge they disfavor, but the truth is that any of the cartridges I mention here, properly placed, will be effective. Poorly placed, the most powerful handgun cartridge will have minimal effect.

In truth, I have carried both cartridges and have never felt under-armed with either. There are indeed instances where people have been shot multiple times with either cartridge and have barely been affected, only to more or less fully recover later. On the other hand, there are many instances of attackers being completely and immediately stopped by single rounds. Generally, the. 45ACP has a well-deserved reputation as a man-stopper and will, in objective, scientific measurements tend to outperform smaller, lighter calibers. However, there are many other factors to consider.

A full-sized model 1911 has a seven-round magazine of .45ACP. It is an excellent, but large and heavy handgun and while some people do commonly carry it, it is hardly an optimal concealed carry choice for most people. Because the focus of this article is on concealed carry, following are the specifications of three Glock subcompact models and the Ruger LCR.

Keep in mind that it was the decade-long Clinton gun ban that gave birth to the Glock 26 and a great many other similarly sized handguns by other manufacturers. Under the ban, new magazines were limited to 10 rounds, so Glock, whose smallest gun at the time was the G19 with a 15 round magazine, designed the G26 for ten round magazines, making a much more concealable weapon that still carried an impressive amount of ammunition. It certainly gave the gun banners fits. Irony can, upon occasion, be particularly satisfying.

SUBCOMPACT HANDGUN COMPARISON (weight in ounces):

G26: 9mm, Barrel: 3.46”, L: 6.29”, W:1.18”, H: 4.17”, Weight: 19.75/26.1 (unloaded/loaded), 10 Round magazine capacity.

G27: .40 S&W, Barrel: 3.46”, L: 6.29”, W:1.18”, H: 4.17”, Weight: 19.75/26.98, 9 Round magazine capacity.

G36: .45ACP, Barrel: 3.78”, L: 6.77”, W:1.13”, H: 4.76”, Weight:20.11/26.96, 9 Round magazine capacity.

LCR: .38 Special, Barrel: 1.875”, L: 6.5”, W: 1.283”, H: 4.5”, Weight: 13.5 unloaded, 5 round capacity.

Notice that the .45 model is larger and heavier than its 9mm and .40 S&W cousins, but not by much, which is a testament to Glock design and engineering. the largest difference is in magazine capacity. With one round in the chamber and a spare magazine, carrying a Glock 26 yields 21 rounds. For the Glock 27 it’s 19, and for the 36, 13. A Ruger LCR with a speedloader yields 10.

HOLSTERS:

What should guide one’s choice of a holster? What will be comfortable, concealable, and most importantly, what you will actually wear every day. A holster that looks great but just doesn’t fit your body or life will be of little use. There are several primary categories of holsters useful for concealed carry, but much depends on the individual, their lifestyle, the climate, and their weapon. Generally, those living in predominantly hot climates have fewer choices than those who live in cold climates as coats and jackets can effectively cover a wider variety of weapon/holster combinations than a shirt. Shoulder holsters, for example, while looking sexy on James Bond, are generally not a great choice in hot climates. As it is best to carry only one gun, it is best to always carry it in the same holster. Here are the primary options:

BELT HOLSTERS: These come in a variety of materials--primarily polymer or leather--and styles, and attach to a belt by means of various clips, slots or paddles. Among them, the widely used “pancake” holsters hold the weapon close to the body, but are marginally slower to draw than holsters that are not so body-hugging. Fobus makes a line of inexpensive but effective polymer holsters that allow easy adjustment of the angle of the holster on the hip.

INSIDE THE BELT/WAISTBAND HOLSTERS: Made of leather, Cordura and nylon or polymer, these are among the most effective concealment holsters as they minimize the appearance of a handgun and hold it as close to the body as possible, between the waistband of the pants and the body. They are slightly slower to draw that pancake holsters, but for most people, drawing speed is not the primary concern. Most require a belt for proper support and to keep the pants from constantly sliding downward under the weight of a handgun.

SHOULDER HOLSTERS: Made of leather, Cordura and nylon, polymer or combinations of these, shoulder holsters are generally comfortable, particularly if balanced by two magazines on the opposite side of the body. However, they do require loose-fitting overgarments to properly conceal them and generally cost much more than other types of holsters. In addition, one cannot take off the outer garments without revealing the handgun. They come primarily with vertical or horizontal holster orientations.

FANNY PACKS: Usually made of Cordura, nylon or some combination, these devices are normally worn with the pack on the front of the body or on the hip. Depending on their release/opening mechanism, they may afford a rapid draw. Obviously, they allow the convenient carrying of a handgun, magazines and other common items with little concern for wardrobe. These are a particularly good choice for hot climates, but avoid units that place the belt release buckle on or near the back. It’s far too easy for a bad guy to make off with the pack, thinking he’s getting a billfold, only to find an entirely unexpected windfall.

Fanny packs can be a very good choice for women, whose clothing options tend not to be as numerous or carry-friendly as those of men. Many belt holsters require a substantial leather or nylon belt to work properly, and that, in turn, requires wide, substantial belt loops (to say nothing of pants), something many women’s pants simply do not have. On the other hand, an unobtrusive fanny pack accessorizes well with pants and skirts alike, as long as they’re not too formal, and can double as a small purse.

There are a variety of other specialty holsters for a wide variety of weapons. Some manufacturers make purses with easily accessible holsters, but this presents a unique problem. You must keep your concealed weapon with you and in your direct control at all times. If it’s in a purse, it can easily be forgotten, or stolen without the owner’s knowledge. It’s not an impossible choice, but anyone carrying one has to be extra careful to keep it within her immediate grasp at all times. A quick trip to the internet/Google will reveal the profusion of holsters available. Expect to spend from $25-$100 on a good holster.

ONE ILLUMINATING ACCESSORY: Laser sights. Lasers are now available for most popular handguns in two types (red and green) and three primary mounting methods: Incorporated in the the handgun grip, attaching to an under-frame rail, or incorporated into the rear sight. Some manufacturers also make models that replace the guide rods of semiautos, though this limits the models for which the laser is available and they cannot be finely adjusted for precise accuracy. Quality laser sights run just a bit over $100 to as much as $500 and are now quite small.

Red lasers are more common and less expensive than green lasers. The only real advantage green lasers have over red is that the laser dot is more visible in a wider range of situations over greater distances. Red laser dots might be hard for some people to see in bright sunlight, particularly over ranges greater than 15 yards, while green will commonly be more visible. However, since virtually all handgun engagements take place at ranges under 15 yards--commonly a great deal under 15 yards--this is not as significant an issue as it might seem. For most people, a red laser will be quite sufficient, and this problem is reasonably effectively addressed with a pulsing laser dot which is much more easily seen than a solid beam. Pulse mode lasers are offered by many manufacturers.

Lasers are a real solution to the generally poor, non-adjustable “iron” sights standard on most small revolvers and many .380 semiautos. In addition, they are an excellent training tool, giving shooters an immediate visual representation of the effects of their trigger techniques, an important issue for any shooter, but particularly for beginners. For any shooter, they can improve speed and accuracy, and for shooters whose eyesight is not as sharp as it once was, are an obvious benefit. Some may ask “but what happens when the battery fails?” Simple: just use the sights that came with the handgun; they don’t require batteries. I change batteries yearly, and despite relatively frequent use, I’m always replacing batteries that still have useful life remaining.

Some of the best-known laser companies are: Crimson Trace, Laser Lyte, LaserMax and Veridian. I have used lasers from the first three companies and have found them to be high quality and reasonably priced. Veridian specializes in green lasers, so their offerings tend to be more expensive than average.

AN IDEAL SITUATION:

Please keep in mind that I am not paid to endorse any product, so my suggestions are based entirely on decades of experience in carrying weapons, in the military, civilian police work, and as a citizen rather than motivated by financial self-interest.

That said, I have carried a Glock 26, and only a Glock 26, for about 15 years. For the last nine years, I have carried it in a fanny pack. This makes a great deal of sense as I live in the southern US where it is commonly very hot. As I was raised in the north, cold bothers me little, and in a common southern (what passes for) winter might wear a jacket two to three times at most. A fanny pack, which I wear on the right front portion of my body, allows me to carry not only my handgun and spare magazines, but other items like a checkbook and keys. One of the advantages of this method of carry is that when I have no choice but to enter a place that prohibits legal concealed weapons, it’s easy to put the weapon in the truck of my car without making it obvious to anyone that I’m storing a handgun there. I’ve used several different models, including one by Uncle Mike’s, but these days, I’m carrying a UTG model that cost only about $15.00. With a bit of easily done sewing modification, this one works are well as several I’ve carried at three and more times the cost.

I chose the Glock 26 because of its small size and weight while still keeping substantial magazine capacity. With two spare magazines, I have 31 rounds handy, and keep fifty in my vehicle. Because I have relatively large hands, I’ve equipped each of my magazines with a Pearce Grip floor plate/finger rest. This is a simple plastic device that replaces the floor plate of a Glock magazine (a simple and quick change) while providing a secure place to perch the little finger. This helps in controlling recoil, which with the 9mm in a pistol of this size is relatively mild in the first place. These neat little bits of plastic cost only about $7.00 each and are available for a wide variety of makes and models. Many women and men with smaller hands might find that the G26 grip is just fine without the addition of a finger rest. My wife could probably do without them, but likes the feel.

While I’m on the topic of magazines, it is a good idea to have a complete replacement set of magazines. If you normally carry two spares, buy a total of six magazines. On a regular basis, say every two-three months, switch magazines. This allows the magazine springs to relax and lessens the chance of a magazine failure. Is this absolutely necessary? Possibly not. Will you experience magazine failures if you don’t? Eventually. Any spring will eventually weaken, but it may well take many years. For relatively little extra cost--spare Glock magazines are usually about $25.00--the potential problem is probably eliminated.

I also chose a Glock because I have long experience with them, in law enforcement and out. They are faultlessly rugged, reliable, accurate and work the way they should right out of the box. In transition training from .357 S&W model 686 revolvers to Glocks, we were told that if we lost our grip to simply let the Glocks fly. A great many were flung down our concrete-floored range, and aside from some slight scuffing on some sights, showed or sustained no other damage. Doing the same with our .357s would have resulted in a great many non-functional, badly dinged revolvers. Glocks are also very easy to take down, clean, and reassemble, breaking down into only four parts: Slide, frame, barrel and spring. This is a happy consequence of Glocks having been designed as military pistols.

Glocks are also among the simplest semiautos, having no manual safety devices, but three separate internal and trigger safety mechanisms incorporated into the design. I recently traded a G26 for a new G26. The only wear on my old handgun was some paint worn off the painted slide release, and this in a gun regularly carried for a decade. In every field of endeavor, some manufacturers do it right from the beginning. Glock was the first to market a pistol with a polymer frame and many polymer parts, and everyone else has followed suit. The Glocks I have owned and/or carried have easily been the most reliable handguns I have ever used.

Another advantage of Glocks is that if you know know the manual of arms for one Glock, you know them all. They share the same general configuration, triggers, and in every way that matters, work identically, making it very easy to transition from, say, a G26 with a 10 round magazine, to a full-sized G17 with a 17 round magazine.

My old G26 was equipped with a Crimson Trace grip laser, which I found to be an effective, though expensive unit. My newest G26 has a Laser Lyte rear sight laser, which is a brilliantly miniaturized unit which is actually a part of the rear sight. As such, it does not widen the grip and does not interfere with any type of holster. It also has two significant red laser advantages: It’s quite inexpensive (no more than $150) and has a pulse mode which is not only easier to see but doubles battery life to about ten hours.

Third generation G26s are going for $500 or a bit less (circa early April 2011), while the 4th generation models are about $50 more, and if gun media accounts are accurate, seem to be having some initial teething problems, i.e.: more malfunctions than one expects with Glocks. This might be two to three malfunctions in 500 rounds, which illustrates the general reliability standards one expects of Glocks.

The part of this situation that is ideal, at least for me, is the Walther P22, which is a neat little double action .22LR handgun that sells for around $380. My wife and I each have one of these, which we use about twice as often as we use our Glocks for practice. While not identical, the feel of the weapons is similar and the trigger, even though double action, are not greatly different than our Glocks. The manual of arms is also very similar. The greatest advantage, however, is the cost of ammunition. A thousand rounds of 9mm, again, can be found for about $220, while a thousand rounds of .22LR will fetch about $35.00. All of the principles of marksmanship apply as well to the Walther as they do to the Glock.

One major difference is that the Walther comes with differing backstraps to allow the user some adjustability. But the most significant--and potentially useful--difference is that the Walther has virtually no recoil or muzzle flash, and a mild report. It’s an excellent weapon for the first-time shooter and for training beginning shooters. In practice, malfunctions drills are identical with the Walther and the Glock, but you’ll likely have to rig them as both weapons have been virtually malfunction free, at least in my experience. Having a Glock in .22LR would be ideal, but alas, such is not to be, and the Walther is a reasonably close substitute.

The .22LR cartridge is not a good choice, as I’ve mentioned before, in a weapon on which you’re going to bet your life, but for training, it’s a very inexpensive choice. If you can afford the expense, this would be an excellent combination of firearms for a beginning shooter.

A WORKABLE SOLUTION:

If you cannot afford two weapons, or if you’d simply prefer to work with one, the same weapon you’ll carry, by all means, do that, but for the first year or so, try to shoot at least 50, or better, 100 rounds a month. With 9mm, that’s a bit over $20 a month, and at the end of that year, you’ll be completely comfortable with shooting, taking down, cleaning and reassembling your weapon. It is that kind of confidence that makes all the difference. As I mentioned in the past portions of this series, the man to fear is not the man with a great many different guns, but the man who owns and carries only one.

Obviously, I prefer and recommend Glocks, for the reasons I’ve mentioned. However, there are a great many fine handguns on the market, and no single make or model is an ideal choice for everyone. Some people think Glocks are ugly and expect a certain elegance in their firearms, while I find them to be efficiently designed and perfectly functional. Shopping for guns is part of the fun. Be careful, however, of gun shop salesmen who are pushing a given gun or caliber. Some gun shops do their best to push whatever isn’t selling well, and as I’ve pointed out here, it’s wise to look into a wide variety of factors before making a final decision. A handgun chambered for a cartridge that is so pricey that you’ll seldom be able to shoot it will be of far less use than one that may have less impressive ballistic performance on paper, but which you can afford to regularly shoot.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

I have not spent much time delving into the specifics of training. There are a great many books and professional, private training academies out there that can provide what is not possible for me to do in a few articles. And of course, please feel free to contact me if you have questions. My contact information is available on the site in the “About The Authors/Contact” link on the right hand side of the page. I do, however, have several suggestions:

(1) Always wear hearing protectors and eye protection. Amplified hearing protectors are very neat and will allow you to hear conversation and instructions, but immediately mute when damaging sounds--like gunshots--occur. They’re available for as little as $30.00. It used to be thought unmanly to wear hearing protection. As a result, there are a lot of very manly deaf folks of an earlier shooting generation still walking about saying things like: “Eh? What’s that?”

(2) Use the Weaver Stance to the exclusion of all others. Information is widely available. Some may argue this point, but trust me on this one. It is a foundational issue.

(3) Be purposeful, focus your attention and be firm, but always work to be, above all else, relaxed and smooth. Smooth is truly fast. Yes, you can be relaxed and firm simultaneously.

(4) Train the same way consistently. As I’ve said before, train the way you want to fight, because you will fight as you’ve trained.

(5) Above all, train yourself to be so aware of your surroundings that you’ll likely never have to use your shooting skills.

INTERESTING PS: Federal law requires that you buy firearms only in your state of residence. There is no such thing as direct sales from out of state suppliers to customers. All sales of new weapons must be done through federally licensed dealers and you will have to fill out federal paperwork swearing that you are not a convicted felon, haven’t been judged mentally ill, etc. If you already have a concealed carry license issued by your state of residence, this will speed up the process in most states. If not, various delays or waiting periods might apply.

FINAL LESSON:

As I close this series, I leave you with a wonderful story from Japan, a people with a longer martial history and tradition than ours. There was a master of the tea ceremony who was traveling. As he came to a crossroads near a town, he met a Ronin, a masterless samurai. The Ronan was ready to take offense at anything, and taking offense at the inoffensive man, challenged him to a duel.

The master of the tea ceremony didn’t own a sword and had no skill as a fencer, but could not honorably refuse. However, he was able to convince the Ronin to meet him at the crossroads the following day at the same time so that he could find a sword.

The master of the tea ceremony hastened into the town and found a fencing master. He begged the Sensei (teacher) to loan him a sword and to teach him something so that he could die with honor. Learning of the man’s skills, he asked him to perform the tea ceremony.

As the man displayed his skill, won over many years, he was transformed before the Sensei’s eyes from a frightened shell of a man to a calm, graceful, confident man, at peace with the world and with himself. When the ceremony was done, the Sensei agreed to loan him a sword, but told him that it was impossible to teach him anything of value in such a short time.

The master of the tea ceremony was crestfallen. He asked how he could possibly die honorably. The Sensei told him that when he went to the Ronin, to approach him with the peaceful confidence and grace he had just displayed and that when he did, he would surely personally return the borrowed sword.

The next day at the appointed time, the Ronin was at the crossroads, impatiently waiting. He saw a man approaching, a man wearing a sword, but it did not appear to be the same man he challenged. As the man drew near, the Ronin saw that it was the same man, yet not the same man, and certainly not a man he wanted to fight. He quickly made his apologies and left.

Be the master of the tea ceremony, but back up his tranquility and attitude with an effective handgun, and with consistent, correct practice. It is the man or woman carrying the gun that is truly dangerous; the gun is merely a tool. Good luck, and welcome to the ranks of those who fully accept their responsibility to take care of themselves and those they love.

Me? Own A Gun? Article 4: What To Buy?

In this installment I’ll discuss the primary differences, advantages and disadvantages between revolvers and semi-automatic handguns. In the final installment, which will be posted in a few days, I’ll get into caliber choices, methods of carrying, and several other items of interest. I’m making the assumption that readers contemplating what I’ve had to say in the first three installments (here, here and here) intend to do more than purchase a firearm exclusively for home defense. After all, our lives don’t lose their value outside the home, and one is, depending on a variety of factors, arguably more rather than less likely to need to defend their life outside their home.

I’m also going to be writing for those whose knowledge of firearms and related terminology is limited. As the information I’m providing here is covered in a wide variety of magazines--print and online--and books, I’ll be providing primarily an overview rather than an exhaustive exposition of the issues. I do recommend as a basic text The Complete Book of Handgunning by Chuck Taylor. It’s available through Amazon and other sources, and contains the fundamentals necessary to develop essential basic skills. Full disclosure: I am one of a relative few certified as an instructor by Taylor’s American Small Arms Academy, and I am also certified by the NRA as a range safety and handgun instructor.

Why a handgun? There’s an old story about a reporter who asked a Texas Ranger why he carried a .45. He replied (of course), in a slow drawl: “Because they don’t make a .46.” The bottom line is that one should always carry the most effective weapon they can effectively manage. Anyone who knowingly enters a gunfight armed with less than a rifle (or submachine gun) is asking to die. Long guns are much easier to shoot accurately at much greater than handgun ranges and are far more deadly. However, since it is practically difficult or impossible to carry such weapons on a daily basis, a handgun is the best alternative.

But what about shotguns? Aren’t they more effective than handguns? Again, we run into the size issue, and despite what Hollywood would have you believe, you do have to aim them. The effectiveness of shotgun ammunition depends primarily on keeping the shot column together, as close to the diameter with which it left the muzzle of the shotgun as possible, which means that to be truly effective, shotgun range is essentially the same as handgun range: Out to about 25 yards, and the closer the better. Experts can deliver accurate handgun fire at greater ranges, but for most, 25 yards is the outer effective limit. Twenty-five yards may not sound like much, until you’re trying to place a bullet on a target that looks surprisingly small at that range. It is fortunate--and frightening--that the overwhelming majority of gunfights take place at much closer ranges.

The choice of a personal, defensive handgun must take into account many factors, but ultimately one should choose a handgun that is powerful, concealable, reliable, that they can shoot well, and with which they are comfortable. That said, the choice is simpler, and more difficult, than many imagine.

REVOLVER OR SEMIAUTOMATIC?

Revolvers predate semiautomatics. Revolvers are so called because ammunition is loaded into a steel cylinder commonly holding 5-6 rounds. Pulling the trigger mechanically rotates the cylinder bringing a fresh round into precise alignment with the barrel. Revolvers come in two action types: Double action and single action. Single action revolvers are like the Colt .45 handguns of cinema westerns. The cylinder is rotated by cocking the large, exposed hammer. The resulting short and light trigger pull serves only to release the hammer to strike the primer, firing the cartridge. Such weapons are generally inappropriate for personal defense. Double action revolvers are modern weapons, and can be fired in double action mode, with a long, relatively heavy trigger pull that rotates the cylinder and ultimately drops the hammer to strike the primer and fire the cartridge, and single action, where cocking the hammer rotates the cylinder and pulls the trigger back, producing a very short, light trigger pull. Owners of revolvers should always train to use their weapon in double action mode. It is very easy indeed to accidentally fire a cocked revolver when under great stress.

Semiautomatics are sometimes incorrectly called “automatics.” An automatic weapon fires multiple rounds for each pull of the trigger. As long as the trigger is pulled and held back, the weapon will fire until its ammunition supply is exhausted. A semiautomatic weapon fires only one round for each pull of the trigger. Semiautomatics hold their ammunition in magazines. Magazines are often incorrectly called “clips.” The only currently manufactured, widely available firearm that actually uses ammunition clips is the M1 Garand battle rifle. Most semiautomatic pistols hold more rounds than revolvers.

All semiautomatic pistols work on the same principle: Firing a cartridge uses the energy of firing to push a heavy metal slide back against a powerful spring. the slide simultaneously extracts and ejects the fired brass from the chamber, and when the slide is propelled forward under spring tension, picks up a fresh cartridge from the magazine, inserting it into the chamber. This process is almost faster than can be seen by the naked eye. A powerful spring in the magazine pushes each fresh cartridge upward, ready to be fed into the chamber.

Semiautomatic pistols, however, have a greater number of trigger types than revolvers. The oldest, characterized by John Moses Browning designs, is the single action mechanism employed on the Model 1911 .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) and the Browning Hi-Power in 9mm Parabellum (Latin: for war). In these pistols, an exposed hammer is manually cocked and a safety lever mounted on the left side of the frame engaged. To fire, the shooter clicks off (pushes down on) the safety and pulls the trigger, which commonly has a light and short travel. This means of carrying these pistols, commonly known as “cocked and locked,” frightens the uninitiated, but is perfectly safe when done by those properly trained who use proper holsters. With this action type, each trigger pull is consistent, contributing to ease of use and accuracy. Such weapons employ the manufacturing methods and materials--heavy steel--available more than a century ago and are labor intensive to make. So while well-proved designs, they can be expensive.

A second action type is the double action mechanism that mimics the trigger action of the double action revolver. Invented decades ago to increase sales of semiautomatics to police forces used to double action revolvers, Col. Jeff Cooper called this invention “an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.” The inherent problem with this type of trigger mechanism is that the first trigger pull is long and heavy, but because the first, and every subsequent shot fired causes the recoil of the slide to cock the hammer, the second and every subsequent shot requires a single action trigger pull, in other words, a much shorter, lighter pull of the trigger. This commonly results in widely varying impact points between the first two shots on any target, and while experienced, capable shooters can overcome this “feature,” double action mechanisms are a less than optimum option for most people.

Another action type is a hybrid of the double action mechanism that seeks to address the inherent problem of such actions. In this case, manufacturers produce weapons incapable of single action fire, so that each pull of the trigger must be double action. In other words, even through slide recoil cocks the hammer after the first and each subsequent round fired, the trigger recycles fully forward after each shot, making a long, relatively heavy trigger pull necessary for each shot. While this method might be a theoretical improvement on double action mechanisms, any action that requires a long, heavy trigger pull will be inherently less accurate and harder to shoot than a lighter, shorter trigger.

The most modern mechanism is the striker fired pistol, typified by the Glock design. These weapons do not have an exposed external hammer or an internal hammer, but instead employ what is essentially a larger, heavier firing pin driven by a strong spring. When recoil cycles the slide, the striker spring is compressed until it is released by the next activation of the trigger. Trigger pulls with this type of weapon are generally shorter and lighter than those of double action pistols, and are consistent from shot to shot. One advantage of the Glock design is that trigger pull weight can be easily changed from seven to five pounds, for example, merely by changing drop-in parts, an easy process with the modular Glock which uses not a single screw. Such weapons are often made with polymer (plastic) frames and many other polymer parts. This method of manufacture has many advantages, such as low cost, speed of manufacture, long life, no rusting, and the ability to absorb some recoil energy that would otherwise be imparted directly to the shooter. To contain the inherent pressures and recoil forces, however, such weapons must have steel barrels, slides, and slide rails. This is no such thing as a “plastic gun” that can’t be seen on x-ray machines. A Glock under x-ray looks exactly like what it is.

Another interesting Glock feature is the ability to “catch the link.” When firing a round, the shooter holds the trigger fully back as the slide cycles and then slowly releases the trigger until an audible and easily felt “click” occurs. This allows the next shot to have a much shorter trigger pull, enhancing long range accuracy. But this is not a true single action mode as it does not function in the same way, and it requires a conscious effort on the part of the shooter to make the weapon function in this way for each shot.

REVOLVER ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES:

Modern double action revolvers come, generally, in large, medium and small sizes. However, there are some revolvers made for hunting or competition with very large magnum cartridges that fall into the “huge” category. Such weapons are universally made of steel, are very heavy, and have barrels of 6” or longer. On the opposite side are mini-revolvers, such as the stainless steel, derringer-like, 5 shot .22LR (Long Rifle) weapons made by Freedom Arms. Such weapons, which fire single action only, are made primarily as back-up guns, or for circumstances in which carrying an larger weapon is impossible. Unfortunately, their barrels are very short which can cause keyholing (for the appearance of the holes they leave in paper targets), or unstable bullets tumbling end over end. As a result, their accuracy beyond a few yards is generally poor, their penetration ability is limited, reloading requires removing the entire cylinder from the weapon, and for the inexperienced, or even the average shooter, they are hard to shoot with any degree of consistent accuracy, to say nothing of the general unsuitability of the .22LR cartridge in the self-defense role.

Large, or full-sized revolvers generally hold six rounds (though a few designs hold seven), have at least a 4” barrel, and usually have fully adjustable rear sights (adjustable for windage--side-to-side, and elevation--up and down). This class is generally considered to be “duty” revolvers of the kind some police forces still use. Unless you’re a large, strong person, concealing such weapons is difficult. They are meant to be carried in exposed holsters. It is possible to conceal them with the right holsters, but they are big, heavy handguns built to take heavy wear from powerful cartridges over the long term.

Medium framed revolvers also share barrels of the same length, but are lighter and not as solidly built, but will still provide many years of service for most people. Many models have barrels from 2” to 3” and some do not have adjustable rear sights. They are generally somewhat smaller and weigh somewhat less than fully sized revolvers.

Small frame revolvers commonly have barrels of around 2” length and are of only five round capacity. They rarely have adjustable rear sights. In fact, many rear sights are merely notches machined in the top strap of the weapon. They commonly have small grips. Such weapons are designed in recognition of the fact that full sized revolvers are not easily concealed. Some revolvers in this class have aluminum, titanium or alloy frames for reduced weight, but their barrels and cylinders must be steel. Some of the newer weapons in this class, such as the Ruger LCR are being manufactured with frames and some parts made of polymer to reduce weight as much as possible.

ADVANTAGES OF REVOLVERS: Because they have no separate safety devices, they are also simple; pull the trigger and they go “bang.” In fact, long, heavy double action trigger pulls are usually thought to be an inherent safety feature, requiring the shooter to really intend to shoot to discharge the weapon. On the other hand, short, light single action trigger pulls are, with justification, thought to be dangerous because they are far more prone to unintentional discharge. It is also easy to load and unload revolvers, and one can tell at a glance if they are loaded. Properly maintained, revolvers--particularly in stainless steel--can last a lifetime. Stainless steel does rust, but is far less susceptible to it than other steels commonly used in firearms.

Revolvers represent well developed technology and manufacturing methods and are relatively free of inherent malfunctions. With speed loaders, they can be reloaded reasonably quickly, though experts can reload with amazing speed even without speed loaders. High quality revolvers are also potentially more accurate than most semiautomatic pistols, though relatively few shooters are skilled enough to notice any significant difference at common handgun ranges. There is a difference between intrinsic accuracy and practical accuracy. With the wide range of different materials and shapes available, most people can adapt a given revolver to their unique hand by simply exchanging factory for aftermarket grips. Revolvers are also capable of handling the largest, most powerful pistol cartridges, but only with very large, heavy and hard-recoiling weapons.

DISADVANTAGES OF REVOLVERS: The higher the bore axis of a handgun is above the hand, the greater the recoil effect on the shooter. All revolvers, by design, suffer from this inherent problem, a problem made worse by more powerful cartridges and lighter weapons. It is ironic that in an attempt to make some revolvers more easily carried and concealed, manufacturers have also greatly increased the recoil effect (from light weight), muzzle blast and report (from short barrels), and lessened accuracy (by means of small, non-adjustable sights). While speedloaders greatly lessen reloading times, they tend to be inconvenient for most people for concealed carry. In addition, many grips interfere with speedloaders and often have to be “relieved,” which consists of removing any grip material in the way. This is not difficult, but does take some skill and specialized materials.

Revolvers are very dirt sensitive and can malfunction. This is one of the primary reasons that virtually every military issues semi-automatic pistols rather than revolvers. Even with well-maintained revolvers a tiny piece of grit under the ejector “star” can actually jam the cylinder, preventing the gun from firing. Remember that the round aligned with the cylinder at rest will not be fired. When the trigger is pulled (or the hammer is cocked to single action mode), the cylinder rotates to the next cartridge, so if the cylinder won’t rotate, the shooter will not be able to fire a single round. Unfortunately, virtually anything other than grit under an ejector star that causes a malfunction in a revolver is due to breakage of mechanical parts and cannot be quickly repaired in the field or without tools. If one is under fire, this is a significant weakness indeed. Revolvers much be kept scrupulously clean, but many designs are ironically time consuming and demanding to clean thoroughly and properly.

Even expensive, top of the line revolvers have the same potential weaknesses. In my early days of police work, I carried Colt Pythons, very expensive, high quality weapons, as did several of my police shooting buddies. One day at a range session, one of my friend’s brand new Python suddenly started printing down and to the side of the target. He couldn’t figure it out and asked me to take a look. I peered down the sights and was amazed to find that the barrel had come unpinned and was, under the recoil of .357 magnum ammunition, unscrewing itself from the frame. The front sight was cocked at a 30° angle! I simply unscrewed the barrel with my bare hands, handed my amazed pal the two parts, announcing, deadpan, that I was reasonably sure I’d identified the problem. A good gunsmith quickly and cheaply fixed the problem, but you get the point.

Cylinder cranes and ejector rods are likewise prone to damage. Anyone flipping out a cylinder or violently snapping it back into place with the flip of a hand is looking for a bent crane and a lengthy, expensive visit to a gunsmith. Whenever the cylinder is out of the frame--as in ejecting spent rounds from the cylinder and/or reloading--those parts must be handled with gentle care. The kind of idiotic handling of revolvers one sees in movies or on TV is highly likely to result in damage that will probably render a revolver an expensive paperweight. Don’t get me started on people who “spin” cylinders. Don’t.

The exposed hammers of small revolvers are prone to hanging up in pockets or clothing. Many manufacturers have designed smaller, or “bobbed” hammers, made shrouds around external hammers, or have even made internal hammer designs to address this well-known problem. The aforementioned Ruger LCR, which represents contemporary state of the art small revolver design, has an internal hammer and cannot be fired single action. Careful holster design can minimize this unfortunate snagging tendency.

The largest problem with revolvers remains their long, often rough double action triggers. This factor makes revolvers much more difficult to shoot with consistent accuracy than semi-automatic pistols, though with proper training and consistent practice, it is possible to shoot revolvers with considerable accuracy. This problem can be addressed with an action job by a competent gunsmith, but that’s additional expense, commonly in the $100+ range. Some revolvers now come from the factory with much better triggers than one would have found in the recent past, but this is still an issue to be considered.

It should also be noted that this problem is exacerbated with the smaller, lighter more concealable weapons, and made even worse by the recoil effects of full-powered, as opposed to lighter loaded target, ammunition. Smaller men and many women often find long shooting sessions to be actually painful, and any weapon that is painful to shoot will dramatically degrade accuracy and effectiveness. It is ironic that even full-sized, heavy revolvers that are poor choices for concealment can suffer from this problem, though to a lesser degree and requiring more rounds fired.

Consider the experience of a police department for which I once worked. In the mid-90’s, that police department was run by an anti-gun chief, and the issued department weapon was the S&W model 686, a stainless steel, 4” barrel .357 magnum revolver. As an issued weapon, it was a mediocre choice. On one hand, it was--and is--a high quality, reliable weapon. Its stainless steel construction made it easier to maintain, and the 125 grain hollowpoint duty cartridge was an excellent, effective choice. On the other, the revolver was very large, heavy, had substantial muzzle blast and report, substantial real and felt recoil, was difficult to conceal, and the only concession allowed to the individual officer was the choice of a few different styles of rubberized grips. Female officers had a hell of time with the weapon. We used to joke--sort of--that even if we missed, the bad guys would be incinerated by the muzzle blast. Night-firing qualifications were truly wonders to behold. I had no difficulty with the weapon, but I became a police shooter in a time with few reliable semiautomatic pistol choices. As a result, I became adept with the revolver, even earning the top shooter honor in my first basic academy class.

I’m also a 6’, 200+ pound man with larger than average hands and greater than average strength. Consider too that I was--and am--an avid shooter, so I was far more practiced than most of my compatriots (most cops aren’t shooters). Even so, after 50 rounds of qualification with full-charge cartridges, I was feeling the effects of fatigue in my hands and arms and glad to be done. Many of my smaller, less experienced colleagues absolutely hated to shoot their handguns, wincing with each report and actually experiencing bruises and abrasions to their hands. Their qualification scores reflected this reality. Still, if my only option for a duty weapon had to be a stainless steel Smith and Wesson in .357 caliber, the 686 would probably be my choice.

Because of the necessary width of their cylinders, revolvers are generally wider and more difficult to conceal than semiautos. One final observation is that because of their designs, revolvers can become “out of time.” In other words, the cylinder no longer precisely aligns cartridges with the barrel. This can cause splashback of portions of a bullet, or in extreme cases, injure the shooter or bystanders. While this is usually not seen outside of significant mechanical failure or significantly worn weapons, it is something about which to always be aware with revolvers.

Despite this litany of potential problems, modern, quality revolvers are generally quite safe and reliable and will usually fire every round without fail right out of the box. However, no one should carry or use any firearm for self defense without familiarization training consisting of firing several hundred rounds through the weapon.

Police experience is revealing. Police agencies transitioning from revolvers to semiautos have commonly found that the hit ratio of their officers, on the range and in actual gunfights, goes up. This was my experience when an agency of some 100 officers for which I worked transitioned to Glocks. Officers who struggled to make minimum passing scores with their .357 revolvers were consistently scoring much higher with much less effort. Officers who were highly skilled demonstrated far less variation. One hundred percent shooters are 100% shooters for a reason. In other words, semiautos are generally easier to shoot accurately than revolvers despite the fact that revolvers may have greater intrinsic accuracy.

ADVANTAGES OF SEMIAUTOS:

The primary advantages of semiautos are that they are more easily concealable, tend to have lighter triggers, have greater ammunition capacity than revolvers--in many cases, much greater--and are more quickly and easily reloaded than revolvers. Semiautos also, in most common calibers, have less recoil effect and muzzle blast than revolvers, and have a bore axis much lower than revolvers. With polymer frame construction, some semiautos can be substantially lighter than revolvers yet hold substantially more ammunition.

Because of their very nature, semiautos are subject to more common malfunctions than revolvers, but each of these common malfunctions can be cleared in the field, without tools, in four seconds or less by those without expert levels of knowledge and skill. Note: A “malfunction” is a stoppage that can be rapidly cleared by hand without tools. A “jam” is a stoppage that requires tools to clear/repair. Thus, a gun that “jams” is a gun that cannot fire and cannot be made to fire on the spot. Because they do not have cylinders, as long as there is a round in the chamber--and this is the way modern semiautos should be carried--semiautos will virtually always fire at least one round even if they malfunction thereafter.

One interesting advantage that is of little use to most shooters is that semiautos can accept suppressors (there is no such thing as a “silencer”). Suppressors are useless on revolvers--despite what Hollywood would have you believe--because of the gas that escapes through the gap between the cylinder and the barrel.

Semiautos, many of which are designed with military service in mind, usually break down without tools and are easy to clean. Even non-military designs are generally easy to break down, clean and reassemble, and virtually always without tools.

DISADVANTAGES OF SEMIAUTOS:

There are two primary types of malfunctions common to semiautos: failures to feed and failures to eject. Each has several commonly known variations, but as previously mentioned, proper training will show anyone how to, within mere seconds, clear such malfunctions. One of the most common problems with semiautos is “limp wristing,” or not giving the handgun a firm grip with a straight, rigid wrist. Semiautos need a solid grip against which to cycle the slide. If the weapon is held limply, it may lack the force to complete the cycle and may not fully eject an empty casing, or may not fully seat a fresh round. Proper technique can easily sort out this common problem.

Semiautos generally come in only one grip size, so some may simply be too large for smaller hands. However, some manufacturers are now shipping models with easily switched backstraps to correct this problem. In addition, weapons with polymer frames like Glocks allow magazines with substantial capacity while still keeping the grip relatively small.

One cannot normally tell whether a semiauto is loaded merely by looking at it, though some do have mechanical loaded chamber indicators. However, this can be addressed with a simple “pinch-check,” or retracting the slide just enough to see brass in the chamber. Some people also experience accidental discharges when, after removing the magazine, assume that the weapon is empty and fire the round in the chamber. This too can be easily addressed by using the proper manual of arms of always removing the magazine, cycling the slide several times, locking it back, and looking and using a finger to verify that the magazine well and chamber are empty.

Some semiautos, due to their unique design, have very stiff recoil and magazine springs. Some people with weak hands or limited strength may have difficulty cycling their slides and loading magazines. However, inexpensive magazine loading tools that essentially eliminate this problem are widely available--Glocks include one with every handgun sold--and it is a very small percentage of the population that cannot learn how to use what strength they have to cycle a slide. Even so, some people, due to disability or illness may find such tasks daunting.

The greatest single weakness of semiautos is the magazine. They are generally easier to damage than the guns themselves, and if a magazine won’t properly feed through fatigue or damage, the shooter suddenly has a very hard to load single- shot handgun. To address this problem, at least one spare magazine should always be carried, and all magazines should be regularly rotated with a complete set of spares.

Though this is a much smaller issue than it was only a decade ago, some semiautos are ammunition sensitive; some brands and/or configurations of ammunition may make some guns more prone to malfunctions. Most guns designed for self-defense will fire just about anything with little or no difficulty, but some guns, particularly those built to very tight tolerances, such as guns intended for competition, may take a bit of trial and error to find ammunition that is completely reliable. On the other hand, brands such as Glock have a well-deserved reputation for reliability right out of the box.

There is no question that semiautos are, by their very nature, more complex to operate than revolvers. This makes accidental discharges somewhat more likely for some people. However, learning the proper manual of arms is far from rocket science, and I’m tempted to wonder about the fitness of anyone unable to safely handle a semiautomatic handgun to handle any kind of firearm.

I’m sure that gun buffs can easily make various points, pro and con, regarding what I’ve had to say, and comments are always welcome and appreciated, however, I believe I’ve provided a good general overview of the relevant issues. The final installment of this series will be posted within a few days. Thanks for reading!

Who Is Responsible For Protecting You?

My latest article, kindly posted by the good folks at Pajamas Media, is up at that site (here). It explores the realities of the limitations--legal and practical--of the police, examined in light of the situation in Wisconsin.

It may provide some information about which you've not previously been aware.

Well, I Suppose That's Progress...

Just for fun, check out the March 10 edition of the New York Times online (here). they have an article on gun control and they actually linked to my article from yesterday regarding Mr. Obama's gun control record (it's in the center section, near the top, under Confederate Yankee).

The best part is the photo they chose to illustrate their lead story. It's two crossed handguns: A stainless steel, short-barreled .38 revolver and a Nambu! That's right, an issue WWII Japanese handgun of questionable quality and reliability. Thanks, and bless their little pointed heads for the link--at least they're trying--but using a Nambu in a contemporary firearm story is rather like using a line drawing of a whalebone corset to illustrate a Victoria's Secret catalog.

President Obama Supports the Second Amendment: Who You Gonna Believe? Him or Your Own Lyin' Eyes?

Across America, framed portraits of President Barack Obama are displayed in gun shops. In gun shops?! In gun shops. One might be tempted to be appreciative of the patriotism and respect for the Office of the President of the United States this would seem to indicate, and they would be right, yet simultaneously completely wrong. Indeed, virtually all firearm retailers and their employees are patriotic and respect the office of the President, but they have displayed the image of Mr. Obama not because of their respect for him, but because of their keen sense of irony. For the last two+ years, Mr. Obama has been the most effective firearm salesman in American history.

Despite his frequent teleprompter readings claiming respect for the Second Amendment, Americans have universally disbelieved him. The left has disbelieved him in this, as they have in essentially anything he has said that would seem to support conservative values. They know that while professing support for conservative or constitutional principles, he is simultaneously winking at them and holding crossed fingers behind his back. They know that he is making such outlandish comments only to maintain political viability, to fool the God and gun clingers in fly-over country. They know he’s really one of them. The right has disbelieved him because in professing respect for the Second Amendment, he is lying. To demonstrate their solidarity with the President, they often buy a new firearm or some ammunition.

On March 3rd, in a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Mr. Obama once again expressed his support (here) for, as leading law professor Sanford Levinson once put it, “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”

"’The Second Amendment in this country is part of our Constitution and the president of the United States is bound by our Constitution,’ he said. ‘So I believe in the Second Amendment. It does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses. That does not mean that we cannot constrain gun runners from shipping guns into Mexico.’”
This makes a sort of sense. Indeed, the Second Amendment does not prevent attempts to keep “gun runners from shipping guns into Mexico.” Of course, regular readers--and others who keep themselves well informed--might wonder how this might be accomplished when the BATFE knowingly allows such gun running, gun running which has directly cost the lives of American law enforcement officers.

It is when Mr. Obama professes his belief in the plain language of the Second Amendment that he is unbelievable. It is true that people can change their minds, and perhaps Mr. Obama, in two years in office, has come to respect the entire Constitution, not merely those parts that might lend legitimacy to his various schemes to remake America into a hellish worker’s paradise. On the other hand, the best indicator of future performance is always past performance. With that in mind, Confederate Yankee provides a handy compendium--not an exhaustive list--of 23 reasons why it might be a good idea to disbelieve Mr. Obama (sources available here and here):

(1) The infamous quote: In April of 2008, comments Mr. Obama made at a private San Francisco fundraiser were made public. Explaining his difficulties in convincing working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana (fly-over country), he said “It’s not surprising they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

(2) Mr. Obama opposed an Illinois bill that would prevent local ordinances from overriding an individual’s right to self defense in home invasions. Obama was one of only 20 senators who voted against it. Gov. Blagojevich vetoed it, but the legislature overwhelmingly overrode his veto.

(3) Mr. Obama denied writings on a 1996 questionnaire revealing of his anti gun views. However, his handwriting was on that document, filed when he was running for the Illinois Senate. On the document he indicated that he favored legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handgun, supported mandatory waiting periods and background checks and would ban “assault weapons.”

(4) In 2000, Mr. Obama co-sponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to one per month.

(5) In 2004, Mr. Obama supported a bill that would allow retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. Mr. Obama has always strictly opposed concealed carry and denied that this was an exception. It was later revealed that at the time he was fighting his Republican opponent to win an endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police.

(6) Mr. Obama believes that it’s Constitutionally permissible to “[keep] guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer’s lobby.”

(7) In an Illinois senate debate against Alan Keyes, Mr. Obama revealed his view on so-called “assault weapons” (no such thing exists--it is a media creation),
“Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.”

(8) Mr. Obama has expressed his support for banning the sale and transfer of all semi-automatic firearms, is for increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms, and is for requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

(9) Mr. Obama has also endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

(10) Mr. Obama voted to allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the independent actions of those misusing their products, actions about which they have no knowledge and over which they have no control.

(11) Mr. Obama opposes four of five Supreme Court justices who affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. He stated that he would not have appointed Justices Thomas and Scalia and voted against Justices Alito and Roberts.

(12) Mr. Obama voted for an Illinois Senate bill to confiscate and ban “assault weapons,” a bill that would have banned most semi-automatic and single and double barreled sporting shotguns.

(13) Mr. Obama has supported re-instituting the Clinton gun ban.

(14) Mr. Obama voted to ban virtually all common hunting and sport shooting rifle ammunition.

(15) Mr. Obama has endorsed an increase of 500% in the federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition.

(16) Mr. Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people using firearms in self defense.

(17) Mr. Obama supports gun owner licensing and firearm registration.

(18) Mr. Obama would not sign a friend-of-the-court brief supporting individual Second Amendment rights in the historic Heller v. DC case.

(19) Mr. Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and for anti-gun research.

(20) Mr. Obama supported a ban on gun stores within five miles of a school or park, eliminating almost every gun store in the nation.

(21) Mr. Obama favors banning standard capacity magazines, supports micro-stamping, mandatory waiting periods, banning inexpensive handguns and one-
gun-a-month restrictions.

(22) Mr. Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers, and which protects police operations.

(23) Mr. Obama supports banning the resale of police issued firearms, even if the proceeds are used to buy police equipment.

Considering this list, it would appear that Mr. Obama’s professed support for the Second Amendment is as hollow as his promise that people who like their medical insurance can keep it. At best, he appears to support the Second Amendment while stridently and consistently opposing any and everything that would make its exercise useful and meaningful. Anyone surprised by this richly deserves a nomination for the Captain Louis Renault Award.

The (Non) Wonders of GPS Gun Tracking

What’s new on the cutting edge of crime fighting? In Massachusetts, State Senator Andrew Petruccelli (here) has reintroduced a bill to establish a commission to research the latest, greatest hi-tech hope to wipe out the scourge of crime in the People’s Republic: GPS tracking of firearms. But before exploring this newest Holy Grail of the gun-ban set, let’s review two of their more recent technological forays, both falling under the general heading of “ballistic registration (here).”

One scheme would require that all new weapons be delivered to authorities, usually the state police, who would fire and retrieve several bullets and expended casings and enter them into a massive graphics database for comparison with bullets and casings recovered at the scenes of crimes. Unfortunately, merely firing a firearm will, over time (potentially a very brief time), change the markings left on bullets through normal wear and tear. Many bullets are so mangled upon striking objects (and people) as to render meaningful comparison impossible. And of course, barrels and firing pins may be quickly and easily changed.

Another scheme is “microstamping (here),” which consists of etching tiny characters on a firing pin or other portion of the chamber of a firearm so as to leave unique, identifying marks on any fired case. Again, the unique microstamp would be entered into a database for comparison. The usual problems apply, including poor readability and longevity of the stamp, the ease with which it may be altered, or removed, unbelievably poor results in computer matching even known samples, widely varying hardness of cases and primers from manufacturer to manufacturer, and the fact that criminals need only pick up ejected casings, thus leaving no evidence to compare.

In fact, both schemes--particularly involving bullet registration--have been reviewed by scientific experts who have concluded that not only would they cost far too much, they cannot accomplish what their supporters (including then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama regarding microstamping) claim. In short, they just don’t work, and they don’t work at astronomical cost.

So how do the police solve crimes? Do they rely on hi-tech CSI units that can detect errant molecules and instantaneously match bullets, fingerprints and DNA with an enormous, powerful, all-encompassing database? Not even close. Most of the time, the police solve crimes by simply talking to people. Certainly, they gather evidence when it’s present and when it might be useful, but rare is the police officer who has not theatrically spread around a bit of fingerprint powder at the scene of a car or home burglary at the demand of the victim who has watched too much TV, knowing that they’ll find nothing, and that if they do, they won’t have suspects with which to compare it or any means other than the “Mark I Human Eyeball; 2 each,” to use in making comparisons. There is no central fingerprint database. There is no central DNA database. No one can simply insert a fingerprint or DNA sample into a computer and more or less instantly obtain a 100% positive match with a criminal suspect. The technology just doesn’t exist, at least not in the ways TV would have you believe.

Compelling as these flaws are, there is another, far more important reason why such schemes must be rejected: Even if they worked with 100% reliability and at low cost, they prove only that a certain firearm was associated with a crime. The venerable aphorism “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” applies. To obtain a conviction, the state must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific person committed a specific crime. Where firearms are involved, they must prove that not only was a specific person present at a specific place and time, but that they used that specific firearm to commit a crime.

“But it’s their gun! That should be enough!” Not in a system of justice with a presumption of innocence, where the State must prove guilt, not where the accused must prove their innocence. Guns are lost or stolen every day, and criminals can easily “borrow” and return a firearm without its owner ever knowing it was gone. In fact, criminals can easily toss firearms into a lake or run them through car shredders, and this is commonly done.

But Senator Petruccelli apparently believes we now have the technology to actually track individual firearms! Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is his sole motivation. Wouldn’t that be a great leap forward in crime fighting technology? As with the other technology-based gun control schemes, no.

While GPS transmitters are now smaller than they were even a few years ago, they are not sufficiently small to be implanted into firearms, particularly the handguns that are always the primary object of gun banner’s concerns, without compromising their design and functionality. Such implantation would also add substantially to the cost of each firearm, as much as $100 or more. For gun banners, this is a feature, but for rational people, it’s a bug.

Another significant issue is battery life. Any such scheme would require transmitters to operate continuously, so gun owners would find themselves changing batteries as frequently as weekly, and perhaps even more often. But again, for gun banners, this is a feature, a feature that would absolutely require two companion laws.

Criminalizing failing to immediately report a lost or stolen firearm would be a necessity. The only question would be whether to make a violation a misdemeanor or felony. For many people, a gun, stored in a closet or in the bottom of a drawer, might be missing for years before its absence was noticed, but turning the law- abiding into felons would surely be a small price to pay for such spiffy technology. And of course, failing to change batteries would also have to be a crime. Because failing to change batteries would defeat the entire system, it would certainly have to be a felony. Features? Bugs? It depends on your perspective on the Constitution and individual freedom.

Even with such “enlightened” laws, the technological hurdles would be insurmountable, the costs, unbearable. Any state-wide system would almost certainly require purpose-built satellite coverage. Such things tend to be a bit pricey, and considering NASA’s recent luck at satellite launching, futile. How would such a system work? Would it track millions of firearms, each continuously broadcasting its own discrete signal? Most would be stationary, resting in closets, drawers or gun safes...uh-oh...wouldn’t gun safes, being made of thick metal, block such relatively weak signals? So much for safe storage.

How many thousands of government workers would be required to monitor the system and dispatch law enforcement officers (Federal Bureau Of GPS Police?), and under which circumstances? How many firearms are being transported, legally and illegally, from place to place at any time of the day or night? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Would the law require advance notice (or permission) of the movement of any firearm? Even from a closet to a workbench within a home? Are police dispatched when a battery dies and the signal ceases? Do they arrest the “criminal” who maliciously and with malign intent, allowed the battery to die?

It’s not hard to imagine the inherent problems, such as criminals leading the police on a merry chase following a gun transmitter on one side of town while guns with disabled transmitters are used to knock over a bank on the other. After all, if a criminal is planning robbery, or worse, what’s removing a battery? The costs for hardware, software (even if such a thing was actually possible) and personnel would be awe-inspiring, but hey, what’s a few trillion among friends, particularly during these heady days of huge, across-the-board budget surpluses?

The largest problem, the practical problem that renders the entire enterprise useless before it begins, remains: It’s still necessary to convict the criminal, not the tool he uses during the commission of his crime. GPS tracking would prove only--perhaps--that a given GPS discrete signal--not necessarily the GPS transmitter registered to a given firearm, or the firearm itself, was transmitting at a specific place and time. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to envision how such a system might be manipulated or spoofed. The police, as always, would still have to solve crimes the old-fashioned way, by talking to people, and the taxpayer would be much, much poorer.

I do, as it happens, have a better, more cost-effective use for the technology. Let’s make Democrat state legislators wear GPS trackers! Wisconsin and Indiana seem like good places to start. And I’m not talking about constant monitoring or any Orwellian plot like that. Combine, say, a GPS ankle bracelet with an injector for a powerful tranquilizer. If the battery dies, it’s sleepybye time! Tamper with the ankle bracelet, and it’s straight into the bonds of Morpheus. Come within 100 yards of a state line and they’re counting sheep. A small reserve battery would have to be included to send out a locator signal after the wearer took a dirt nap so that any nearby police officer could scoop them up and return them to their respective state capitol, where they could be propped up in their cushy leather chair so they could attend to the state’s business with their usual dilligence and efficiency.

But in all seriousness, Senator Petruccelli has performed a public service by reminding us—if our collective experience of the last two years under the Obama Administration has not--that big government exists to ignore the Constitution and to crush individual liberty. Should we allow it to remain at its current size, to say nothing of substantially reducing it, it will inevitably crush us, perhaps beginning in Massachusetts.

ATF Memo: Agency Desperate For Bust/Good PR. Are They Accepting Nominations?

I haven't gotten around to covering it yet, but the ATF really screwed the pooch with Project Gunwalker, letting cartels buy thousands of firearms and take them over the border in what I personally suspect was an attempt to give credence to the Obama Administration's 90% lie. As a result, at least two U.S. federal law enforcement officers have been murdered with guns the ATF lost, and there is every reason to suspect that dozens of Mexican law enforcement officers have been killed as a result of the agencies incompetence as well.

CBS News has now obtained an internal memo, which reveals the ATf is trying to score a quick win to shore up faltering support:

Public Information Officers:

Please make every effort for the next two weeks to maximize coverage of ATF operations/enforcement actions/arrests at the local and regional level. Given the negative coverage by CBS Evening News last week and upcoming events this week, the bureau should look for every opportunity to push coverage of good stories. Fortunately, the CBS story has not sparked any follow up coverage by mainstream media and seems to have fizzled.

It was shoddy reporting , as CBS failed to air on-the-record interviews by former ATF officials and HQ statements for attribution that expressed opposing views and explained the law and difficulties of firearm trafficking investigations. The CBS producer for the story made only a feigned effort at the 11th hour to reach ATF HQ for comment.

This week (To 3/1/2011), Attorney General Holder testifies on the Hill and likely will get questions about the allegations in the story. Also (The 3/3/2011), Mexico President Calderon will visit the White House and likely will testify on the Hill. He will probably draw attention to the lack of political support for demand letter 3 and Project Gunrunner.

ATF needs to proactively push positive stories this week, in an effort to preempt some negative reporting, or at minimum, lessen the coverage of such stories in the news cycle by replacing them with good stories about ATF. The more time we spend highlighting the great work of the agents through press releases and various media outreaches in the coming days and weeks, the better off we will be.

Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any significant operations that should get national media coverage, please reach out to the Public Affairs Division for support, coordination and clearance.

Thank you,

Scot

Scot L. Thomasson

Chief ATF Public Affairs Division

Washington, DC

I've got an idea. If the ATF needs good PR, maybe they could start by arresting Lee Franklin Booth, the convicted felon that the agency has refused to prosecute despite his involvement in the acquisition of three gun companies. Think Gunwalker was a trainwreck? Imagine the the damage that could be done by a felon that has significant influence or ownership of gun manufacturing facilities.

I've not posted upon Mr. Booth in a while, but that doesn't mean I've lost interest in seeing him put behind bars. If the ATF wants a quick win, they need look no further than an ex-con no one would miss.

CMMG stainless steel .22LR conversion kit review for LuckyGunner.com

I started talking with the folks at LuckyGunner.com a few weeks before SHOT Show, and they gave me a chance to run the CMMG .22 conversion kit that they stock and write up a review on it. Considering the cost of centerfire ammo and the strained economy these days, shooting .22LR at the range instead of .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO makes a lot of sense for most training applications.

I used my BCM Mid 16 as the test platform, outfitted with a UTG carry handle to replace the BUIS (backup-iron sight). I'm trying to get back into shooting with iron sights, in hopes of running an Appleseed course later this year shooting iron-sights only.

To make a long story short, I burned through 325 rounds through the CMMG kit in about an hour. This in a gun that already had 200 rounds of .223 through it from my last range session.

I hope that you'll read the detailed review of the CMMG stainless steel .22LR conversion kit on LuckyGunner.com, and let me know what you think. It was a fun conversion kit to shoot, and relatively easy to clean.

Is Travelers Insurance Dropping Gun Owners?

Travelers Insurance is apparently dropping coverage for customers that own certain firearms they find objectionable, including some of the most common rifles in America (AR-15s).

It is certainly their prerogative to decide with whom they want to do business. I also suspect other carriers will be more than happy to provide former Travelers' clients with new policies.

A Reply To A Reader

INTRODUCTION: At Confederate Yankee, we hope that our musings will be entertaining, educational, and that they will encourage thoughtful, civil debate. To those ends, we remove only those reader comments that are advertising, or are simply rude and abusive. All others are read, appreciated and thoughtfully considered.

In response to my recent post on the consequences of magazine capacity restrictions, reader “Doug,” wrote an interesting comment that seems to encompass the thinking of the anti-gun side of the issue. I thought it worthwhile to reprint that comment here, and to add my responses, all in the furtherance of thoughtful, civil debate. Doug’s comments will be in quotation marks and mine in brackets.

“I'm often very disheartened by the tenor of these arguments simply because they seem to only engage in peripheral details rather than dealing with very basic questions. It's presented here as if there are people out here with the sole intention of addressing gun violence as a means of restricting your freedom, or liberty, or your idea of both of these. This seems to be the only real argument on offer. Guns are exemplars of freedom.”

[Doug, may I suggest that for a much more in-depth treatment of these and related issues, you see my recent series of articles relating to gun ownership? In those articles, I explore not only history, human nature, philosophy and theology, but practical, legal and moral issues relating to gun ownership and use. The first two articles are available here and here, and the third will be up on the CY site no later than 02-02-11. I hope you’ll find them to be less peripheral.

Please also know that as a veteran of nearly two decades of police service, I am among the first to oppose violence, however, I’ve never found a gun control measure that had the slightest effect on criminals or the violence they commit, except to occasionally enhance their sentences after the fact. Also, may I suggest that a fair reading of the historical record will reveal that every oppressive, murderous government has deprived its citizens of arms. Understanding that fact, it’s quite clear that gun ownership is emblematic of a free people, and is so important that unlike any other nation, America has a Second Amendment that secures--not establishes--the effective exercise of what has always been a natural right of men, the right to self-defense.]

“I think it really is far more simple than that...be angry at what you think are false arguments or at best "restrictive" arguments (as I'm not sure you think the arguments are false regarding killing capacities--you just seem to want to employ ways to negate their import), but it would be best to acknowledge the basics here.”

[There is no anger here, Doug. In analyzing these issues, either I am historically and factually correct, or I am not. My arguments are either logical and well reasoned, or they are not. My opinions are fact based and logical and reasonable, or they are not. You are free to address my arguments on the merits, as I have tried to do here. Anger avails nothing.]

“1. Guns are a weapon with a single purpose: to kill or at least incapacitate another creature.”

[Doug, I’m afraid you’re factually inaccurate here. Firearms do not have a single purpose. Indeed, almost any firearm can be employed to kill or incapacitate, and some are specifically designed to be particularly effective in military applications. Those weapons might be accurately described as designed to kill, though they may certainly be used--and many are used--in target shooting practice and competitions. In fact, a great many firearms are designed specifically for sporting purposes and as such, are particularly unsuitable for killing or incapacitating other creatures. A small, but important point, I hope you’ll agree.]

“2. You want to be able to be a potential "killer" using this weapon.”

[Doug, you’re imputing a great deal of ill will to people who do not have it. No rational person--and the facts indicate that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding, rational people, particularly those with concealed weapons licenses--wants to harm or kill anyone, quite the opposite. Your comment implies that you are also speaking of hunters, so please excuse me if I have read into it that which is not there. Hunters do indeed kill animals, but they do so humanely and for food. Human beings have always been predators. That part of human nature has always existed. That we have advanced to our current state of firearm technology does not brand us evil or demonize our tools. Those who hunt do not do so for the thrill of killing, but to experience a closer connection with their inherent, fundamental nature, to experience and develop unique skills, and to feed their families.]

“3. Others do not want to kill and do not want to be killed.”

[I must refer you again to my articles on these issues. The problem is that evil exists. I have fought it virtually all of my life. Evil can confront each of us at any time and any place. There is no question that some people--thankfully a small portion of the population--do want to kill and are more than willing to kill any one of us if we happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Others want to rob, burn and rape and take great delight in so doing. Again, no rational person wants to kill another, but no rational person should harbor the delusion that it may never be necessary, and should be prepared should that awful day arrive. Particularly for women, those of small stature, and the elderly, the sole tool that may preserve their lives and the lives of those they love is the firearm.]

“4. They do not want a gun in order to kill or incapacitate.”

[Doug, I know it may sound trite, but criminals don’t obey any law. They want firearms and they’ll always get them regardless of how illegal it may be. Some people do indeed want guns and other weapons to harm others. I must assume that you do not want to disarm reasonable, rational, kind people who are actually concerned for the safety and feelings of others, that you don’t want them to become the helpless victims of evil. I suspect that you mean that you don’t want to harm others. I certainly do not, but I’m prepared to do so if it is absolutely necessary. With whom would you make common cause? Those who would harm others, or those responsible gun owners who would not, but are prepared if there is no other choice?]

“I would make no arguments for even the existence of guns. I don't fear the "criminal". I fear the gun in anyone's hands. A gun fired creates culpability that I find unjustifiable.”

[Doug, you’ve hit on an important issue and one that all responsible gun owners take very seriously. It is, in fact, an integral part of basic gun safety and is constantly reinforced: Bullets fired cannot be recalled and we are responsible--culpable--for each round fired. Therefore do we train carefully, and therefore do we do our best to avoid confrontation. Carrying a firearm makes responsible people more, rather than less, likely to be involved in a confrontation. Believe me, you should fear the criminal, because given the chance, he will harm or kill you. Every day you are surrounded by gun owners who would, if presented the opportunity, protect your life against criminal assault. I can’t say it enough: Evil exists. It takes on human form and is all around us. If you have yet to meet it face to face, thank your lucky stars and pray that your luck holds, particularly if you have no means of defeating it.]

“I don't care to be called names for this stance. I do want to talk about some of your positions and their basic motivations. To talk about these things might open up some understanding. Talking instead about how "they" want to "regulate" your "capacities" is only a template for the argument that simply calls "up" "down" and "down" "up"--an argument designed for argument's sake.”

[Doug, I hope you’ll agree that there has been no name calling. My motivations for owning firearms are relatively simple. I have an appreciation for fine mechanisms and craftsmanship, whether firearms, musical instruments, timepieces or electronics. I enjoy the discipline and concentration required to attain accuracy with firearms in much the same way that I enjoy the discipline and concentration necessary to function as a classically trained professional musician. I have been fortunate never to have had to shoot a fellow human being, but I have perforated reams of paper. I appreciate the historical foundation of the right to self defense and the role of firearms in securing it, and in defending liberty. Shooting is also simply great fun (done responsibly and safely, of course), and as a shooting instructor, teaching others the necessary skills is likewise fun and rewarding.

There is no question that some want to gain any and every possible restriction on the way to eventual bans and confiscation of firearms, and I have named some of them and their intentions specifically in the article to which you responded. It would take little additional research to discover that what I’ve said is true: Many anti-gun people do want to ban all guns, incrementally or all at once, whatever they can get, and this is their primary motivation. Surely, some who are proposing magazine capacity limitations and other measures are well-intentioned, if mis-informed, but there is sufficient data and experience to understand that their measures will have no effect on crime and will not prevent what they hope to prevent. This is not argument for argument’s sake, but recitation of fact.]

“My basic position is that people without guns...people with no inculcated zealous drive to engage in "oppositional" aggression...will not maim and murder readily.”

[Doug, I agree that most people are not criminals and most are not violent. Competent research, and my experience as a human being and a police officer bears out that most people will obey the law most of the time and wish no ill will to others. But there is no linkage here with gun ownership. A very significant portion of the American public owns firearms, yet our shared conviction holds true: it is their nature, not the tools they do or don’t own, that determines their actions. Firearms have no power to compel their criminal misuse, nor are firearm owners more likely to use them violently than non-owners. Valid social science research is more than clear on that point. The Arizona and Virginia Tech shooters are good examples. They were not, in fact, gun owners, and purchased their guns only after formulating their murderous plans as tools necessary to carry them out.]

“I would not argue that there are no bad actors out there who would no doubt kill without compunction; rather I can only state that I am not one of these and it is always my hope that you too are not one.”

[Doug, if you carefully consider some of what you’ve written, you might concede that you are arguing just that, as when you wrote “Others do not want to kill and do not want to be killed.” Surely you can see how one might reasonably believe that you are are at least reluctant to acknowledge the existence of evil?

I’m pleased that you aren’t a criminal, nor am I, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners (again, it would take little research to confirm this), particularly those who hold concealed carry permits. But Doug, your comments seem to place you in the company of some on the anti-gun side who cannot admit that firearms have served good purposes throughout history and continue to do so today, that those who own them are equally thoughtful and well-intentioned, and like you, wish no harm to others. Do you truly believe that the mere ownership of a firearm reflects negatively on the intellect, education and/or intentions of its owner? I certainly make no such assumptions about those who choose not to own firearms, or any other mechanism. You can rest assured that those who own firearms are no more threat to you--and indeed, almost certainly less threat--than anyone else.

Thanks for the opportunity to address these issues, and thanks for reading and commenting!]

Yours,

Mike

Me? Own A gun? Article 3: Life-Changing Realities

If you’ve already read the first two portions of this series (available here and here), you’re reasonably well versed in the philosophical and theological implications of weapon ownership and use. This essay concerns practical, moral and legal issues, as well as exploring some of the primary ways that carrying a concealed weapon must necessarily change your life. Keep in mind that I am not an attorney, and that you are responsible for becoming familiar with the law where you live. But before we begin, for a humorous and accurate take on her rationale for carrying a concealed weapon, see my wise and delightful co-blogger, Brigid’s post, here.

AWARENESS: Walk down any street and take the time to assess the situational awareness of those you meet. What’s situational awareness? It’s a very familiar term to police officers, soldiers, and others who engage in risky, dangerous endeavors. Think of it as a heightened alertness combined with the ability to predict what might happen in any given situation. Most people walk around in a fog, almost completely unaware of what is happening outside of their “personal space,” that bubble extending to arm’s length or less. It is this lack of situational awareness that helps killers fire many shots into crowds or classrooms before anyone is aware of what is happening. In the aftermath of such attacks, people often say: “I didn’t see it coming,” or “it all happened so fast.” That’s because most people lack situational awareness.

See that man approaching you on the sidewalk? Notice that if he looks at you at all, it will only be, at best, a quick glance at your face. His mouth may turn up at the corners in a semi-smile, or it may not. Notice that no one looks up; virtually no one looks higher than the level of people’s faces. The next time you walk down a familiar downtown block in your community, concentrate on looking up. You’ll be amazed at the details you’ve missed. In the same vein, no one looks behind them. Consider how vulnerable this lack of situational awareness makes you to two legged predators. This is one of the primary reasons that they can be successful. In true, survival of the fittest style, criminals tend to prey on those who appear to be weak and/or distracted, hence, vulnerable.

The late Col. Jeff Cooper, firearms guru and founder of the Gunsite training facility, developed a color code that is helpful in understanding this issue.

Code White: This is the level of situational awareness of most people, which is to say, none at all. In this state, you are essentially unaware of what is happening outside your personal space. You cannot anticipate and identify potential danger and have no chance of dealing with it effectively if it appears. Predators see you as a walking piece of meat wearing an “eat me” sign.

Code Yellow: This is the level anyone who does not want to be prey should adopt. It is the level you must adopt if you carry a concealed weapon. In this state, you have an enhanced level of awareness. While remaining relaxed, you are constantly on the lookout for potential danger. You have expanded your personal space far beyond arm’s length and are alert and prepared to avoid or confront danger. This level of awareness is not stressful and can be maintained day in and day out without danger of physical or psychological damage.

Code Orange: In this state, you have recognized an imminent potential threat. Say a man walking toward you suddenly thrusts his hand into his coat in the manner of someone reaching for a handgun in a shoulder holster. You immediately escalate from yellow to orange--until he pulls out and begins to read a pamphlet--allowing you to return to yellow. This state may or may not result in an adrenaline dump, but remaining in this state for long periods of time may be physically or psychologically harmful.

Code Red: In this state you have recognized a definitive, imminent threat, but still have time to choose options. You approach your car in a parking garage to find several gang bangers lounging on the trunk lid. As they see you approach, they nudge each other, stand up, spread out, and one pulls a knife from his pocket while you see the others reaching into their pockets. They are grinning in anticipation. They think they’ve seen an easy mark approaching. You feel the heat of an adrenaline dump and have to make a decision: Flight or fight? Can you safely change direction and walk away without provoking a pursuit, or is a confrontation unavoidable? If it’s unavoidable, what must you do to gain and retain a tactical advantage? Remaining in code red for more than a few minutes is impossible for most people and will almost certainly be physically and/or psychologically harmful.

Code Black: You are actually fighting and must assume, in any confrontation outside the sparring practice of a martial arts school, that you are fighting for your life, particularly if you are attacked by a stranger on the street (more on this shortly). Adrenaline is pumping and you may experience time dilation (seconds seem like hours) and a narrowing of your field of vision known as “tunneling.” Your hearing may become very dim. All fine muscle control is lost. This is a debilitating physical and psychological condition and those who experience it are often physically and emotionally exhausted after a confrontation that lasts only seconds. If you have not adopted the habit of maintaining situational awareness, you will almost certainly be at a serious tactical disadvantage and may be hurt or killed.

With only fiction and movies as a guide, most people do not understand that it is entirely possible--indeed, it may be absolutely necessary--to be capable of two modes of behavior which, to the uninformed, seem contradictory. Police officers, special forces soldiers, martial artists and others understand what I mean. It is entirely possible to live a quiet, unassuming life, a life that, observed by others, would appear to be not only non-violent, but incapable of violence. Yet, when confronted by a deadly threat, such people are instantly capable of acting with overwhelming speed, violence of action and focus which results in the elimination of the threat.

In all of my police years, my wife would often say that she could not imagine me doing violence. Many of those who knew me would often comment that I didn’t look or act like a police officer. It was because I existed in code yellow--as I do to this day--that I was able to recognize potentially dangerous situations and avoid them, thus avoiding the necessity of violence, yet I constantly trained, mentally and physically, to deliver it if necessary. No rational person wants to harm or kill others, yet no rational person should be without the ability should it become necessary.

It must be understood that most people are utterly unprepared to meet violence. While most Americans believe, at least in the abstract, that evil exists, they don’t tend to think of it in concrete, daily terms. Most people think of themselves as kind, considerate, polite people, people who obey the law and consider the feelings of others. This is admirable, but it is hard, perhaps almost impossible, for such people to realize that they live near people who are not at all like them, people who, if not truly sociopathic--people with absolutely no feelings for others, essentially those without a conscience--care very little for others and have no problem with hurting or killing them for fun, to get what they want, or both. The realization that we might live next to such people, or walk or drive past them at any time of any day is sobering, but may lead to taking the necessary steps to be prepared. That is what this series of articles is all about.

THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONCEALED CARRY: Those who choose to carry a concealed weapon are, whether they realize it or not, taking on obligations that others simply do not have, and they will be held responsible, legally and morally, for upholding those obligations. Among them are:

(1) Situational Awareness: You are now obligated to live in code yellow. You can no longer afford to be oblivious to your surroundings. You must, to at least some degree, think like a criminal and ask yourself how they would behave and what they would do if they were intending to break into your home, steal your car, or assault you. You’ll be amazed at how much you’ve missed and at how much more vibrant and interesting the world is now that you’re actually much more aware of it in your daily life. You’ll also be entitled to a degree of pride in your ability to better protect yourself and those you love.

(2) Safeguarding Your Weapon: You are solely responsible for safeguarding your weapon. This includes keeping it concealed and ensuring that no one is able to take it from you. It also includes keeping it from those who should not have it, such as children. To fulfill this obligation, you’ll have to consider many things, including how you’ll carry your weapon, how to store it when you’re not carrying it, your wardrobe and how you’ll change your habits--and adopt new habits--to ensure that you don’t accidentally expose your weapon or accidentally leave it behind in a public restroom. You’ll have to alter your wardrobe and behaviors to accommodate the weapon, not the other way around. The premise behind concealed carry, and its value, is that since criminals cannot know who is carrying a concealed weapon, they must assume that anyone could be and act accordingly. You must develop consistent daily routines--do things the same way all of the time--to ensure that you don’t forget to do what you must. If you carry your weapon in your purse, for example, you can never allow that purse to be out of your immediate grasp, and certainly never out of your sight. At a restaurant, it should be on your lap, not on the floor near your chair. If this doesn’t work for you, you must find another means of carrying your weapon. In future editions of this series, I’ll go into the variety of available carry options.

(3) Maintenance Training: Shooting quickly and accurately is a matter of muscle memory and practice. It is a perishable skill. You must be willing to commit to a minimum amount of practice. How much? That depends on you, but generally speaking, once a month in live--on the range--fire, and once a week in dry fire--in the home--practice. The point is that your weapon should feel as familiar to you as your watch. Its mechanisms and use should be as easy and familiar as walking and should require no more conscious effort. New shooters should stick with a single weapon rather than carrying a variety of weapons. There is a venerable saying to the effect that the most dangerous man is the one with only a single gun. The point is that he probably practices with it enough to be truly proficient. If the point is being so familiar with your weapon that you need no conscious thought to employ it efficiently and quickly, that kind of familiarity will be hard to come by if you carry multiple weapons. Firearms aren’t fashion accessories.

(4) Avoidance of Danger: Firearms aren’t license to become a righteous avenger. In fact, if you’re carrying a firearm, you have a more compelling duty to avoid trouble. Firearms are to be used only as a last resort to protect your life, or the lives of others and to prevent imminent serious bodily injury or death. You must avoid places where danger is more likely such as bars and certain neighborhoods or areas where criminals are known to be. You must ignore insults, walk across a street to avoid people who might be trouble, even walk or drive blocks out of your way. If you are in code yellow, if you have enhanced your situational awareness, such things will be second nature because you’ll constantly be asking “what if?” You’ll be far more likely to recognize potential danger and avoid it. Predators will notice your awareness and will be far more likely to leave you alone.

On the other hand, if they’re too stupid to notice, or so bold or drug-addled that they don’t care, you’ll also be more prepared to avoid them or to gain a tactical advantage if it’s not possible to avoid a confrontation. Remember that if you do have to shoot someone, prosecutors will be asking themselves if you were looking for trouble because you were armed. Be sure that there is not only no evidence to support that theory, but plenty of evidence to the contrary. Most police officers will spend an entire career without ever having to shoot anyone, and they’re exposed to more danger in a month than most citizens will experience in a lifetime. Unlike you, they don’t have a choice; they have to knowingly enter dangerous situations. Prosecutors know this; so must you.

LEGAL ISSUES: There are two bodies of law with which anyone carrying a concealed weapon must be intimately familiar: The specific laws of their state that regulate concealed carry and the laws regarding the use of deadly force, in general, and those specific to their state. Of particularly concern are the places where concealed carry is prohibited as most people have their permits suspended for accidentally carrying their handguns into such places. These restricted zones vary from state to state, so it’s always wise to carefully research this issue and avoid violating those laws. Keep in mind, however, that Col. Cooper said that it’s much better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. In other words, it’s better to be alive and in violation of a given law than dead and faultlessly law abiding. I do not advocate violating the law, merely being aware of all of the issues relating to these topics.

State Laws: These regulate who is allowed to carry, the related fees, forms and tests (usually written and shooting), terms of license validity and the means of renewal, specify manner of carry (open, concealed or both) and specific zones and places wherein firearms may not be carried by licensees. They also commonly list states with whom reciprocity is shared. In other words, states that have entered into a compact of mutual respect for the concealed carry licenses of their respective citizens. Most states--at last count, 38--are “shall issue” states. In other words, if you meet the criteria for concealed carry under the law, no public official may deny you a license. In the other states, concealed carry is either completely prohibited (Wisconsin and Illinois), or a “may issue” system is in place where local sheriffs or state officials have absolute authority to decide who will be allowed a license. In such states, licenses are normally granted only for the wealthy, well connected, politicians, or similar worthies. The National Rifle Association website maintains an up to date database of state laws under its Institute For Legislative Action tab.

Municipal laws may also have some bearing, but only in those states that lack a state pre-emption statute, a law that prohibits municipalities within the state from regulating firearms. Ultimately, the point is to become very familiar with any state or local laws that might apply, not only where you live, but where you plan to travel. Even those states with reciprocity agreements with your state are sure to have some significant differences in law, and you are required to follow the law wherever you are, even if it differs from the law in your home state.

The Doctrine of Deadly Force: This is another area where you should carefully follow state law. The laws of some states are more lenient than the general principles of the use of deadly force, while some are more restrictive. The question is: When is the use of deadly force justified? Answer: When necessary to halt the imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to you or another.
What this basically means is that in any situation in which a reasonable person would believe that they--or another--was faced with the imminent--as opposed to possible or future--threat of serious bodily injury or death, deadly force is a reasonable response. Of course, running away might also be a wise and reasonable response, but only if it is reasonably possible. In states that have enacted the Castle Doctrine--more about that later--it is not required.

It’s important to understand what “serious bodily injury” means. While the legal definition will vary a bit from state to state, it essentially refers to injury that, while not deadly, is crippling, seriously disfiguring, that will have a continuing, negative impact on your life from the moment it is inflicted. Getting shot in the leg or shoulder--as in the movies--is not something to be easily treated and shrugged off. Gunshot wounds are ugly, nasty and can be permanently debilitating. Equally, cuts inflicted by edged weapons like swords or knives can be as debilitating and in many ways, far more horrific and ugly. Many police officers who survive a gunshot wound may be physically healed, but never fully psychologically recover.

The means for determining--on the spot--if deadly force is necessary and justified is to apply the “means, opportunity, and jeopardy” test. There are a variety of similar terms/acronyms, but they all boil down to the same thing.

Means: Does your opponent have the means necessary to cause serious bodily injury or death? If you are a 100 pound woman, any man of average size and strength would almost certainly have the means necessary employing only his bare hands. Someone with a gun certainly would. Someone with a knife, almost certainly, and someone holding a variety of other instruments would also pose such a threat. Someone known to be highly skilled in a martial art, even if smaller than you, might also have the means.

Opportunity: Does your opponent have the opportunity to cause serious bodily injury or death? An attacker armed with a handgun certainly does, out to normal handgun ranges, perhaps as much as 50 yards away, although there is always such a thing as a lucky shot even at greater ranges. An attacker armed with a rifle has a much greater dangerous range. Someone armed with a knife is dangerous to at least 21 feet, perhaps even more, as practical experience demonstrates that even an average person with a knife can close 21 feet before they can be shot and/or stopped by a handgun-wielding victim. And if a knife- wielding opponent further away moves as though to throw the knife, a reasonable person must assume that they know what they are doing and can cause serious injury or death at a distance with that knife. Other tools such as hammers, bats, screwdrivers, etc. are also dangerous if the person wielding them is close enough.

Jeopardy: Is an opponent acting in such a way, here and now, as to indicate to a reasonable person that they, or another, is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death? An opponent you know to be carrying a handgun which remains holstered is not putting you in jeopardy, but when he, after uttering threats, perhaps even glaring at you menacingly, quickly reaches for his handgun, jeopardy attaches. Someone standing across the street with a knife yelling threats is not putting you in jeopardy, but when they begin to run toward you, jeopardy increases with each foot gained.

Notice that I keep referring to what a “reasonable person,” might think or do. This is the general standard applied by the courts in analyzing the use of deadly force. Shooting a slight 12 year old girl who yells “I’ll kill you,” while making ready to throw a baseball at you from 50 feet away would almost certainly be found to be inherently unreasonable. Shooting an adult male who has threatened to kill you and is bringing a shotgun to his shoulder from the same distance would almost certainly be considered to be inherently reasonable. Fortunately, the courts, even the Supreme Court, understand that one cannot be expected to be absolutely cool and calm and able to engage in extended intellectual reflection and debate when faced with imminent deadly danger. That necessary understanding does not, however, relieve anyone of the necessity of acting reasonably and properly in deadly force situations.

Shooting to Kill: You must never say, or even think, that you shoot to kill. You never shoot unless the requirements of the three part means, opportunity, and jeopardy test have been satisfied. If so, you shoot only to STOP the attacker, to immediately stop them from doing what they were doing that put you or another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. To that end, you shoot as quickly and effectively as possible to immediately end the threat. So how do you stop an attacker?

The Mechanisms of Stopping: There are three primary means of stopping a human being: (1) Neural damage; (2) Breaking the skeleton; (3) Exsanguination (reducing blood pressure through bleeding). There are, however, many other considerations.

(1) Neural Damage: Causing trauma to the brain usually causes immediate cessation of hostile action. In fact, SWAT marksmen, when possible, try for a brain stem shot. They try to hit a hostage taker exactly where the brain and brain stem meet, at the base of the rear of the skull. If properly placed, a bullet to this spot will cause the potential killer to drop as though a light switch had been switched off, and even if they have their finger on the trigger of a gun, they will not be able to pull it. The problem is that this area is a very small target. In fact, relatively speaking, the human head is also a small target, particularly if it is moving at all. Notice too that I am talking about a highly trained marksman making the shot with a scoped, highly accurate rifle, almost always with the benefit of a spotter and from a supported position. Accurately shooting a handgun at the same target, even at close range, is much more demanding.

(2) Breaking the skeleton. While breaking a femur, or the pelvis, for example, will cause most people to drop to the ground, they may still be capable of pulling a trigger, and if so, have merely been rendered less mobile, not stopped. And again,
making such shots with any degree of reliability with a handgun is exceedingly difficult, particularly because, compared with rifle ammunition, much handgun ammunition lacks the power to reliably break large bones.

(3) Exsanguination. Someone shot in an artery, or even the heart, may have up to three minutes of useful consciousness if they are truly determined to kill you regardless of the damage they suffer in the attempt. However, if sufficient blood is lost, the resulting drop in blood pressure will inevitably lead to unconsciousness.

If by now you’re wondering how people are stopped at all, good for you. You’re paying attention and really thinking. Again, you’ve likely been infected by Hollywood.

Fortunately, such matters are not only physical, but psychological. Many people, upon receiving even a survivable gunshot wound, immediately drop and cease hostile action because of what I’ll call the “OMG! I’ve been shot!” response. Others--thankfully relatively few--may absorb ridiculous numbers of bullets which might slow, but not stop them, as they try to continue their deadly attacks. Such people eventually succumb to one or more of the effects I’ve mentioned, but “eventually” is not helpful or comforting if they are attacking you.

The best course of action is to aim for “center mass,” or the part of the torso at or around the sternum, and fire enough rounds to force the attacker to stop. If a single round of .22 LR ammunition will accomplish this, great. If it requires ten rounds of .45 ACP ammunition, that’s fine too. It is the cumulative effect of blood vessel damage, neural shock, and psychological shock that will have the greatest effect, therefore more than one round may almost always be necessary. Do not expect anyone, even if shot with a shotgun, to fly ten feet backward. If any weapon possessed the power, solely through the energy imparted by the impact of its projective, to fling a 200 man ten feet backward, similar energy would be imparted to the person shooting the weapon.

Keep in mind that it is always a good idea, even if you cannot avoid or escape a deadly force situation, to try to avoid shooting. If there is time, you should clearly display your weapon in the “ready” position--pointing it at your attacker, but roughly at the belt line--and loudly and clearly say “don’t move.” Fortunately, many criminals, confronted with an armed and obviously prepared victim, will choose the better part of valor and promptly show you the rear of their sagging pants and the soles of their flying shoes. And if they do not, you’re in the proper stance to fire and have established your desire not to fire unless absolutely necessary to any bystanders and potential witnesses. “Yeah Officer, that guy told him not to move and wasn’t pointing his gun right at him at first.”

The general rule is that if you have legitimate cause to shoot, you may shoot as many rounds as necessary, with as large a firearm as necessary, to stop the imminent threat. However, once any part of the three part test is no longer operative, you immediately stop shooting. If the attacker is writhing on the ground and has dropped his gun, which is out of his reach, he no longer has the means or opportunity, and is no longer placing you in jeopardy. However, if he is down, but is still holding his gun, the moment he begins to move it toward you, jeopardy is again present, and you shoot until he is stopped, whether that takes an additional round or ten rounds. When the justification to shoot ends, the shooting ends. Even though some states allow it, never shoot a fleeing criminal in the back. If they’re fleeing, there is no jeopardy. If they should suddenly stop and turn toward you with their gun, jeopardy is again present. While there are a few, very rare, circumstances in which shooting a fleeing attacker might be reasonable, they are so rare as to be nothing about which you should worry.

You must never think about “shooting to wound,” let alone try to do it. The law does not require it, and it will be highly likely to backfire for several significant reasons. Obtaining the desired stopping effect with a shot that inflicts only a non-mortal wound is highly unlikely and could conceivably enrage an attacker who will press an attack he might have otherwise abandoned. The necessary physical damage and psychological effect is simply not there, and making such a shot accurately is highly unlikely.

In fight or flight situations, among the first abilities human beings lose--which accompanies time distortion, tunneling and hearing loss--is fine muscle control. This makes it very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to formulate the intention to shoot someone effectively in a small portion of the body so as to immediately disable them, to say nothing of actually carrying out that intention. For most people, it is simply physically impossible. Hitting center mass will be more than hard enough, but with proper training and practice, absolutely attainable.

In addition, substantial legal liability may attach. If you were so cool and detached that you could shoot someone in the knee, did you really have sufficient reason to shoot them in the first place? If you really thought that you were in deadly danger, why did you take the time to shoot them someplace that any reasonable person should know wouldn’t reliable stop them? Yes, stopping them will likely result in their death, but you did not intend to cause their death. You intended only to stop them from causing yours That they subsequently died is regrettable, but they made that choice, not you. You are not the attacker.

In all cases, if you shoot at all, you shoot to stop, and you accomplish this by delivering a sufficient volume of accurate fire to that part of the body most likely to cause them to stop. When the threat has stopped, you stop.

At this point, you may find yourself experiencing some degree of revulsion. If so, good for you. You have a conscience. I cannot say often enough that no moral, rational human being wants to harm or kill another. Violence is cruel, nasty, hateful and bloody, but the choice is simple and stark: Do you prefer to be alive and unharmed, or bleeding, perhaps dying on the ground, at the mercy of those cruel and inhuman enough to attack you? Which alternative would you prefer for those you love?

The Castle Doctrine. One of the most salutatory developments of recent years has been the passage of a growing number of state “Castle Doctrine” laws. Based on the common law principle that “a man’s home is his castle,” these laws create the legal presumption that if you are in your home, or any other place you are legally allowed to be, such as your car, on your property, in a store, etc., you have no duty to run away or otherwise retreat if placed in a deadly force situation. You may stand your ground and defend yourself and it is up to the state to affirmatively prove that you acted in bad faith. This is important in that some states and jurisdictions have historically badly treated law abiding citizens who legitimately used deadly force. Some states had and have laws that require you to try to run away or retreat, even within your own home, if attacked by a burglar in the middle of the night, before using deadly force. Some essentially make you prove that you did try to run away or retreat before using force.

Castle Doctrine laws are, of course, only common sense. If someone breaks into your home or car and tries to attack you, it makes no sense at all to run away, surrendering your vehicle or home to them, if such retreat was even possible. Because such idiotic laws actually put families in danger rather than deterring criminals, castle doctrine laws are welcome and rational. Who would retreat from their home, leaving their wife or children at the mercy of criminals deranged enough to break into an occupied home?

A related issue is the old--and completely wrong--advice that if you are forced to shoot a criminal in your back yard, you should drag his body inside. If you have the legal cause to shoot, it does not matter where the criminal is standing. When the criminal is stopped, you stop, and do nothing--absolutely nothing--to alter the scene in any way. Anything you do, no matter how innocuous, may be taken by the police and prosecutors as evidence of evil intent on your part.

THE AFTERMATH: Let’s say that you have been forced to defend your life. Walking back to your car with your wife after a movie, you were approached by a criminal who told you he had a gun and demanded your money. He threatened your life and began to pull his hand out of his baggy coat pocket. You were faster. You went to ready and ordered him, loudly and repeatedly not to move, but he kept trying to pull his gun out of his pocket, and he is face down on the ground and not moving.

The entire confrontation has taken only five seconds, but it felt like an eternity. At this point, your head may be swimming. Your breath is coming in shallow gasps, and your muscles ache. Suddenly, you’re aware of the world around you. You’re in shock and your wife is shaking and crying. You suddenly realize that you’re shaking too. What should you do?

First be sure that the criminal is truly stopped and not faking. If it’s not obvious, keep him covered, but avoid approaching or touching him. The last thing you want is to become involved in a wrestling match with a wounded, crazed criminal desperate to get his hands on your handgun. If his weapon is near him on the ground and you can safely move it out of his reach, do so, but again, do not place yourself within lunging reach of the person who just tried to kill you.

Immediately call your attorney. The attorney you’ve already spoken with; the attorney whose number is on your cell phone. Explain what has happened and get his advice.

Part of that advice will almost certainly be to call the police, which you will do next, and at the same time, tell them that they need to send an ambulance. Everything I’ve suggested thus far should take place within the first few minutes after the shooting stops. Tell the police as little as possible. Know that they are recording what you say and will use it against you. Ideally, you will tell them only that there has been a shooting and that you were forced to defend your life against an armed robber. Be sure to specifically describe what you are wearing and make the dispatcher repeat it, along with the understanding that you have described the good guy, not the bad guy. Remember, say only the minimum possible necessary to inform the officers who will shortly be arriving and no more. You will feel like blurting out your feelings--don’t.

Before the officers arrive, if possible, move behind cover while still keeping the robber covered. As they arrive, holster your weapon, putting it out of sight, and position yourself so the arriving officers can clearly see you. Keep your hands in the open so the officers can see them. Tell the officers, repeatedly and clearly that you’re the victim and obey their commands, moving slowly, deliberately, and only when they tell you to move. Remember that they are unsure what has happened and who is the bad guy. Don’t give them any reason to see you as a threat.

The officers will try to question you as much as possible. Follow your attorney’s advice and say as little as possible. If you were unable to contact your attorney by phone, tell them that you were forced to defend your life against a robbery attempt. In either case, assure them that you will cooperate fully as soon as you have had the opportunity to speak with your attorney, who should be on the way to speak with you. Expect to be arrested and do not resist if they do arrest you. Expect to be taken to a police station where other officers will try to question you. If they do not arrest you but ask you to come to the police department to make a statement, agree to go, but again, tell them only that you will cooperate fully as soon as you’ve had the chance to speak with your attorney.

As long as you have obviously acted within the law, it is likely that no charges will be filed against you, though you may end up spending some time in jail until bond is set. This is not unusual.

Thereafter, expect that the robber’s relatives will suddenly discover that the robber, regardless of a rap sheet a mile long, was spending his life waiting for a letter from the Vatican announcing his sainthood. Expect to be sued. Yes, it’s insane, but expect that it will happen. The good news is that you’ll probably eventually win--and that you and your wife are alive to be sued. That’s the point.

The next installment of this series will deal with the more practical aspects of concealed carry, including weapon choice, methods of carry, tactics, and other related concerns.

The Unintended (or Not) Consequences of Magazine Capacity "Restrictions"

The Arizona shooting has provoked predictable calls for various gun control schemes, each and every one a recycled proven failure, but the most clever and insidious is the banning of large (actually, regular) capacity magazines for semi-automatic firearms. Prior to the State of the Union Address, occasionally suspect Republican Peggy Noonan has recently suggested that President Obama fly this particularly odious flag, echoing Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign’s call for the same restriction. As most now know, this was one of many topics he entirely avoided, wisely—for him. Before I continue, some useful links:

(1) My commentary on the SOTU can be found here.
(2) Bob’s informative posts with video on magazine changes can be found here and here.
(3) Bob’s post on the Columbine killers is available here.
(4) My article on Justice Breyer at PJM is available here.

In preparation for what they hope to be a new front in a never ending battle, anti-gun forces are engaging in the continual re-branding of gun control, a re-branding occasionally made necessary when the public becomes wise to the most recent re-branding of a decaying carcass. The most recent re-branding seems to be the substitution of “restriction” for “gun ban” or “gun control.” Fortunately, for most Americans, a ban by any other name would smell as badly (apologies to Shakespeare).

Paul Helmke, who is trying to shame President Obama into overtly supporting gun “restrictions,” said: “Providing access to high-capacity magazines is beyond the pale. Banning them is a matter of public safety. There is no Second Amendment or God-given right to be able to maim and kill your fellow Americans with military-style ammunition. When the high-capacity magazine restriction was in place until 2004, it was effective. If our nation can agree that machine guns, cop-killer bullets, and plastic guns ought to be banned, surely we can agree that high-volume magazines have no place in our society.”

Also recently piling on the magazine capacity limit bandwagon was the Washington Post. While such a ban might sound relatively harmless to some--VP Dick Cheney recently—and uncharacteristically--suggested that it might not be such a bad idea--it is not only foolish but dangerous. Here’s why:

(1) THE (NON) EFFECT ON PUBLIC SAFETY: Set aside the fact that criminals don’t obey any law. Set aside too the fact that even if all firearms could be magically disintegrated by appropriate legislation, the murderous would simply use other more time-tested methods of killing. It should not be forgotten that some 7000 were killed in a single day at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 using the available hand weapons, which did not include firearms. At the Civil War battle of Gettysburg in 1863, both sides suffered approximately 51,000 casualties in three days of fighting using primarily single shot, breech loading rifles and muzzle loading cannon quite crude by contemporary standards. Some 5000 horses were also killed. The problem, in 1066, 1863 and today is human nature, not the tools employed.

Helmke’s claim that the 1994-2004 Clinton Gun Ban’s 10-round magazine limit was “effective” is easily disproved nonsense. It’s hard to imagine what Helmke means by “effective,” unless he counts as effective inconveniencing and annoying the law abiding while not in any way hampering criminals. My co-blogger Bob Owen’s recent article (see the link at the beginning of this article) on the Columbine killers—who would want their names mentioned here—eloquently makes that point. There are two primary reasons the gun ban was allowed to sunset: Congressional Democrats learned through bitter experience that the issue was electoral suicide, and after a decade under the joys of Progressive gun ban fantasies, no evidence could be found, or even plausibly manufactured, to indicate that any part of the law--of which the magazine capacity limit was a crown jewel--had any meaningful, positive effect on reducing crime or in any way improving public safety.

Helmke engages in additional sophistry. “Military style ammunition” is not, in fact, what is commonly in widespread civilian use. True military ammunition can be dangerous for civilian use because of its over-penetrating properties. Machine guns have never been banned in America, merely tightly regulated, and incidents of their criminal misuse are essentially nonexistent. There is no such thing as a “cop-killer” bullet, nor have “plastic guns” ever existed. They are figments of the fevered gun banner imagination, outright lies, inventions out of whole cloth meant to play on the emotions and gullibility of an uninformed public. The public can hardly be said to agree on the necessity of banning things that don’t exist and have never been banned. Arguing for a limitation on magazine capacity with nonexistent and false examples is, to the informed and rational, less than convincing.

(2) THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT: Limiting magazine capacity, so the argument goes, would limit the number of victims that could be shot before a shooter had to change magazines, giving bystanders (unarmed, of course) the chance to attack and disarm the shooter. This is likewise nonsense. While it is true that with, say, a 30 round magazine, one can potentially fire thirty rounds in a shorter time than someone armed with two magazines of 15-round capacity, the difference is tactically negligible.

Semi-automatic pistol magazine changes done by the skilled take as little as one second. Even those with only average skills can change magazines in 3-6 seconds. The same is true for revolvers, which commonly hold only six rounds. With widely available and commonly used speed loaders (inexpensive plastic devices shaped like a revolver cylinder that allow all six cartridges to be simultaneously inserted into the cylinder), revolvers can be reloaded within 2-8 seconds, again, dependent upon the skill level of the operator. Bob has posted several revealing posts and videos that clearly illustrate this reality (see the links at the beginning of this article). The point is that the time required for magazine changes is practically insufficient to allow effective intervention by bystanders who would most likely find themselves running toward a shooter just as he finished inserting a fresh magazine and closed the slide--not a good place to be. And if Helmke and the rest of those who would ban all firearms had their way, all possible bystanders would be disarmed.

In Arizona, the shooter was reportedly overwhelmed not because of the time required for a magazine change. He did—according to some accounts--make a successful magazine change, but his weapon malfunctioned on the second magazine and he apparently lacked the skill to clear it. An alternate possibility is that he didn’t fully insert the second magazine and it dropped to the pavement--there are reports of a magazine on the ground and of a bystander seizing one of his magazines at some point--but it’s impossible to know for sure with currently available information. That, and the very close proximity of witnesses--he apparently walked into the middle of a crowd and started shooting--made it possible to disarm and restrain him without additional injuries. With proper training, all malfunctions to which semi-automatic pistols are susceptible can be cleared in one to four seconds. In short, those who overpowered the shooter--who would surely want his name to be mentioned here--were not only brave, but lucky.

However, a shooter can eliminate all of these problems by doing as the shooter at Virginia Tech--who would also like to have had his name mentioned--did by simply employing multiple loaded weapons. That killer used two handguns, a Glock 19 (as did the Arizona killer) in 9mm, and a Walther P22, a .22 caliber handgun with a 10 round magazine. Instantly available in those two handguns, without reloading, were 27 rounds. By simultaneously employing two handguns, one can fire 30 or more rounds even faster than a single handgun with a 30 round magazine.

Anti-gunners would not want it to be known that the killer could easily have done as much--or more--damage with an improvised bomb, by driving an SUV into the crowd, or through a variety of other methods it would be best not to publicize. Consider too that what gun banners call “large capacity magazines,” are usually those specifically designed for a given handgun and are, as such, magazines in common, every day use, in no way special or unusual. Such magazines are not considered “large capacity” by their manufacturers or by those who understand and own firearms. The AR-15, for example, perhaps the most ubiquitous semi-automatic, intermediate cartridge rifle in America, has a standard magazine of 30 rounds. Manufacturers do manufacture magazines of lesser capacity, but over the years, the 30 round magazine has become standard. “Large,” like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

While most incidents of civilian shootings involve relatively few rounds, there are certainly circumstances where a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds can save, and has saved, innocent lives. Citizens, up to two millions times each year, use firearms to stop criminal attacks, usually without firing a shot. A group of criminals sizing up a woman in a parking garage late at night would surely take into account the 15 round magazine of her handgun as she drew her weapon. The practical--as opposed to theoretical--case for limiting magazine capacity simply does not exist.

(3) THE LEGAL ARGUMENT: One of the facts that must surely be most grating to Helmke and certain Congressional Democrats is the outcome of the Heller and McDonald cases. From 1994-2004, the state of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence was unsettled. The Supreme Court had never definitively ruled on the meaning and scope of the 2nd Amendment. Helmke, and those in tune with him, constantly declared that the 2nd Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Heller and McDonald cases conclusively established that the right to keep and bear arms is without question a fundamental, individual right that does apply to the states and that extends to firearms in common civilian use, which would surely include semi-automatic handguns, revolvers, and most semi-automatic rifles that resemble their military cousins such as the AR-15. These decisions have taken considerable wind out of the sails of anti-gunners, and all but the most virulently and irrationally anti-gun Congressmen have shown little interest in running headfirst into what is now far more clearly a constitutional and electoral buzz saw.

It is not just the two decisions that worry gun-banners, but their non-enumerated, implications. Admittedly, the full scope of this fundamental right has not yet been absolutely delineated. Unquestionably, one may keep commonly available firearms, including handguns, in one’s home, and this surely includes the magazines, ammunition and related accessories in common, lawful use. Still in some flux is the issue of bearing firearms, though the twin decisions--to say nothing of common sense--imply that one cannot meaningfully exercise the right without the ability to carry firearms--not only in the home--in some substantive way. All but two states--Illinois and Wisconsin--allow some form of concealed carry, with 38 currently having “shall issue” systems where qualified applicants may not be denied a concealed carry permit. It is highly likely that Wisconsin, having recently elected a Republican majority legislature and Republican governor, will soon join the other 38.

The experience in all of these concealed carry states is consistent: Those who are willing to apply, go through rigorous vetting and training and pay substantial costs, are far more law-abiding than the general public. Their permits are suspended or revoked primarily for minor technical violations of the law such as accidentally carrying a handgun into a prohibited location. Such revocations commonly comprise only a hundredth or thousandth of a single percent of all licensees in those states.

Researchers such as economist Dr. John Lott and others have found that concealed carry states have uniformly experienced drops in violent crime, and anti-gun predictions of gunfights over shopping carts and at fender benders have failed to materialize. Even partisan anti-gun researchers have, after mighty labors, been able to say no more than that concealed carry has produced no measurable effect on crime. In this field of study, they are in the decided minority.

If the right to keep and bear arms is truly an individual right and the plain words of the 2nd Amendment retain their equally plain meaning, arms may certainly be bourn outside the confines of the home. The right to self-defense, and its necessity, cannot be said to begin and end at one’s front door. The positive American experience with concealed carry is ubiquitous and supports the rationality of concealed carry using commonly available weapons and their component parts--such as the magazines designed for them--and accessories. Restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right only if a compelling state interest can be clearly demonstrated, and it’s clear that no such interest adheres.

Ah, but the Constitution would prevent such restrictions? Ideally yes, but if Mr. Obama is able to appoint several Supreme Court justices, the ideological balance of the court would be swayed from those who wish to interpret the law as written, while considering the historical record which faithfully reflects the intentions of the Founders, to those who see the Constitution as a mere impediment to desirable Progressive policies. Justice Stephen Breyer, who typifies this liberty destructive mindset, was discussed in my recent PJM article (see the link at the beginning of this article).

(4) THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: Slippery slope arguments can be irrationally alarmist. Yet, considering the nature of those who wish to impose such restrictions, including their long records of deception, misdirection and hyperbole, this particular slippery slope is all too real. For those willing to take the time to conduct a bit of research, it’s easy to find the statements, oral and written, of gun banners, which reveal their unmistakable, ultimate goal of complete bans and even confiscation of all firearms. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) for example, said on February 5, 1995, on 60 Minutes, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.” In this statement, Feinstein committed the stereotypical DC Beltline gaffe: She accidentally told the truth, the truth most other anti-gunners are usually careful to keep under wraps.

Why allow 10 round magazines? Does this indicate that gun banners are comfortable with allowing lunatics to shoot 11 (10 +one round in the chamber) people before reloading? And if ten rounds is good, wouldn’t any other arbitrary, lower number, such as six or even one, be better? Gun banner strategy has always been incremental. Their internal documents, which from time to time surface, reveal that they have always intended to get whatever restrictions they could manage, by any means necessary, as transitional steps on the way to complete bans and confiscation. Those wondering about the consequences of honest citizens being deprived of firearms need conduct only a bit of research into the experience of the British and Australians--who have no 2nd Amendment or anything like it--to understand the deadly consequences of such policies.

Two recent anti-gun maneuvers, designed to circumvent Congress and the law, serve to illustrate the point. In July, 2010 the Center For Biological Diversity petitioned the EPA to ban all lead ammunition. Lead is an essential component in all bullets. Ban lead and you ban shooting; this is an old anti-gun tactic. Despite the fact that the EPA had no such power, and that ammunition was excluded--by law--from such attempts, the Obama EPA attempted an end run around the Constitution and the Congress. Fortunately, publicity and other pressure caused the EPA to back off--for the time being.

Also in 2010, BATFE Special Agent in charge of the Chicago Field Division Andrew Travers was nominated by President Obama to head the agency. Travers has a long anti-gun record, including the kind of blatant exaggeration and outright deception about weapons and their characteristics common in anti-gun advocacy organizations. With Travers as the head of the BATFE, substantial under-the-radar harm could, and almost certainly would, be done to the rights of Americans. Such attempts to circumvent the law and Congress by regulation are fast becoming a defining characteristic of the Obama Administration. As this is being written, the disposition of Travers’ appointment is unknown.

Ultimately the slippery slope to the elimination of individual freedom always begins with self-appointed elites assuming the power to determine what each individual “needs.” In the strictest sense, most people don’t need firearms. But then again, most people don’t need fire extinguishers either--until the unexpected moment that they do--and at that moment, they need one immediately, badly, and nothing else will do. So it is with firearms, in or out of the home.

Allowing the elite to begin by choosing how many rounds may be carried in magazines seems--to some--a small matter. After all, that doesn’t absolutely eliminate handguns. But it is a foot in the door, the door to the eventual elimination of a fundamental American right. If government has the power to allow citizens only 10 rounds why not five? If minimizing casualties at mass shootings is the goal, why not allow citizens only one magazine of five rounds? And if one magazine of five rounds is “effective,” why wouldn’t single shot handguns be even more “effective” for “public safety?” And after declaring such policy to be “effective,” why wouldn’t doing away with magazines entirely be best? And when guns able to fire single rounds are inevitably found to be ineffective anyway, who really needs them? After all, no one really needs a handgun, with the exception of criminals who will always be able to obtain whatever they think they need because they have a significant advantage over the law-abiding: As criminals, they don’t obey the law, any law.

So. A magazine limit “restriction” will have no effect on public safety. It will not deter or affect criminals. It makes life more dangerous for the law-abiding. It will not, in any reasonable, practical way, reduce the potential danger posed by lunatics who want to commit mass murder. It would arguably violate the Constitution as well as tramp on state’s rights. And it would certainly put America on the slippery slope to outright gun bans and confiscation, particularly if Mr. Obama was able to upset the ideological balance of the Supreme Court such that the 2nd Amendment was left in place, but rendered meaningless. Other than all of this, it’s a great idea.

When Americans give up the ability to choose what are no more than common, everyday firearm parts and accessories, it is a short path indeed to more and more “restriction” and less and less freedom. This is what the enemies of freedom intend. This is their reason for being, and they believe they have an opportunity, an opportunity which may last only another two years, to achieve as much as possible. Perhaps they’re right, but only if law abiding Americans who wish to continue to exercise the most fundamental right, the right to preserve their lives and the lives of those they love, and who also hope to preserve freedom against destructive change, are willing to give up that right, round by round and accessory by accessory, starting with handgun magazines.

If 1994 Magazine Ban Democrats Want to Bring Back Was In Effect, More Could Have Died in Tucson

As a group, politicians seem utterly unable to consider the "law of unintended consequences." They are quite good at reflexively throwing a new law up to address past events, but rarely consider the effects their laws will actually have.

A prime example is the magazine ban provisions of the 1994 Crime Bill. Most people remember the Ban on Scary-Looking Cosmetic Features and a ban on manufacturing magazines of more than ten rounds, but the media forgets that the immediate and unexpected reaction to that law was that gun manufacturers responded by making handguns limited to 10-round magazines as small as possible. The result was an entirely new class of subcompact handguns that packs a considerable amount of firepower into a much more concealable package. This gave concealed carry permit holders far more choices, and increased the possibility that they would leave home armed.

Increasing the number of Americans going armed in public was the exact opposite of the intention of those that passed the 1994 Crime bill, but that was the direct result.

The same politicians have not learned, and are now proposing that they bring back that flawed and ineffective law. They don't seem to grasp that the law they would resurrect very well would have made the carnage in Tucson far worse than it always was.

Anti-gun groups and the media were quick to seize upon the fact that Jared Loughner was able to empty a 33-round magazine in a matter of seconds. What most didn't tell you is precisely why his rampage ended.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik shed more light on how the gun was secured during the shooting. A woman grabbed a magazine of ammunition away from the shooter. The shooter, according to Dupnik, was able to grab another magazine - but the spring in it failed. As the shooter's second magazine failed, two men were able to subdue the shooter until law enforcement arrived.

Detachable firearm magazines are typically composed of four parts:

• the magazine body
• the baseplate
• the follower
• the spring

The more cartridges a magazine holds, the longer the magazine body must be and the longer the spring must travel. This increased movement means that larger magazines are generally more prone to failure.

This appears to be what occurred in Tucson.

It now appears that Loughner's second 33-round magazine suffered some sort of failure. If he had only the ten-round magazines that some politicians would force upon us, the odds are that he would have had to change magazines more times, but that takes just a second. Literally.

Of course, many people take longer to change magazines. For example, I don't have the time to practice regularly as I should, so it takes me 2-4 seconds.

The citizens that disarmed Jared Loughner had the chance to do so because his extended magazine failed, and he didn't know how to clear it. That gave them the time needed to make their move. If he had ten-round magazines—like those Eric Harris used to such devastating effect at Columbine in a firearm designed to comply with the Crime Bill—the number of dead and wounded could have been far, far higher.

Laws have unintended consequences. If Congress wants felons to have more reliable firearms, reinstating the 10-round magazine ban would be the most effective way to do it.

WaPo: We Know Precisely How to Stop Massacres

The Washington Post has, err, posted an unsigned op-ed calling for the reinstatement of the Scary-Looking Cosmetic Features Ban provision of the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill. You may know it better as the "assault weapons ban," but my description is more factually accurate.

The Post claims that as the ban sunset in 2004, it was just becoming effective. That's quite a bit of a stretch, and certainly not an opinion founded upon empirical data. It is a claim that would not stand up to even a cursory pass by someone familiar with the scientific method. Despite this, they confidently claim:

Jared Lee Loughner appears to be a deeply disturbed young man who should never have been able to obtain a weapon of any kind, let alone the kind that easily transforms a lone gunman into a mass murderer. The data from Virginia show that the federal ban worked. Lawmakers should not wait for another Tucson-like tragedy to resurrect this common-sense law.

They strongly assert throughout the article that reinstating the ban would prevent mass murder. The ban, in their memories, was mass-murder repellent.

Let me introduce you to the Hi-Point 995 carbine.

All you really need to know about it for the moment is that it was designed during the Scary-Looking Cosmetic Features Ban, and was designed from the beginning to use ten-round magazines.

I'll let you go to Wikipedia for the full description of this particular firearm if you are interested in reading up upon it in more detail.

As the Post said, "Lawmakers should not wait for another Tucson-like tragedy to resurrect this common-sense law." They are so right.

We need all guns to be as safe as the Hi-Point 955.

Here's another photo of the in-every-way Post-approved Hi-Point 995.

It has been rather tightly cropped, though you can see it more detail at this page if you really must.

The owner of this particular Hi Point 995 used only Post-approved ten-round magazines in this firearm developed during the ban.

To be specific, the shooter used ten of the 13 Post-approved ten-round magazines in his possession, firing this ban-developed firearm a total of 96 politically-correct times during the April 20, 1999 rampage through Columbine High School.

I'm glad the Post is so cock-sure that reinstating a failed law will save lives.

Me, I have my doubts.

Marcotte The Latest in Long Line of Leftists Pushing Gun Control After Tucson

I really try not to ready anything by Mandy Marcotte if I can help it. Her worldview is generally overshadowed by a pervading anger and her reasoning, such as it is, is warped and generally illogical. Unfortunately, I ran across her latest post in the U.K. Guardian, an appropriate location for an America-hating leftist, as she whined about America's refusal to conform to what she views as sensible gun control.

As usual, the rant quickly broke down into another shrill feminist rant against penises, which according to Marcotte, are now and have always been the bane of human existence. That particular complaint is of course never worth addressing with someone so steeped in illogic, but the following claim was worth destroying:

It's stunningly obvious that if gun laws were even slightly more restrictive – if background checks were more thorough, if semi-automatic weapons were more restricted, if you couldn't buy 30-round magazines – we would have more survivors of this attack today. Or we may have never had an attack at all.

Based upon past experience reading her half-literate rants, when Marcotte claims that something is "stunningly obvious," you can know for a fact that the next comment she utters will be completely incorrect. This is typically because her fixed and intolerant worldview simply makes her incapable of recognizing that much of what she "knows" is a fallacy, or because her powerful prejudices make it impossible for her to see any other side of an issue.

More extensive background checks on handguns, restrictions on semi-automatic firearms, and reduced capacity magazines would not guarantee few casualties when a lone gunman attacks. If anything, historical fact teach us just the opposite.

Gunmen who plot these attacks are unhinged mentally, but they are not stupid, and the tend to plan their attacks with the goal of generating as many fatalities as possible, as efficiently as they can.

Loughner probably chose the Glock 19 after considering a number of factors, including it's relatively compact size, controllability, ubiquity, and affordability. Glocks are among the most common handguns in America, and the Glock 19 one of the most popular variants of the most popular 9x19mm centerfire pistol caliber on the planet. The Glock also has factory-made 30+ round magazines that can be purchased as an aftermarket accessory. These facts are most likely what led Jared Loughner to select the weapon he did.

Marcotte makes the unwarranted assumption that if he did not have access to this kind of weapon, with this capacity magazine, that his rampage could not have been so bloody. This is an opinion based on her particular weakness of incredible ignorance compounded by insufferable arrogance.

Let us presume for the sake of argument that Marcotte and her fellow progressive/socialist/Marxist allies had her way, and laws were in place to keep Jared Loughner from purchasing a semi-automatic handgun or high-capacity magazines, and those laws functioned completely as designed. Let us presume that those laws kept Loughner from purchasing handguns of any kind. What would be the likely outcome?

Rather obviously, it would mean that Loughner would have had to find an alternative weapon with which to carry out his intended goal of assassinating Gabrielle Giffords and as many random bystanders as possible. Loughner's most natural next choice would either be a rifle or shotgun, or constructing a crude bomb.

If he filled the trunk of his aging muscle car with propane canisters and fashioned a crude detonator, he could have emulated the successes of your typical terrorist car-bomber, killing dozens, wounding perhaps hundreds.

But what if he went the "easier" route, and went with the sort of common long arms that even radicals such as Marcotte would be forced to allow, such as bolt-action deer rifles, and 12-gauge pump shotguns?

Well, then you would have a gunman with weapons with much greater range and far greater destructive power per bullet, which was the recipe for disaster that Charles Whitman brought to the bell tower of the University of Texas, Austin in 1963, where he killed 16 and wounded 32 in 1966.

Marcotte doesn't seem to quite grasp the law of unintended consequences, nor does she know enough about the subject matter she has pretended to master to know that when you take away less lethal, shorter range weapons such as pistols, your invariably push would be-shooters towards longer-range, more powerful weapons that keep any would be Samaritans at a much greater distance... or to devices with far more capacity for carnage, such as crude but brutally effective bombs.

Marcotte's British readers know the terror of those devices, with the Tube Bombings killing 52 and wounding roughly 700.

Would-be elites such as Marcotte love to delude themselves into thinking that they are intelligent enough to control their fellow man.

Predictably, they have never been right.

No Winners. Just One Fewer Losers.

Surprisingly (to me at least) the jury has acquitted a gun fair organizer in the the death of a child that shot himself to death with a machine pistol.

A Massachusetts jury acquitted a gun fair organizer of manslaughter in the 2008 death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi submachine gun.

A Hampden Superior Court jury found former Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury not guilty on Friday of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Christopher Bizilj (buh-SEEL') of Ashford, Conn. The charge carried up to 20 years on prison.

Fleury was also cleared of three charges of furnishing machine guns to minors.

The jury returned the verdict on its first full day of deliberations. It got the case on Thursday after closing arguments.

Fleury's firearms training company co-sponsored the annual Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, about 10 miles west of Springfield. Christopher was shooting a 9 mm micro Uzi at some pumpkins on Oct. 26, 2008, when the gun kicked back and shot him in the head.

Since first hearing about the case in October of 2008, my first thought was always, "what kind of idiot parent puts a submachine gun in the hands of a child?"

In this case, it was Dr. Charles Bizilj, the boy's father. You would thing a trauma room doctor would have enough presence of mid and enough sense not to arm a child with a weapon he could have no reasonable expectation of controlling, but this apparently wasn't the case.

Fleury won't spend the next 20 years in jail, which is something, but the family has still lost a son and the father has his own stupidity to blame. It's a harsh sentence for a mistake, and one I would think that is almost unbearable.

Parents, be smart with your kids and machine guns. I would have thought it didn't need to be said...

Ever the Gun-Grabber, Lautenberg Lies About Failed Gun Law in CNN Op-Ed

It seems all I have done the past several days is "correct" obvious attempts by the leftist media/political machine to create false narratives about the gun and magazines used by Jared Lee Loughner in his deadly assault last Saturday, and when I haven't been dealing with that, I've been dealing with pundits and politicians lying about the failed 1994 "assault weapons ban" that expired in 2004.

To hear them tell it, the ban kept blood from flowing in the streets and ended threats of gun violence. That is a neat trick, as the ban did not radically affect the violent crime rate during its entire existence, nor did violent crime spike as a result of the ban expiring. To those with knowledge of the ban's actually language and effects, this is less than surprising. After all, the ban did not in any way address the lethality, range, rate of fire or accuracy of any firearms. It was nothing more or less than a ban on the name of certain firearms, along with a list of cosmetic features that bore no relation to how well firearms functioned. A perfect example of a "banned" gun was the Tec-9 pistol.

Demonized by liberal gun-grabbers as the kind of "assault weapon" favored by criminals, it underwent utterly cosmetic changes—the elimination of the barrel shroud and threaded muzzle—and was out on the street as the AB-10 the very next day. Gun-control advocates claimed victory, but accomplished precisely nothing in terms of saving lives or reducing crime.

So it goes with Senatorial vulture Frank Lautenberg, who wants to use the bodies of Jared Loughner's victims as pulpit to press forward once again with gun control schemes. His editorial at CNN today is replete with half-truths and lies, with this being the most objectionable.

If the shooter didn't have access to the high-capacity magazine that he used, he would have stopped to reload sooner and lives might have been saved.

Loughner's magazine was attached to a 9 mm Glock 19 semi-automatic handgun, which is the preferred weapon of deranged madmen. In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho used the same model in the Virginia Tech shooting spree, which claimed 32 lives.

The Senator has carelessly libeled hundreds of thousands of police officers, military servicemen and women, and law-abiding citizens around the world that rely upon Glock pistols, and like all would-be tyrants, he would use the actions of a loathsome individual to justify his attempt to usurp the freedoms of the rest of society.

He then goes on to argue:

This is common-sense legislation, and there is no justification for keeping these large-capacity devices on the market.

The sad irony is that high-capacity magazines were illegal from 1994 until 2004 when the federal assault weapons ban was in place. In addition to dangerous gun magazines, this groundbreaking law also outlawed AK-47s, Uzis and other semi-automatic firearms.

These are the kinds of guns soldiers used on faraway battlefields; they don't belong in our communities.

The unintended irony of his pronouncement that such magazines are suitable for military and hence militia use is not doubt lost upon him, but that is dwarfed by the magnitude of the lie he continues to spread.

These so-called "high capacity" magazines were never illegal to buy, sell, trade, possess or use during the entire life of the ban. They were freely available for commercial sale, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, were bought, sold, and used.

The law banned the import of foreign high capacity magazines, and marked new magazines manufactured after the law went into effect for law enforcement use only. All previously manufactured magazines were completely legal, even those thousands of brand-new magazines sitting in packages in the warehouses of wholesalers and retailers, which were never in serious threat of being depleted.

Likewise, "AK-47s, Uzis and other semi-automatic firearms" were never in short supply during the laughably labeled "ban." You could walk into gun stores across the breadth of America and pick up AR-15 or AK-pattern rifles, or many other semi-automatic firearms. Manufacturers simply shrugged their heads at the absurdity of the law passed, and went about releasing the same functional weapons, with minor and superfluous cosmetic differences.

The simple fact of the matter is that the petty tyrannies that men like Lautenberg desire to impose on others merely restricts the rights of the lawful, at the expense of liberty.

That, of course, is far harder to sell than his fiction that he's done something worthwhile in the past that he'd like to replicate.

After all, who would buy the claims of the honest liberal politician proclaiming, "I want to re-impose upon you a law that failed before?"

Lautenberg Reminds Us Why The Founders Want Us Armed

A US Senator announced Monday he would soon present legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition clips after a gunman used one in an attempted assassination of a US lawmaker over the weekend.

"The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market," Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg said in a statement.

The Senator from New Jersey is partially correct (though they are magazines, not clips, which are something completely different). The standard-capacity and high-capacity magazines of semi-automatic firearms does enable shooters to have a formidable amount of firepower.

But they most certainly should be on the market, and in the hands of every responsible adult.

Provided such devices, adequate arms, ammunition, and fortitude, even just one person can mow down a crowd... or keep a lynch mob at bay, send rapists to the morgue, stop would-be tyrants, another coup d'etat, or genocide.

Such weapons systems serve as a great equalizer. The Founders intended arms to be used by a "well-regulated" militia comprised of patriotic citizens to keep would-be tyrants at bay, whether those tyrants were Redcoat tyrants of centuries ago, or the mentors and fellow travelers of a sitting President that plotted an American holocaust.

The Founders would applaud rank-and-file Americans having AR-15 carbines, AK-pattern rifles, and yes, semi-automatic pistols with what the gun control industry has chosen to call "high-capacity" magazines. Further, they wanted us to have these arms so that would-be tyrants—the very same legislators attempting to now ban magazines and firearms—could be kept from using the power of the elected elite and the color of law to run roughshod over our freedoms.

We have the Second Amendment not to protect us from wild animals or protect our right to plink at cans, but to keep the powerful and corrupt from becoming tyrannical.This fact is offensive to those now intent on imposing their will upon the populace, and why they push for "sensible" gun control—civilian disarmament—at every turn.

Why Magazine Limit Laws Don't Save Lives

Gun control advocates are hoping to use the bodies of those killed by Jared Loughner as a podium to spread their views. New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy—Democrats all—are using the tragedy to rush forward a ban on magazines of more than ten rounds, claiming that by limiting the number of cartridges held in each magazine, the number of casualties in shootings would be reduced.

Really?

Here is a magazine change of a Glock 19 pistol (the kind used in the shooting in Tucson and at Virginia Tech) by a shooter with average skill.

He fires two shots, drops the empty magazine, reloads, and fires two more shots within three seconds. That includes shooting two rounds from each magazine, not just the magazine change, which takes roughly a second. Such results are not atypical, and skilled competition shooters are even faster.

The bills being proposed by these freedom-hating lawmakers aren't about guns.

They're about control.

Here, In Reality

A lot of memes are dying a bitter death as more information comes out about Jared Loughner's rampage at Gabrielle Giffords' townhall. Despite dishonest attempts by a corrupt media and their left wing allies to blame conservatives and the Tea Party movement for the shootings, the truth has emerged.

Loughner—according to those who knew him in high school and college—was very liberal when he was younger, but began displaying behavior that became increasingly erratic, and his obsession with Giffords began before the Tea Party ever existed.

Another meme is also suffering its downfall in the wake of the massacre in Tuscon. For years, left-wing gun control advocates have claimed that concealed carry laws allowing the general population to carry arms would result in carry permit holders gunning down each other and the public at large in the panic of a violent episode. Well, a concealed carry permit holder was at the scene of Saturday's attack.

He helped subdue the shooter. So much for another leftist meme.

Long-time CY reader Bill Smith noted via email:

According to the above piece, it seems that there WAS a private, armed citizen on scene with a pistol who, in the midst of the chaos, managed to keep his head, assess the immediate situation, and not draw his weapon.

That is, he did NOT become a "cowboy" even though he was -- as some idiot saw fit to point out elsewhere about this shooting -- within some sort of significant distance from the OK Corral -- and start blazing away with his weapon.

He did not even draw his weapon.

He, did, however, start running TOWARD the shooting.

He became intimately involved in the struggle, and saw what he thought was the shooter holding the gun. Instead of using his own weapon to shoot the shooter, he used his considerable size, and strength to "[force] the muzzle to the ground." He was then made aware by others -- and was sufficiently in control of his own faculties to immediately understand -- that this was NOT the shooter. At about the same time, the innocent man dropped the gun, and our armed citizen decided to stand on it, and try to get to the police on his cell phone.

"Zamudio [ -- our armed citizen -- ] said he never pulled his gun out. He saw that the slide on the shooter's gun appeared to be empty and decided the shooter was not in a position to fire."

"I don't know about being called a hero," he said. "I feel like everybody should think that's what you are supposed to do in a situation like this - go and help," Zamudio said.

My question is, does our armed citizen, Mr. Zamudio, fit the picture so often painted of armed citizens by the Brady Campaign? Or, don't many of us recognize him from thousands of shooting ranges, gun clubs, matches, hunting camps, and classes around the country, who just enjoy their sport legally and responsibly, and pass along its values to younger shooters coming up, because that's how we were taught when we learned to shoot when we were kids. For the present purposes you may want to read these rules starting with # 4, but it seems that our armed citizen had all four of these rules present clearly, and simultaneously in his head from the moment he strapped on his weapon that morning on his way to his Mom's art show:

RULE 1: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

The only exception to this occurs when one has a weapon in his hands and he has personally unloaded it for checking. As soon as he puts it down, Rule 1 applies again.

RULE 2: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY

You may not wish to destroy it, but you must be clear in your mind that you are quite ready to if you let that muzzle cover the target. To allow a firearm to point at another human being is a deadly threat, and should always be treated as such.

RULE 3: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

This we call the Golden Rule because its violation is responsible for about 80 percent of the firearms disasters we read about.

RULE 4: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

You never shoot at anything until you have positively identified it. You never fire at a shadow, or a sound, or a suspected presence. You shoot only when you know absolutely what you are shooting at and what is beyond it.

The vast majority of those citizens that choose to go armed do so to be a benefit to society, not just themselves. Mr. Zamudio isn't atypical.

He's simply one of us.

Text of the So-Called "Assault Weapons Ban" That Liberal Journalists Can't Seem to Find or Understand

Consider this a public service (HTML) (PDF).

TITLE XI--FIREARMS

Subtitle A--Assault Weapons

SEC. 110101. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the `Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act'.

SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

`(B) any firearm that--

`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

`(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(iii) is an antique firearm;

`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

`(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

`(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

`(iv) Colt AR-15;

`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

(c) PENALTIES-

(1) VIOLATION OF SECTION 922(v)- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking `or (q) of section 922' and inserting `(r), or (v) of section 922'.

(2) USE OR POSSESSION DURING CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME- Section 924(c)(1) of such title is amended in the first sentence by inserting `, or semiautomatic assault weapon,' after `short-barreled shotgun,'.

(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS- Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured.'.

SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(a), is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

`(3) This subsection shall not apply to--

`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.

`(4) If a person charged with violating paragraph (1) asserts that paragraph (1) does not apply to such person because of paragraph (2) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof to show that such paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of a serial number as described in section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, shall be a presumption that the large capacity ammunition feeding device is not subject to the prohibition of possession in paragraph (1).'.

(b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.

(c) PENALTY- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(c)(1), is amended by striking `or (v)' and inserting `(v), or (w)'.

(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(d) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: `A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured or imported after the effective date of this subsection, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe.'.

There is of course more to the bill, and this section of the bill, but this is the language that is relevant to the MSM's erroneous claims that the Glock 19 and the magazines used by Loughner would have been illegal if this ban were still in place.

Clearly, Glock handguns were never banned in any capacity, and higher-than-standard capacity magazines such as used in Loughner's atrocity were legal to own, buy, sell and possess during the lifetime of the ban. It was only illegal to manufacture new magazines after the law went into effect.

Predictable: Gail Collins Recycles Brady Campaign Lies

Dear Gail Collins,

You are entitled to have your own opinions about firearms, but you are not entitled to your own reality. That means you should not parrot the speech of people with a vested political and financial interest in lying, like, say, a spokesperson for a gun control organization who is paid to pass along absurdities such as this.

If Loughner had gone to the Safeway carrying a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms, Giffords would probably still have been shot and we would still be having that conversation about whether it was a sane idea to put her Congressional district in the cross hairs of a rifle on the Internet.

But we might not have lost a federal judge, a 76-year-old church volunteer, two elderly women, Giffords's 30-year-old constituent services director and a 9-year-old girl who had recently been elected to the student council at her school and went to the event because she wanted to see how democracy worked.

Loughner's gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is "not suited for hunting or personal protection," said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. "What it's good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly."

First, Collins' is factually wrong when she asserts that a Glock 19 is not "a regular pistol." It is perhaps the single most "regular" pistol in the United States, being one of the family of the most popular sidearms purchased and used by civilians, military and law enforcement around the globe, and it uses the most common centerfire pistol caliber in the world (9x19mm). It is perhaps possible for Collins to be more wrong in her characterization of the Glock 19, but I fail to see how.

Then we have Paul Helmke, of the Brady Campaign, who claims that the Glock 19 is "not suited for hunting or personal protection."

He is perhaps half right. I don't know of anyone who would advocate the use of a compact 9mm pistol for hunting, but that doesn't mean it could not be done. It would be too small to take big game humanely, and is generally regarded as too large of a bullet for small game such as rabbit or squirrel, but I've heard the occasional anecdotal stories of mid-sized handguns being used to dispatch predators such as coyotes and feral dogs.

Helmke is of course laughably dishonest when he claims the Glock 19 "is not suited... for personal protection."

Personal protection is the entire reason the Glock 19 was created!

It was conceived of, designed to be, and marketed as a personal protection handgun from the ground up. It is particularly well-suited for concealed carry by law enforcement and citizens, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, have been sold just to fit that role, just in the United States.

Perhaps it is too much to expect either competence or honesty from left-wig ideologues such as Collins and Helmke, but I do appreciate the fact that they don't even attempt to hide their dishonesty.

And the Parade of Idiots Continues...

As we discussed in some detail yesterday, the writers and editors of Salon are remarkably incompetent when it comes to fact checking their claims about the expired "federal ban on firearm cosmetics" (if we are to describe what the bill actually did).

Apparently the Village Voice is similarly staffed with writers and editors that simply can't be bothered read the actual law.

As Gail Collins points out in today's Times, the Saturday shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others -- six fatally -- at the shopping mall parking lot was deadlier than the gunfight at the O.K. Corral in nearby Tombstone. And Loughner never would've been able to buy his Glock with its extended clip if the Federal Assault Weapons Ban hadn't been allowed to sunset in 2004. Which means, as Collins writes, that if the 22-year-old had been limited to your standard assassin's pistol, we might well have lost a congresswoman, but "not a federal judge, a 76-year-old church volunteer, two elderly women, Gifford's 30-year-old constituent services director, and a 9-year-old girl who had recently been elected to the student council and went to the event because she wanted to see how democracy worked."

The Glock 19 used by Loughner was never banned by federal law, nor was the sale, ownership or possession of the aftermarket extended magazine that he used in the shooting. The only thing covered in the expired federal bill was the manufacture of new magazines after the law went into effect. Any new or used magazine made prior to the ban could be sold in retail stores, and in actuality, that is precisely what occurred. There was a shortage of standard capacity magazines for more obscure firearms, but standard capacity magazines and high capacity magazines like those used by Loughner were available for sale—quite legally—during the entire life of the ill-conceived law.

Salon Posts Completely False Article About Giffords Shooting

Some guy named Justin Elliott is claiming that the Glock 19 and magazines used in the Giffords shooting yesterday would have been banned by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

The only thing he got right in his article was the punctuation.

The semiautomatic handgun used in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen other people on Saturday would have been illegal to manufacture and difficult to purchase under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

According to police and media reports, the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, legally purchased a Glock 19 with a high-capacity magazine in November at a gun store in Tucson. Under the assault weapons ban, it was illegal to manufacture or sell new high capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds. The magazines used by Loughner had 31 rounds each, according to police.

Unfortunately for Elliott and the dolts he has for editors at Salon, his claims are almost entirely untrue.

The Glock 19 was completely legal and freely available during the entirety of the laughably ineffective law. It was never illegal to purchase, manufacture or own at any point, and Glock actually introduced 11 new models to the US market during the time Elliot claimed they were banned.

Likewise, the 31-round magazines used in the shooting have never been banned from civilian ownership, or commercial and retail sale. Only the manufacture of new magazines was banned during the time the law was in effect. Sale, ownership, possession and use was always perfectly legal as a federal matter.

Elliott's post isn't just wrong, it's embarrassingly wrong.

Update: Salon has since updated the article, and it's still wrong:

The high-capacity magazine of the semiautomatic pistol used in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen other people on Saturday would have been illegal to manufacture and difficult to purchase under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

According to police and media reports, the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, legally purchased a semiautomatic Glock 19 with a high-capacity magazine in November at a gun store in Tucson. Under the assault weapons ban, it was illegal to manufacture or sell new high-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds. The magazines used by Loughner had 31 rounds each, according to police.

Salon was embarrassed enough to partially correct the claim about the gun (without having the integrity to acknowledge their gross error), but is still completely incorrect in claiming that so-called "high-capacity" magazines were illegal to sell during the ban.

They most certainly were not.

Shooters could buy high capacity magazines—new or used—during the entire ban.

But Elliott still isn't done being incompetent, even in the revised article.

Such as this false claim, which still remains:

Between 1994 and 2004 when the assault weapons ban was in effect, gun manufacturers such as Glock could not market handguns with high-capacity magazines. If the ban were still in effect, it's less likely that Loughner could have obtained a gun with a high-capacity magazine. Stores could legally only sell used high-capacity magazines at that time, and new magazines could not be manufactured.

Manufacturers could indeed legally manufacture and market guns capable of using high capacity magazines during the entire life of the so-called ban. What they could not do is manufacture new high capacity magazines after the law went into effect.

Elliot is still incompetent, as are his editors. It is obvious that Joan Walsh's magazine is far more interested in misleading their readers and pushing a radical agenda than telling anything resembling the truth.

MIKE’S UPDATE:

There are a number of additional mistakes and misrepresentations in the article, as well as plainly misleading statements. Among them:

MISREPRESENTATION: “If Loughner had been using a traditional magazine, "it would have drastically reduced the number of shots he got off before he had to pause, unload and reload -- and he could have been stopped," Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, tells Salon.”

FACT: The standard Glock 19 magazine holds 15 rounds, With one round chambered, that’s a total of 16 rounds. With one additional magazine (Glocks are factory shipped with two magazines), a total of 31 rounds. To “unload,” one need only press the magazine release which causes an expended magazine to drop free from the magazine well and takes only a fraction of a second, or perhaps a bit longer than a second for an untrained operator. Inserting a loaded magazine and releasing the slide to chamber a round would commonly take no more than six seconds for an untrained operator. I have no idea what Vice considers a “traditional” magazine, but even if it was a Clinton ban magazine of only 10 rounds, the shooter would still have 21 readily accessible rounds. Vice is trying to suggest that there would be substantial time differential with “traditional” as opposed to “extended” magazines, but that differential would have been far less significant than he suggests. The best means of stopping the shooter would have been one or more honest citizens carrying their own weapons in the crowd, but the Brady Center opposes that as well. It’s tragic that none were apparently present.

MISTAKE: “State laws are also an issue....‘Even if folks had seen Loughner with the gun walking up to the congresswoman, it was perfectly legal until he started firing,’ Vice says.”

FACT: The applicable Arizona laws are:

“13-1202. Threatening or intimidating; classification
A. A person commits threatening or intimidating if the person threatens or intimidates by word or conduct:
1. To cause physical injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another; or...”

“13-1204. Aggravated assault; classification; definition
A. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203 under any of the following circumstances:
2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
B. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault by either intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person, intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury or knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure the person, and both of the following occur:”

13-1202 is a misdemeanor and 13-1204 is a felony offense. Vice could not be more wrong if he tried. “Loughner with the gun walking up to the congresswoman...” is violating both statutes, particularly if he had the weapon in his hand. The laws pertaining to self defense and use of deadly force would also have empowered any armed bystander to, at the very least, point their weapon at Loughner and challenge him. The second he began to raise his weapon toward anyone--arguably, particularly the congresswoman--he could have been immediately shot.

MISREPRESENTATION: “He [Vice] also notes that Glock pistols are particularly easy to fire, letting off rounds as quickly as the operator can pull the trigger. "They are very good at killing people quickly," he says.

FACT: Any handgun, revolver or semi-automatic pistol like a Glock, will fire “as quickly as the operator can pull the trigger.” Vice is suggesting that Glocks, apart from other types of firearms, are somehow uniquely adept at “killing people quickly.” This is nothing more than an attempt to demonize a tool and to mislead those not well acquainted with firearms. While Glocks are rugged, reliable handguns, they possess no unusual or unique “killing” abilities. No firearm does. It is more than a mere issue of semantics to observe that it was Loughner who killed six people, not the tool he used.

MISLEADING: “‘Our gun laws are so weak that someone who couldn't get into the military, who was kicked out of school, and who used drugs walked into a gun store and was able to immediately buy a semiautomatic weapon,’ he [Vice] says.”

FACT: Many people are not accepted for military service, some are kicked out of school, and many have used illegal drugs at one time or another, yet these are not, by themselves or together, a bar on possession of legal ownership of firearms, or even to driving, in any state. While the Brady Center has, over the years and under various names, tried to ban virtually all gun ownership by various devices, unless Vice is suggesting that anyone who has ever been unfit for military service, been ejected from school, or has used illegal drugs should be forever banned from buying a gun--this would require nationwide laws and a massive computerized registry--he is being particularly misleading here.

One of the supreme ironies and unintended consequences of the Clinton Gun Ban was that it actually inspired the design and manufacture of a variety of new, particularly concealable weapons and the foundation of a variety of manufacturers. It was Glock that led the way with the Glock 26 in 9mm, designed for the 10 rounds to which all newly manufactured magazines were then limited. Needless to say, the design was a runaway success and spawned many successful copies from other manufacturers.

Just Like Virginia Tech; CBS Spreads Lies to Further Their Gun Control Agenda

It pisses me off how the hacks in the MSM take every horrific shooting like the one today in Arizona to further their favored cause of gun control. Not only do they try to demonize and entire class of citizens (gun owners) and firearms (everything is "high-powered" or "high capacity" or an "assault weapon" or "military-style"), they also lie about the effect of gun laws they champion, claiming these seemingly magical laws would have prevented such a crime.

CBS is guilty of fabricating such a lie:

A source with knowledge of the gun involved in Saturday's shooting says the weapon used was a Glock 19 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

Importantly, the source said, the gun had a high capacity magazine that can hold up to 30 or more rounds, two to three times a normal magazine capacity; and witnesses said the magazine stuck out about 12 inches. The Glock website confirms that, reading that the standard magazine hold 15 rounds, while the high capacity magazine Loughner had can hold up to 33. One reports says the magazine was probably purchased separately.

The high capacity magazine was banned while the federal assault weapons ban was in place during the Clinton administration; the ban was allowed to expire during the Bush administration.

Any detachable magazine fed firearm--which includes the most common target rifles, hunting firearms, and the most common self-defense and sporting pistols--can use a "high-capacity" magazine. Someone simply needs to make it.

But the claim that such magazines were ever outlawed is an abject and bald-faced lie.

Magazines holding between 10-100 rounds were perfectly legal to buy, sell, possess, own, and shoot the entire time the so-called "federal assault weapons ban" was in place. They were available in every sporting good store that wanted to carry them, via catalog sales, or on the Internet, just as they are today.

The "ban" simply made it illegal to build new magazines during that time period, which affected the supply of magazines for many firearms very, very little. It simply made the less common and higher demand magazines a bit more expensive.

CBS knows this. They know they are selling a lie to a public reeling in shock from a horrible massacre.

And that is exactly what they intended to do, to further their political agenda.

Snow Makes Concealed Carry Illegal in North Carolina

It is difficult to hold the intellect of politicians in the proper disdain. As citizens, we hope that our elected officials are the best of us, or at the minimum, are as intelligent as we are.

Here in North Carolina, that is decidedly not the case. We've awoken to a rare covering of snow, and can expect a half-foot or more of it across much of the state. As a result of the winter wonderland, hundreds of thousands of our most law-abiding citizens are now potential felons.

North Carolinians have been plagued with Democrats in our state legislature for far too long, and one of the more ignorant bits of legislation they've passed is a law making it illegal for concealed carry permit holders to carry their firearms during any state of emergency declared by our elected officials.

It is an absurd law, by any measure. A coating of snow or ice or does not revoke the God-given rights recognized in our federal or state Constitutions, and yet the dim representatives of year's past have attempted to usurp these natural rights.

The 2010 elections have swept a Republican legislature into office, and gun owners in our fair state are determined that these an other restrictive laws passed by anti-gun Democrats are defeated. Freedom is not a weather-related phenomenon.

It's too bad past legislators lacked the common sense to understand that.

Any Gun Bloggers Going to the SHOT Show?

If so, UTM is interested in setting up a demo for you.

Justice Breyer Lays Down His Cards

Pajamas Media was kind enough to publish a piece I wrote about Fox News Sunday's interview with US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on December 11th. Justice Breyer revealed himself to be a stereotypical leftist believer in a "living, breathing, Constitution," which is essentially Progressive-speak for ignoring the Constitution in favor of implementing Progressive policies. The article may be read here.

Anybody Bought Ammo Here?

The Sportsman's Guide has been used by my family over the years for stuff like hunting boots and camping gear, but I also noticed they seem to have a decent selection of ammunition, at what seems to be reasonable prices.

I'm getting low on 9mm practice ammo, and am due for a carry ammo refresh as well.

Has anyone bought from them before? Are their shipping rates and shipping times as reasonable as their prices seem to be?

WaPo Reprises the "90% Lie", Whines for Selective, Ineffective BATF

The Washington Post rehashed the infamous and oft-debunked Mexican Gun Canard again this morning in a story they laughably call an "exclusive."

The only thing exclusive about this fabrication is that they are the only fools outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave still pushing it.

The foundation and the National Rifle Association aggressively challenge statistics that show 80 to 90 percent of the weapons seized in Mexico are first sold in the United States, calling the numbers highly inflated. After being criticized by the gun lobby, ATF stopped releasing such statistics this year.

"To suggest that U.S. gun laws are somehow to blame for Mexican drug cartel violence is a sad fantasy," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

Cox said guns are coming to Mexico from other Central American countries and from former Mexican soldiers who have U.S. weapons and are now working for the cartels.

ATF disagreed, saying the biggest factors are the high number of dealers along the border and the convenient location.

When the Post reporter claims that the "ATF disagreed," he doesn't speak for the entire agency, just a regional supervisor that is either pushing a political agenda or lacks the big picture. Either way, his superiors have overruled his opinion with facts for over a year.

The myth that legal guns sales in the United States are responsible for Mexican drug cartel violence took another serious blow last week when an ATF official testified in Congress that only eight percent of weapons recovered in Mexico came through licensed U.S. gun dealers.

This figure is far lower than the 90 percent claim made previously as an appeal to reinstate ineffective gun laws that expired in 2004. The claim — still active among the less informed or serially dishonest — officially became myth during congressional testimony last week when Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, revealed the eight percent figure, how it was calculated, and where the 90 percent myth arose from.

Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers.

The Post can't even get through their accompanying photo gallery without exposing their dishonesty; this FN MAG this South African Vector SS-77 machine gun certainly didn't come from a U.S. gun store.

Let's be clear: I am personally of the opinion that too many guns are heading south of the border from the United States, but the media and Administrations in both the U.S. and Mexico need to be honest. The number of guns imported from this country is dwarfed by the number of guns sold, stolen or given to the cartels by Mexican law enforcement and military sources, and from black market smuggling from Central and South America and Asia. You simply cannot get the machine guns and grenades the cartels favor in the United States. They come from corruption in Mexico and the same pipeline that bring in drugs from overseas.

The rest of the article is a complaint about just how dang hard it is for the ATF to prosecute criminals.

Bull.

You can give them all sorts of evidence, including pictures of felons with a gun in their hands, and they will actively fight against prosecuting them.

This article is about politics, not crime prevention.

Update: Per Big Country's expert eye, I've updated the post to correct the machine gun type in the photo. I await with baited breath for the media to explain how an American gun store is responsible for a weapon that cannot be sold on these shores.

Always Zero Your Weapon

As Cubachi notes, liberals are not going to be happy that Sarah Palin shot and killed a caribou during a hunt featured on Sarah Palin's Alaska. I'm not real happy, either.

It appears that the rifle she used had not been sighted in before the hunt, or was banged around enough to come off-zero. In any event, she shot high every time she fired thate weapon. In the end, she put the caribou down with a single shot from another weapon. This suggests the problem is the weapon, not the shooter.

Always be sure of your target, but also always be sure you are using a weapon sighted to hit your target. There may or may not be some political wisdom in that statement as well.

Ultimate Training Munitions

I had some private trigger-time with some of the cutting-edge training munitions just being deployed to the U.S. Army for close-quarters battle training.

Check it out at Bob's Gun Counter.

Me? Own A Gun? Article 2: Is Killing Justified?

The first article of this series ended with this paragraph:

“But let us assume that this article has, at least, persuaded you to the point that you are willing to tentatively concede that an individual, inalienable right of self defense is probably necessary. What then? The next installment of the series explores the legal, moral and spiritual issues revolving around taking the life of another, legally and illegally.”

IS KILLING MORALLY JUSTIFIED?

This is an ancient argument, an argument about which countless volumes have been written. I can only touch on a few of the salient points, but fortunately, for our purposes, that is all that is required. Since Western culture is built on the foundation of the Judaeo/Christian tradition, and America is, by and large a Christian nation (which tolerates, even embraces all faiths), I’ll focus on that tradition and its holy texts.

The Sixth Commandment, in the King James translation, says “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13 / Deuteronomy 5:17). It is the misunderstanding of this Commandment that has caused much confusion. The Bible--particularly in the Old Testament--makes clear, explicitly and implicitly, that killing is both justified and unjustified, and that unjustified killing is murder. In fact, more recent translations of the Bible use that word, the word closest to the correct translation of the Greek and Hebrew: “Thou shalt not murder.” It is this ancient distinction between justified and unjustified killing, between lawful and unlawful killing that is the foundation of our criminal justice system. Such a distinction requires one additional, vital, understanding: Each individual, each human life, has value and that life may not be taken except under the very narrow exceptions imposed by God’s law and man’s law, so long as it faithfully reflects God’s law in embodying the importance and value of each life.

The Bible also, in many ways, makes clear that killing is anticipated by God and is permitted when it is justified. Ecclesiastes 3 states: (1) “To every thing there is a season and a time to every purpose under the heaven: (3) A time to kill, and a time to heal...” And while the Bible enjoins believers to respect governmental authority because God allows it to exist, it makes clear that each individual, because of his or her intrinsic worth, has not only the freedom to protect their most precious, God given gift--their life--perhaps even the duty to do so. This was, at one time, almost universally understood. Decades of relativistic thinking have, to greater and lesser degrees, and in some quarters, muddied what were once clear philosophical waters.

In Jewish tradition, the word for murder is based on the concept of longing for or desiring, in other words, invoking passion, a passion to kill--to murder--in an unjustified manner and for unjustifiable reasons. Killing, however, is a matter of necessity or of justifiably applied justice. Neither the Bible nor the Torah prohibit self defense and both recognize the inherent value of each human life. Therefore, the distinction between justified and unjustified killing seems clear.

NON-VIOLENCE:

But what about those who believe in and practice non-violence? Isn’t that a viable way to live? What about Ghandi and Martin Luther King, for example? Ghandi and Dr. King were educated, intelligent men who clearly understood that their methods could be effective and held little or no risk of death because they were employed against peoples and governments who recognized the rule of law informed by the Judeo/Christian tradition. In effect, they knew that the people who ran the governments whose policies they opposed might imprison them for a time, but were highly unlikely to seriously harm or kill them. They also know that their respective governments could be made to feel shame and embarrassment, and that those feelings of shame and embarrassment could be harnessed to cause desired social change. Such tactics employed against a great many governments, then and now, would be virtually certain to result in torture and death. Non violence as a method of social change is effective only if those who oppose you have a conscience and you or your followers are around to take advantage of that change, and to that end, the governments to be opposed must be carefully chosen indeed.

While non-violence as an individual lifestyle may be, in some respects, a noble choice, its effectiveness ends at the moment its practitioner meets one bent on murder. At that point, the choice becomes immediate and stark: Noble words in a eulogy affirming a non-violent life tragically cut short, or survival. The world will certainly be better served by the continuing existence of one who rejects violence unless it is absolutely necessary.

A central lesson of Christianity is the practice of love and mercy. There is no inherent contradiction in one who believes and practices those virtues but who must protect their life or the life of another. In fact, the Bible teaches that there is no greater love than that a man lay down his life for a friend. General George Patton said that you don’t win wars by dying for your country, but by making the other poor bastard die for his. Similarly, perhaps it is also a great expression of love and mercy to make one who would take your life, or the life of a friend, lay down his life instead.

THE SOCIAL UTILITY OF KILLING:

What about those who reject killing under all circumstances, who claim that killing can never be a social good? Take the case of India under the British Colonial Government of 1829. A common Hindu practice was to burn a man’s widow on his funeral pyre. The story goes that when the British Governor-General, Lord Bentinck objected to this practice, he was told that it was the Indian custom. He reportedly replied something to the effect of: “Very well, you may practice your custom, but we too have a custom which we will practice. It is our custom to hang those who burn widows.” Needless to say, the Indian custom was hastily abandoned and soon outlawed under Indian law. The social utility of being willing to kill those who were, for reasons of custom, killing innocent women, can scarcely be denied.

Some people of good will oppose capital punishment, arguing, among other things, that to put men to death is playing God, capital punishment is not a deterrent, and that with life imprisonment, capital punishment is no longer necessary as a means of protecting the innocent. Perhaps the strongest argument against capital punishment is that human beings make mistakes and sometimes execute the innocent.

But if the individual may act in self defense, why is the state, a government deriving its just powers from men, prohibited from acting in defense of men? True, it is the nature of our criminal justice system that execution takes place not on the spot, but after many years of the exhaustive application of due process, but this long, careful process would seem to be an argument for, rather than against, the capital power of government.

Christian theology recognizes that killing is sometimes justified and necessary, hence men acting in good faith under those conditions are not playing God, but acting in ways anticipated by and approved by God. And while capital punishment does not deter the psychopath, common sense (and my own police experience) suggests that some will be deterred, and that we will likely never know their names or numbers, yet some will live who would have otherwise died.

Life imprisonment is all too commonly anything but. True, there is such a thing as life without parole, but this is far from universal. Killers sometimes continue to kill while behind bars, taking lives that while not entirely innocent, are not deserving of that fate. In addition, escape from prison is not unknown, and foolish politicians have been known to commute the sentence of or pardon those who might be in political favor, a case in point being the cop killer Mumia, who, for the moment, remains behind bars. As we have already agreed that evil does indeed exist, there is a strong argument for destroying evil wherever it exists, for evil lives only to destroy the good and innocent. To put it simply, to protect others, some people deserve to be killed.

It is indeed disturbing that some innocent people have been put to death. This is not an argument against capital punishment but an argument for the perfection of the criminal justice system to the greatest degree possible. And while we must always strive for perfection in every human endeavor, we cannot cease our endeavors because they do not, at all times and in every way, reach perfection. It is indeed terrible when the innocent are executed, but error is a part of humanity and it cannot be allowed to paralyze us from achieving worthy ends. Of course, the argument about whether the good of capital punishment is greater than the tragedy of executing the innocent goes on.

LAW AND THE BALANCING ACT:

How does this apply to governments? To individuals? Each sovereign state may adopt its own laws which may be applied within its own borders and within territories under its control. One of the essential powers of sovereignty is the power to punish those who transgress the law, including the power of capital punishment. Our laws come from the British tradition, under which, during the Medieval period, there were some 200 capital offenses. This led to many bizarre spectacles, including that of pickpockets happily working the crowds gathered to watch the execution of other pickpockets.

Fortunately, American law has evolved such that there are commonly only two capital offenses: Murder and treason. While kidnapping, under some circumstances, may also invoke capital punishment, these two are our primary remaining capital crimes. Our society has devolved to the point that it is difficult to imagine anyone being prosecuted for treason, let alone being put to death for treason, such old fashioned values having fallen out of fashion among the self-styled cultural and political elite.

For example: With the fall of the Soviet Union, Soviet archives were opened and it was discovered that the late Senator Teddy Kennedy (Democrat of Massachusetts) actually contacted the KGB (through an intermediary Democrat Senator) in 1984 trying to enlist their aid to defeat Ronald Reagan and his arms control policies to pave the way for a Kennedy presidency. While there is no evidence that they took him up on his offer, it’s hard to imagine a sitting US Senator committing a similar transgression during WWII not being tried for treason, but now it’s a completely different matter (this was known during Kennedy’s lifetime).

ERRARE HUMANUM EST (To Err--Sin--Is Human):

Is killing, in every instance and always, a sin, and if so, may that sin be forgiven? Again, these are questions that have been argued for millennia, but there are several possibilities:

(1) Killing, under any circumstance, is always a sin. God’s gift of life is precious and to take life is God’s province, not man’s.

(2) Killing, when justified, as in self defense, is not a sin. God is omniscient--all-knowing--and understands that his creation--man--will be subjected to situations where killing is necessary, therefore why would God consider that which he has set into motion, ordained, to be sin? Man has free will, also ordained by God, so he who tries, without justification, to take the life of another sins, but the person who defends them self against an unjustified attack and takes the life of the attacker as a consequence of that defense does not sin. They have preserved God’s greatest gift while their attacker tried to destroy it. Sin lies with the attacker.

(3) Killing, even when legally justified as in self defense, is a sin. However, there is no degree to sin, therefore one may ask for and receive forgiveness for any sin. But what about a serial killer who asks for forgiveness after each murder? It is inconceivable that God does not know whose plea for forgiveness is sincere and whose is not. God pardons whom He chooses, and He knows the hearts of all men.

Even if one should consider killing under any circumstance, whether homicide, self defense, killing while serving in the armed forces during war, or by accident to be sin, our shared faith tradition makes clear that even this sin, if one sincerely repents and begs forgiveness, will be forgiven. This does not mean that the aftermath of a justified killing will be trouble free or ever forgotten, but one need not worry for the final disposition of their soul if forced to defend their life or the life of another.

THE AFTERMATH OF KILLING:

America has, since its founding, had the experience of citizen soldiers reintegrating back into society after exposure to combat. Men, and recently, women, who have killed others, have, by and large, successfully become productive citizens. Indeed, some have suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, some few have been driven mad by their experiences, but the overwhelming majority have learned to deal with the experience of taking the life of another.

So too have police officers who have been forced to kill in the line of duty, and citizens who have been forced to kill to protect their lives or the lives of others, been successful at living with their experiences. Some have been able to simply and effectively compartmentalize, to wall off their experiences as past and done. They accept what they did as necessary and justified, and it does not haunt them. Others have sought and found peace through faith and forgiveness. Some periodically deal with the doubt and pain of their experiences, experiences that never entirely leave their minds. Such is the burden of being honorable people, people of good will and conscience, people who deserve to live that society might benefit from their example.

That these issues are of concern to you speaks well of your conscience, of your humanity, for if you were not concerned about them, you might very well be a sociopath and as such, completely unconcerned. Have no doubt that if and when killing ever becomes necessary and is justified, the aftermath will be, personally and in every other way, intense, demanding, and difficult. The way in which one deals with it will depend upon their upbringing, their faith, the strength of their character, their beliefs and those who love and support them, but it will always, always be better to be around to have to deal with the aftermath than the alternative. I’ll cover this issue to a somewhat greater degree in the next article in the series.

CODA:

Let us further assume that you now accept the inalienable right and necessity of self defense. Let us also assume that you accept the idea that killing--never murder--is justified and is not sinful. Or in the alternative that it is a sin, but that sin may be forgiven for those who sincerely ask for forgiveness. The next article in this series will outline the realities, legal and moral, of employing deadly force. We’ll get to the matter of attitudes, weapons and accessories a bit further down the line.

Me? Own A Gun? -- Updated

This is the first in a series of articles exploring, in depth, the issues revolving around gun ownership. Whether you have never considered owning a gun, are thinking about it or own all you need but not as many as you would prefer, this series may provide some ideas, or possibly provoke the latest round in a lively debate that has been raging for millennia. Our first installment:

THE PHILOSOPHY OF GUN OWNERSHIP

Do human beings have an inalienable right to self defense? If you do not accept this, now would be a good time to be sure you have 911 on your speed dial. However, tragically, that will be cold comfort, as this series will reveal. In addition, if you truly do not accept this proposition, and you live your conviction, it’s possible you’re not around to read this, survival of the fittest being a rather inescapable and final proposition.

What, by the way, does "inalienable" mean? Most dictionaries would indicate that it means something like this: "Not transferrable to another," or "cannot be repudiated," but in the language of the Founders and of our founding documents, the word is most often coupled with an equally important word and is rendered as "inalienable rights." Inalienable rights are rights that are the inheritance of each human being by virtue of being born a human being. They are bestowed by our Creator. Because they are not granted by governments, they cannot be taken away by governments. The Declaration of Independence makes explicit only three "unalienable" rights: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," but makes clear that these are not the only inalienable rights.

Notice that "Life" is the first of the three Thomas Jefferson chose to make explicit. This is important in that if there is no inalienable right to life, your life is forfeit to any government that chooses to take it. It should also be noted that even if the laws and legal traditions of the state do recognize a right to self defense, if the state denies citizens the most effective means to exercise that right, or so restricts its exercise as to make it impractical in application, there is little difference to the individual between that state and one that recognizes no right at all. In addition, if there is no right to self defense, no right to mere survival, your life is forfeit to the whims of those cruel and strong enough to take it. If this is the case, can any other right, inalienable or otherwise, truly be said to matter? Of course, it may reasonably be argued that if a right is not inalienable, it is merely a privilege to be granted and rescinded by the state, but do we really want the state to treat our lives with the caring, efficiency and humanity employed by the EPA, the IRS, or in the regulation of our privilege to drive?

These ideas did not originate with Jefferson in the late 1700's. Thomas Cahill, in his insightful book "The Gifts of the Jews," suggests that the paramount gift of the Jews, dating back to the time of Abraham, was the idea that each individual life has value and that each is precious and worthy of salvation. This idea is easily recognizable as one of the foundations of Christianity. However, ultimately all such discussions are about power and the proper balance of power between the individual and the state. John Locke (1632-1704) was a proponent of natural rights, which are rights established by nature--by nature's God--and are therefore inalienable. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) tried to reconcile the inherent conflict between a society full of individuals possessed of competing, inalienable rights and the need of humans beings to live together in communities through the "Social Contract," the proposition that in order to live together, individuals must surrender some degree of absolute autonomy while still retaining certain inalienable rights, the most important of these being life, liberty and property. This is the balancing of power that truly democratic republics perform each day, and that, until recently when it took a sharp leftward turn toward totalitarian power, America performed far better than any other society.

The Social Contract is part of the foundation of our government. While we retain inalienable rights, they are not absolute, yet can only be infringed in limited fashion by due process of law under the rule of law. When the Founders made references to God, they were not merely expressing personal religious conviction, but participating in a debate millennia old over the nature of God and man and man's natural rights. They well knew the work of Locke and Rousseau and were certainly influenced by them, as are we all whether we know it or not.

This is, of necessity, a whirlwind tour of issues that have filled hundreds of volumes over the centuries. But without a basic understanding, it's difficult to appreciate the gravity of the question that began this essay: Do human beings have an inalienable right to self defense?

Let us add a second, related question: Does evil exist? The answer to this question represents a fundamental dividing line between conservatives and socialists (for that is what the contemporary Democratic Party has, sadly, become). Socialists believe that human beings are inherently racist, sexist, and a variety of other ists, but are perfectible. This perfection can be reached if only there is sufficient (absolute or near absolute) governmental power and the right kinds of laws and regulations to make people behave in appropriate ways, to perfect them for their own good. These laws and regulations will be composed and enforced by a small class of elite socialists who are already, by virtue of their education, sophistication, beliefs and highly attuned sense of social justice, perfected. Hence, the only true evil is resistance to their evolved social consciousness. Inalienable rights do not exist. The only rights are those allowed at any given moment by the state, and in this polity, rights actually exist not at all and are reduced to the reality and force of mere privileges. Religion, with its quaint, superstitious adherence to the doctrine of an eternal battle between good and evil, is just that, quaint and superstitious, and when it is politically useful, dangerous in its resistance to progressive socialist enlightenment, which is always ongoing because it can never be falsified. If perfection has not been reached, it is only because the unenlightened resist and because insufficient socialism has been applied. Because man is always in the necessary process of being perfected by his betters, neither inalienable rights nor adherence to a moldy, faded, yellowing document written by privileged white men centuries ago can be allowed to stand in the way of the brave, inevitable march of socialist progress. The greatest weakness of socialist thought and policy is always a fundamental misunderstanding, even willful ignorance, of human nature. That, and as Margaret Thatcher said, you always run out of other people's money.

Conservatives have no doubt of the existence of evil or of its eternal work in the world. They overwhelmingly embrace Christian theology and its fundamental understanding of men as fallen sinners who can never attain perfection on Earth. Mankind cannot be perfected, yet the social contract works best when he has the greatest possible freedom and autonomy, still consequences for misbehavior must be made swift and certain and must be justly applied while upholding the essential dignity and worth of the individual. Thus do Conservatives accept the necessity of the social contract, of the equality before the law of all men, of the rule of law, and of a supreme law of the land, the Constitution, which may not and should not change, as the Founders put it, for light and transient reasons, because the fundamental nature of human beings does not change. For conservatives, any balance of power that favors the state at the expense of the inalienable rights of the individual is illegitimate, tyrannical and must be resisted, and if necessary, overthrown. In this understanding, Conservatives are not at all radical and merely adopt the thinking of the Founders and the text and intent of the foundational documents of the Republic including The Federalist Papers, The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. Socialists tend to reject all of these documents, or to so twist their clear intent and meaning as to render them self-contradictory and meaningless.

If there is no right to self defense, are you, gentle soul, truly willing to meekly surrender your life to anyone cruel enough to take it? Will you, sensitive, caring socialist, allow your life to be taken to fully live your convictions? Do you believe that right and sufficient law and regulation will eliminate any tendency toward human evil, and that the power of the state will protect you and those you hold dear? Would you truly do nothing to prevent the loss of your own life? The loss of the life of your spouse? Your children? Is your life of so little value and the value of the lives of evil brutes so great? Truly?

You may not believe that evil exists or that it can possibly interrupt your life, but to paraphrase an aphorism attributed to many, you may not be interested in evil, but evil is interested in you. As a student of history, as a veteran of nearly 20 years of service in police work, I have no doubt that evil exists and that any one of us may meet it, in human form, at any time as I so often have. Had I been unaware of its existence or unwilling to acknowledge it, I would not have survived. Hundreds of the wounded, maimed and dead with whom I have been involved would attest, if they could, to that reality. They would also attest to the fact that good intentions, a life lived virtuously and enlightened social consciousness are not proof against evil, but serve only to encourage its propagation.

But surely the police will protect me? It's their job and they are professionals. It is surely one of the great ironies of all time that socialists tend to hate the police, regarding them as barely literate, stupid, racist, sexist, (add your favorite "ist" here) brutalizers, resist paying them more, yet simultaneously expect them to protect their very lives and the lives of those they love. An even greater irony is that the police have no duty to protect any individual citizen. None.

In June, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Gonzales defied a restraining order and kidnapped his three daughters, ages 7-10, from his estranged wife. Gonzales killed the girls and committed suicide by cop by shooting up a police station. The police were called when the girls were kidnapped, but did nothing until they were forced to respond to Gonzales' gunfire, but by then the girls were dead. Gonzales followed not long after. Cold comfort may be found in such situations only in the belief that Gonzales' final destination was 180° different than that of his innocent children. In handing down this decision, the Court relied upon decades of precedence that holds that the police have a duty only to deter and investigate crime for the benefit of the public at large. They have no duty to protect the life or property of any individual. Even though they did nothing to assist Mrs. Gonzales who so piteously cried out to them for help, even though they did nothing to save the lives of her children, they could not and cannot be held liable.

This might seem outrageous and unjust, but it is rational and absolutely necessary. Most people would be utterly shocked to discover how few police officers are patrolling their community at any time of the night or day. It is practically impossible for the police to guarantee protection to anyone, and if they could be successfully sued for failure to render such protection, what city could possibly afford a police force? Who would volunteer to become a police officer knowing financial ruin awaited them at any moment? Police agencies are always understaffed, always. They staff their shifts with the most officers when most are needed: Evenings in general and Friday and Saturday nights in particular. In smaller communities across America, only two or three officers may be patrolling between 6 AM and 6 PM, often, fewer. In semi rural or rural areas, the nearest available officer may be an hour or more away at top, lights and siren, speed. The police love to catch bad guys in the act. They love to stop rapists, killers, child molesters, you name it, they love to stop and catch them, but there are very, very few police officers, more than enough bad guys to go around, and many, many of us. This is the nature of reality, of human beings.

Police officers all know several common axioms: "Call for the police, call for an ambulance and call for a pizza. See which one shows up first." They know that all too often, it won't be the police. In many urban areas, even 911 calls are often left unanswered or put on hold, so great is the volume of emergency calls and so few are the police. Police lore is full of true stories of citizen's panicked 911 calls that didn't get through, were hung up, were ignored, improperly dispatched or just couldn't be handled because of a lack of manpower, resulting in beatings, robbery, rape, mayhem, torture, even murder. The police have another common axiom, which, like the first, they know to be true, but which makes them cringe nonetheless: "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." This too is the nature of reality, of human beings. Ask any experienced police officer if evil exists, but not if you really don't want to hear the answer.

So. Evil exists. The police would love to protect you from it, but they can't and you can't sue them and win when, not if, they don't. What options remain? Gated communities? Locks? Alarm systems? If it's made by man, it can be defeated by man. Will you spend your life within that gated community, behind those locked doors with your security system engaged?

But I live in a good neighborhood! Consider the case of a car burglar I investigated. Responsible for hundreds of crimes, during his many and lengthy confessions, he told me of how he and two of his fellow burglars set out to steal the side view mirror of a vehicle by removing the entire door. As they set to work at 2 AM, the owner came home unexpectedly and they barely had time to scramble under the vehicle they had just begun to burglarize as his pickup truck pulled into the driveway, inches away. The door they intended to steal was standing open a few inches, but the man did not see it and went into his home, leaving the burglars to hastily complete their work and leave with the door.

This too, was a good neighborhood, but the story does not end here. The burglar had, only a half hour earlier, burglarized another car not far away and found, to his surprise and delight, a loaded and chambered 9mm semiautomatic handgun which he hastily stuffed into his pants, the better to play the role of the manly gangster/burglar. As the owner of the soon to be stolen car door stepped from his truck onto his driveway, mere inches away lay the burglar, hopped up on speed, the unfamiliar handgun tightly clutched in his sweating, shaking hand. The man lived only because he did not notice the open car door. The burglar was ready to shoot him; he would have shot him, a man who had no reason whatever to imagine, let alone expect, a 2 AM meeting in his own driveway with unthinking, irrational, doped up, stupid evil. Postscript: I put the burglar and many of his pals away for a long time and recovered the handgun and even the car door--absent the mirror--which I fished out of a creek near the bridge where he threw it. Sadly, it's not common for crimes of that kind to be solved and the property recovered, but that's a story for another post and another time. Evil is interested in you, and evil is always out there, watching and waiting. This too is the nature of reality and of human beings.

Even understanding all that I've presented here, at least intellectually, there will always be some portion of the public determined to cling to socialist philosophy in the expectation that their intellectual and moral superiority will, in some way, magically protect them. Or perhaps they merely have unshakeable faith in an all-powerful, benevolent state, even a state that manifestly cannot protect them, cares little or not at all for protecting any individual, and will never allow itself to be held accountable for failing to protect them. It is for these people that the term "prey" was created, and it is to them that a famous aphorism may someday apply: "A conservative is a liberal who has been robbed at gunpoint." Unfortunately, even that kind of intimate encounter with evil does not always suffice, but some are capable of reevaluating their philosophy when reality is visited upon them in ways that cannot be easily ignored.

If no inalienable right to self defense exists, what other right or privilege actually matters? What is the point of continuing education if one's life may be taken at any moment? If no right to self defense exists, there can be no crime of murder, as no life has value, value that compels society to impose the ultimate penalty for its unlawful taking. In such societies the ultimate penalty tends to be imposed for crimes against the state rather than crimes against individuals who are of value only in their utility to the state. How can anyone plan for the future if life is reduced to a state of nature where, as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) said, life is "...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"?

Quite unlike Socialist orthodoxy, it is not an armed society, a society where the lawful, productive and decent have the most effective means immediately at hand to protect their lives and the lives of others that is lawless, violent and dangerous, but a society where only the government has power and where only the lawless, idle and evil are armed. Contemporary America provides myriad examples of the truth of this assertion. In those states where concealed carry is common, by any honest measure, citizens are safer. In those states and cities, particularly, where honest citizens are disarmed, it is quite the opposite. Cities such as Detroit and Washington DC are commonly more dangerous than active war zones, which they closely resemble.

But let us assume that this article has, at least, persuaded you to the point that you are willing to tentatively concede that an individual, inalienable right of self defense is probably necessary. What then? The next installment of the series explores the legal, moral and spiritual issues revolving around taking the life of another, legally and illegally.

Bob adds: Pick virtually any anti-gun organization, politician, or private citizen, and you will find them sharing a message that runs counter to the views of our Founders.

• They believe that firearms in the hands of private citizens are a threat to society.
• They believe that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force.
• They abdicate responsibility for their own self protection and the protection of their rights.

We know as a matter of historical record what results when such views are allowed to take root, and those views have filled mass graves with tens of millions of bodies in the last century alone.

I would go so far to suggest that it is the responsibility of able-bodied and psychologically fit citizens to both own arms and become proficient in both their use and their limitations. Would I support a Kennesaw-style law mandating firearm ownership? No, because laws mandating gun ownership are as contrary to freedom as the laws restricting gun ownership.

Ultimately, you have to determine the worth of your life, the life of your partner or spouse, your offspring, and your neighbors. If you determine that these lives have more worth than the lives of criminals or the desires of politicians and power brokers, then you should at least consider gun ownership.

If you believe the state should be the sole source of power, that citizens should not be have rights or responsibilities, well... perhaps your funds would be better spent on a ticket out of the country, or in a life insurance plan for survivors.

How Not to Be a Firearms Instructor

This more properly belongs at the gun blog, but the events contained are so extraordinarily dangerous they deserve an audience as wide as I can provide.

Front Sight is a firearms training school with a good reputation for their level of instruction, even if they have gotten in a bit of hot water over some of their off-range antics trying to establish a shooting-based resort.

Recently, an excellent shooter with very impressive shooting skills submitted a series of videos to Front Sight's director as a sort of visual resume.

You won't believe what this guy did. I highly suggest that if you ever come across someone like this, you find the most convenient exit possible, and take it.

Needless to say, the would-be instructor didn't get the job.

50-Caliber. Hand-held. Full-Auto.

So... how was your Sunday?

Brady Center VP Assaulted

Verbally. By what should have been a receptive audience.

Poor Dennis Henigan... Even the Huffington Post audience knows better than to listen to him anymore, and they shred him in the comments for his ignoble effort.

When you lie for a living, don't be surprised when even the dimmer members of your audience eventually turn on you.

Bo Dietl Doesn't Know His Butt From a Hole In The Ground

Why being a retired NYPD detective earns someone the right to be called a "gun expert" is anyone's guess, but Edgar Sandoval and Samuel Goldsmith of the N.Y. Daily News called Bo Dietl one, and he promptly returned their thanks by making all three of them look like idiots.

Anna Fermanova has been accused of attempting to smuggle three high-end night vision rifle scopes to her husband in Russia, a gross violation of export laws that could result in serious jail time for the native Latvian. Fermanova is the second very attractive young woman accused of being a Russian spy in recent months after Anna Chapman, and the media wasn't about to miss a chance to sell advertising, so they decided they needed another story (presumably as an excuse to post her pictures).

The Daily News then decided Dietl was just the gun expert to interview about these scopes, and it all went to Hell from there:

"These are used specifically for an assassination," said security consultant Bo Dietl, a former NYPD detective. "You're not going to hunt deer with a super scope. That's crazy.

"You could take someone out with one of these scopes in the dead of night from up to a mile-and-a-half-away," he said. "I have friends in Iraq who use these. These are the real deal."

The optics—which the Daily News grossly over-valued by $1,000-$1,500—are indeed marketed as having a range in excess of a thousand yards, but the simply fact of the matter is that these Raptor scopes (when they were available to the public) were only available with short- to mid-range 4x or 6x power magnification. This magnification range is popular among sportsmen and the military to ranges of perhaps several hundred yards even during the daylight and twilight hours, but for Dietl to claim "you could take someone out with one of these scopes in the dead of night from up to a mile-and-a-half-away" is, to put it mildly, a load of crap.

As for Dietl's claim that "These are used specifically for an assassination," well, he's astoundingly ignorant about that as well.

The primary use for night vision (NV) scopes hasn't changed much in the 50+ years they've been used. NV scopes and googles are primarily used by soldiers to identify the enemy, either while out on patrol or while guarding static positions. They are not "specifically used for assassination", unless Dietl wants to label the thousands of U.S. soldiers using this sort of technology every night in Afghanistan and Iraq as assassins.

If someone did know a little bit about this kind of technology, and had a grasp of history, they would come to the much more reasonable conclusion that the Russians would be interested in obtaining the latest U.S. technology so that they could reverse engineer it and then build advanced night vision scopes for export sales and/or use this tech to equip their own soldiers.

For the record, Russian soldiers aren't assassins either, and know hell of a lot more about night vision gear than some self-aggrandizing media whore retired New York cop.

I'd also point out that night vision rifle scopes are used in the taking of various animals including wild hogs in Texas, where Fermanova lives. I'd also point out that wild boar hunting is a sport in Russia and other parts of the former USSR as well (though I still find her story more than likely a bad cover story).

I would mention that night vision scopes are also used for predator hunting and predator control.

But that would just be piling on.

SCAR-L Cancelled?

From being touted as the next-generation 5.56 combat rifle for the U.S. Army to the scrap heap in record time (Via The Firearm Blog).

On the record, SOCOM told me spending money on the Mk-16 wasn't worth it since it was only a marginal improvement over the M4 and saw no use in spending SOCOM dollars on a weapon the services buy their snake eaters already. And the meme that that Mk-16 wasn't "cancelled" and that only hyperbolic "reportage" "interpreted" the fact that the command had decided to stop buying the Mk-16 and have all those in the field returned as a "cancellation" is borderline delusional. Give me a break. It's CANCELLED! Live with it!

The SCAR simply didn't make sense in 5.56 Mk-16 trim as it didn't offer next generation improvements over the existing M4/M16 family of weapons.

Unfortunately for manufacturer FN Herstal, there is little chance that the closure of the military market for the Mk-16 will be made up for with civilian sales. At more than $3,000 retail on the street, the rifle simply costs more than it's performance and caliber justifies.

I'm not an industry insider by any measure, but the only way I could see the civilian variant of the Mk-16 having any widespread commercial success would be a combination of it experiencing a significant price drop so that it competes against piston-ARs, and availability in 6.8 SPC.

I would personally find it most attractive if they could find a way to market/sell it as a 5.56/6.8 SPC combo kit, especially if they could drop the price of that kit below $2,000 on the street. Is that actionable? Would that be profitable? I don't know. But if they don't come up with something, I suspect the civilian variant of the SCAR Mk-16 will fade away just as quickly as the military variant.

In other gun-related news, today is the last day I'll mention that I'm accepting donations (yellow button on the right) for accessories for my BCM Mid-16 Mod 2.

My unexpected knee surgery is covered 100% by my insurance, but the twice-a-week physical therapy is killing me with co-pays, and that is eating up my gear budget.

Thanks to those of you who can afford to donate (and those of you who already have), and to everyone else, thanks for simply being readers!

Blingapalooza: The Target

Good morning...err afternoon, everyone.

I want to take a few minutes to thank those of you who have donated thus far to my question to outfit my new rifle.

One of our number is a a guy named Tim who just happens to be an Eo-Tech dealer and he has suggested that he can help out with one of their super-cool holographic weapons sights (HWS).

I'm partial to the 517.A65 myself. But that depends on you guys and girls think.

Is it fair for me to ask you guys to chip in a few dollars one a year or so, simply because you read my blog? I think so. It's far to ask, I mean. I provide the bloggy goodness, the occasional gotcha or exclusive, or simply a place to hang out and argue with one another (you know who you are).

I like to think there is some entertainment value in that. Now, whether the value is enough for good optics or rail covers is entirely up to you.

Thanks for your support!

And now back to your regularly scheduled blog...

Never Let Go of the Narrative

Nick Miroff and William Booth have a fascinating article in the Washington Post about U.S. grenades provided to allied governments in past decades turning up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

M67 "baseball" grenades, typically stolen from military armories in Central America, are part of a growing arms race between cartels and government forces.

Miroff and Booth have done their homework identifying the source of the grenades, but then they got sloppy:

The redeployment of U.S.-made grenades by Mexican drug lords underscores the increasingly intertwined nature of the conflict, as President Felipe Calderón sends his soldiers out to confront gangs armed with a deadly combination of brand-new military-style assault rifles purchased in the United States and munitions left over from the Cold War.

As we've covered extensively in the past, only 8-percent of cartel firearms are purchased in U.S. gun shops, and the number of firearms traced to the U.S. for any reason—including stolen weapons— is still just 18-percent.

The vast majority of cartel weapons—82-percent—comes from the same black market sources as the grenades.

It's a shame that writers who did their homework to track down the various sources of cartel grenades so easily believed the fictions created by politicians such as Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon about cartel small arms, stories readily debunked by our own BATF trace data.

Neither cartel grenades nor guns come from American civilian sources.

It's too bad the authors were all too eager to continue pressing a left-wing anti-gun agenda in an otherwise informative article.

I'ma Let You Finish...

...but Barack Obama is the greatest gun salesman of all time!

In October 2009, firearms and ammunition excise tax collection climbed 45 percent from the previous fiscal year, the greatest annual increase in the firearms tax revenue in the agency's history, the report said. By comparison, the average annual increase for fiscal years 1993 to 2008 was 6 percent.

A Gallup Poll conducted in early October 2009 said one possible explanation for the surge in gun and ammunition sales could be that more than 50 percent of the Americans who owned guns and some 41 percent of all Americans believed that President Obama would "attempt to ban the sale of guns in the United States while he is president."

There is a Reason We Only Protect the Right to Arm Bears

Man's best friend? Not this pooch.

Oddly enough, I've heard similar stories before, where people have been shot by pets, children, and inanimate objects when a firearm isn't properly stored and kept on safe.

All guns are always loaded, remember?

Black Rifle Update

Last week I asked you for advice on M4 carbines. Specifically, I was trying to decide between a pair of exellent rifles, the Noveske Rifleworks 16" Light Recce, BASIC, and the Daniel Defense DDXVM and was wondering which I should go with.

As it turns out, the answer, according to you, was neither.

There isn't anything wrong with either of these firearms, but as more than one experienced reader pointed out, I'm not going to need such high-end carbines for the kind of shooting I am most likely to do. I'm not SWAT, or a security contractor in the Sandbox.

Regular reader Mike McDaniel, Down Range TV's Michael Bane, and Sean from I am to misbehave were among those that pounded into my head that a solid, basic carbine without all the bells and whistles would suit my needs just fine. I didn't need a $1,500-and-up rifle.

And then Blake pointed me to this gem of a page, a comparison chart of major AR brands based upon key features.

After reading through that thread, comparing all the features, listening to the practical advice of experts (and then submitting to gun geek lust just a little bit) this is what I ended up ordering on Friday.

Meet the Bravo Company Machine Mid-16 Mod 2.

It has all the key features I could hope for, plus some nice extras (quad-rail, rear BUIS), and at a very reasonable price.

Mike McDaniel suggested an excellent list of add-ons to enhance the functionality of the carbine, without paying "tacti-cool" prices for stuff I don't need. I've ordered the basics.

Now I need to start thinking about a carbine training course, and training gear.

But that sounds like another blog post, for another time...

Predictable: Leftists Wet Themselves Over LA Guns In Church Law

Louisiana's Bobby Jindal signed a law allowing guns in church... and the law seems a bit absurd:

Burns' bill would authorize persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons having passed the training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force.

The pastor or head of the religious institution must announce verbally or in weekly newsletters or bulletins that there will be individuals armed on the property as members of he security force. Those chosen have to undergo eight hours of tactical training each year.

There is no federal law against carrying guns in church.

In many states there are few if any restrictions regarding legally concealed handguns in church, or for that matter, openly carried firearms, though doing so might earn you some odd looks.

The odd and chaffing bit of this law is that Louisianans carrying weapons must be part of some known security force, and that the church must broadcast such information to church members in every weekly bulletin... perhaps so so timid soul doesn't get the vapors upon seeing a bulge in the pastor's pocket (Yes, pastors carry concealed carry weapons too).

As you may have been able to predict, the typically law-ignorant left is freaked out over the the law, obviously unaware that the law is hardly unique except in it's oddly restrictive requirements.

They apparently think—or prefer— that the right to self protection ends for the faithful at the church door.

Even more sadly, they desperately cling to their own impulsive insecurities and stereotypes. They are apparently still firmly convinced that the mere possession of a firearm will cause someone to go in to an uncontrollable, homicidal rage:

If you're like most Americans, there's probably been a time in your life when you've been sitting in church, listening to a particularly ennui-inducing homily or enduring another warbly version of "Holy Holy Holy" and thought, "Man! I could really reach for some steel right now, squeeze off a few rounds, and let these fools know what the score is!"

The author of this screed should obviously be kept far away from all firearms, at all times. Responsible citizens, however, are ill served by poorly written and overly-restrictive laws.

Update: Don Surber has another take, calling the the signed bill "the ultimate law to freak out liberals."

Any Black Rifle Experts Out There?

So I'm going to ask something that might seem a bit hypocritical here.

I've written on CY and at Pajamas Media about how the 5.56 NATO round needs to be replaced in the military, and that M16/M4 weapons system is getting long in the tooth, and that it should probably be replaced. I still feel that way... as it applies to the military. I want them to have weapons that are lightweight, ridiculously reliable, accurate, easy to maintain and perfectly lethal. I also want a pony.

But for my needs, an AR-type rifle fits the bill. Specifically, I'm looking at a carbine with a 16" barrel and mid-length gas system chambered in 5.56 (I'll also probably get a 6.8 SPC upper from Bison Armory at some point, but that is down the road).

I've narrowed my choices down to 2 options:

SCOTUS Rules for Gun Rights (Updated with Opinion)

Richard Daley and Mike Bloomberg must be sharing a stroke:

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.

Update: MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,ET AL. opinion (PDF, 214 pages).

The key point:

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect toParts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

Update: Over at Alan Colmes Liberaland, the first thoughtful left wing commenter opines:

I say every black man in America should own a gun and we should show up at the next tea baggers klan rally and see if they will have the same heart to call black people nini&&ers as they did when they call John Lewis a ni&&er

Bigoted New Yorker Ron Jackson would be surprised that the leader of the Tea Party in his city (as much as the Tea Party has leaders) is black, as are some of the armed protesters we've seen. Not that reality matters. It won't be intruding into the left's hate, no matter what the occasion.

Mom's Weapon of Choice? Really?

This video by child predator watch group AmberAlert.org is supposed to promote something... I'm just not sure what.

Bad Example

If you are going to write a presumably pro-gun article about open carry, perhaps you shouldn't use the victim of a handgun murder-suicide as your model.

Update: I don't know why on earth Meleanie Hain's picture was used here when Eric Shuford's photo was used in the linked story.

El Paso PD Latest to Up-Gun to M4 Carbines

As always, I have mixed feeling about this:

The El Paso Police Department on Wednesday unveiled its new M-4 rifles intended to provide every officer with greater firepower.

The department bought 1,145 after approval by the City Council's 8-0 vote in January.

Training with the M-4 is under way at the Police Academy, and the new weaponry will eventually be issued to every member of the department, from patrol officers up to the chief.

"It's a safety issue," said Sgt. Lawrence Lujan, an instructor at the academy. "The El Paso Police Department is catching up with the rest of the nation."

No good person wants those who protect us to be at the mercy of criminals with superior weapons. As a result, there has been relatively little public outcry as more and more law enforcement agencies around the nation give rifles to officers on patrol.

Arming officers with carbines in areas where criminal gangs are known to favor assault rifles makes sense on one level. Officers equipped with sidearms stand very little chance in an encounter with criminals armed with assault rifles. Issuing AR carbines gives officers equivalent standoff range and weapon capacity, and the choice of the .223 caliber means that the rifle is less likely to over-penetrate targets or materials beyond the target in event of a miss, and the likelihood of a fatal wound to bystanders dissipates comparatively quickly when compared to other rifle calibers.

At the same time, there are always questions about the training and maintenance of skills when agencies deploy a new weapon, and whether or not training standards will send officers into the streets armed with weapons perhaps better left to tactical units.

By they way, America, thank you for buying these firearms for El Paso. The $773,000 cost of the weapons was paid for with stimulus funds.

Why Was This Solider Off Base, In Civvies, with His M4?

The chain of command is going to rip someone a new one over this bit of idiocy:

The soldier had been in Atlanta less than a day when when he and his cousin, identified simply as T.J., were sitting in his blue Chevrolet Impala at the Rolling Bends Apartments in northwest Atlanta, the soldier told WSB.

Seven men walked to the car, he said.

"They were coming up to the car,"' the soldier told the television station. "I noticed T.J. hit the unlock button. They came up to the side of the car. They opened the door and grabbed my rifle."

The soldier said he was punched, kicked and hit in the head with a glass bottle when he tried to retrieve his gun.

"I tried to call out to my cousin T.J. but he didn't do anything," the soldier said in a WSB news report.

"A weapon like that being in a neighborhood like that is not a good combination," the soldier said. "I still feel betrayed by my family because T.J., that's my blood. Like, how are you going to value the streets more than your own cousin?"

The soldier was not in uniform at the time. It was not clear why he had his weapon with him.

There is no logical reason that I can think of that a soldier on leave would retain a selective-fire carbine or machine gun as he left base. The weapon should have been secured in the unit's armory. Both the soldier and his immediate superiors have some explaining to do.

Meanwhile, a real, honest-to-God assault rifle is in the hands of criminals.

Chicago's Handgun Ban Fails to Save Home Invader

An elderly Chicago couple is alive today because they ignored Chicago's unconstitutional handgun ban and killed the armed invader breaking into their home:

An 80-year-old Chicago man shot and killed an armed man who broke into his two-story house in a pre-dawn home invasion Wednesday on the city's West Side.

At about 5:20 a.m., the homeowner and his wife, also in her 80s, discovered the intruder entering their home through a back door. The homeowner, who had a gun, confronted and killed the burglar on the doorstep, police said. Cops said the intruder also fired his gun during the struggle.

"It's a good thing they had a gun, or they might be dead," said Curtis Thompson, who lives next door to the couple, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

Neighbors described the elderly couple, who both walk with canes, as pillars of the community in Garfield Park, where home invasions have been all too frequent.

Their neighbor, Shaquite Johnson, told MyFoxChicago that the two are "heroes" for fighting off the attacker — and that the shooting means there is "one less criminal" walking the streets.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley immediately assailed Johnson for referring to the deceased as a criminal, and instead called the home invader a "valued constituent."

Progressives Panic Over TN Restaurant Carry Law

Is Alan Colmes merely dim, or deeply dishonest?

That is the decision you have to make when you read his nonsensical headline "Tennessee Republicans Pushing Guns In Bars." Following the less-than-brilliant guidance of Think Progress, Colmes dishonestly suggests that the goal of Tennessee's legislature is to put armed civilians in bars.

No person with a bit of common sense will swallow that argument, but that means every liberal will. As they aren't bright enough to figure out the facts on their own, I'll try to explain it in small words they can understand.

Like many states, TN treats bars and restaurants that serve alcohol identically under the law. The law that Colmes is shaking with indignant fury over was not written with the intent of encouraging people to carry guns in to bars, but to allow concealed carry permit holders to retain their weapons on their persons when they go out to dinner at restaurants that serve beer, wine, or mixed drinks. It is a law designed to let citizens who carry legally at IHOP also carry legally at TGI Fridays... that is all. It allows people who go to lunch or dinner at some restaurants that were formerly off limits. That is all.

They aren't looking to recreate the fabled Wild West, despite what Colmes & Shakir claim.

The only real question is whether they are lying to their easily-led readers on purpose, or if they is just as uneducated as those that follow them.

News Organ Freaked by Dramatic Rise in Pistol Permits in Upstate NY

You can almost hear the reporter's sphincter tightening as she frames her story:

Oswego County Clerk George Williams delivered some startling news to the legislature's Community and Consumer Affairs committee during the April 22 meeting.

Pistol permit applications have increased sharply, following both a state and national trend, he noted. "Something is happening in this country," Williams added.

During the entire year of 2008, the county clerk's office handed out 208 pistol permit application packets. Of those, 67 were returned. For 2009, 428 application packets were handed out and 110 were returned.

As of the date of the committee meeting, 400 application packets were given out and 142 have been returned. That is more than double the number of pistol permits issued for 2008. "Something's on the move," Williams said, adding that other county clerks in the state are seeing the same trend. "It's scary."

Scary? 142 pistol permits?

My county's sheriff has a name for that.

Thursday.

Pimp My Rifle

I know that cultures throughout world history have decorated their weapons, but the gentleman to the left in this article is a great example of going over the top, with artistic license taken with his rifle, its magazine, and the underslung grenade launcher.

It probably would have been more impressive if he'd actually taken care of the AK, which appears to have a field-repaired cracked wood stock and the finish worn down to bare metal almost everywhere.

Not Too Bright

The Brady Campaign apparently thinks the best way to convince their fellow citizens to disarm themselves is to make penis jokes in the captions of their photos. The anti-gun group has since removed the captions entirely, but not before the damage was done.

I'd simply like Brady, the Violence Policy Center, and related anti-gun groups to make fact-based arguments for their positions, instead of resorting to cheap emotionalism.

Or is that too much to ask?

Rough Audit? Probably Not.

Over at the John Locke Foundation's Right Angles blog, Jon Ham asks what I think about the Internal Revenue Service's intended purchase of 60 shotguns:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

The firearm in question does not seem to exist on Remington's Law Enforcement web site (at least by that model number), but the specs sound somewhat similar to a variation of the Wilson Combat/Scattergun Technologies Border Patrol Model.

I don't think there is any reason to worry about rank and file IRS agents showing up at your door with these shotguns. Instead, they seem like they would likely be used by the Criminal Investigation agents that focus on "Illegal Source Financial Crimes; and Narcotics Related and Counterterrorism Financial Crimes." They would presumably be raiding terrorist cells, drug cartels, and organized crime, er, organizations that participate in money laundering, tax evasion, and other socially unacceptable behavior under their jurisdiction who tend to go heavily armed.

But I'd still be nice to all IRS agents, just in case.

ACOGs and Idiots

The more I think about the manufactured outrage I see in the press over this, the more upset I get.

Trijicon has been putting references to Bible verses on their products for at least two decades, well prior to elements of the U.S. military falling in love with the ACOG and Reflex optics as COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) optics that excel at giving our soldier the ability to find, identify, and differentiate potential targets from innocent civilians, quickly and at range.

Trijicon did not, as some ignorant or malicious journalists implied, slip some sort of crusading reference into their products once they had military contracts. No they continued to sell the exact same product they sold when American soldiers took ACOGs to war for the first time in Panama, and in conflicts around the world since then. And because these optics were COTS, we, as taxpayers, didn't pay millions or billions of development costs, either.

The references to the verses only became a "problem" when angry atheists blatantly lied and said that the standard references to scripture passages on Trijicon's products—all of which play off of the word "light," appropriately enough for optics products—somehow broke the military ban on proselytizing in the military.

If anyone honestly thinks that tiny print passively notated on the side of a military weapon's sight is equivalent to exhorting people to convert, then they need their tiny minds examined.

The entire issue seems to stem from a group that seems to be under the mistaken impression that freedom of religion should be rewritten to be freedom from religion, and all aspects of religion at that.

I agree with the theory that the military is not in the business of evangelism by force, and do not think that the military should actively promote any particular religion beyond making it possible for practitioners of various religious faiths toexercise their right to worship as they please.

But a soldier's right to practice religion—or right to practice no religion at all—does not mean he should expect others to force their faith underground. That in and of itself is anti-religious bigotry, and the military should not be forced into recognizing anti-religious soldiers as more equal than religious ones.

There is nothing wrong with faith on the battlefield as long as the practice of that faith doesn't extend to proselytizing.

A Muslim soldier that complained about the ACOG's in his unit seemed to be using the ACOG as a scapegoat for the alleged proselytizing behavior of a non-commissioned officer in his unit, and if his complaint was focused on the noncom's behavior alone, he would have what appears to be a decent case of exactly the kind of behavior the military does not want to allow.

But to claim a static piece of military equipment is capable of evangelizing is asinine by any logical measure.

ACOGs in particular give American soldiers and Marines the ability to magnify their view and quickly and accurately discern possible friend from foe, using the Bindon Aiming Concept.

Small-minded "me too" detractors think themselves quite witty as they mockingly assert claims of "Who would Jesus shoot?" but they miss the reality of the situation entirely.

The undeniable fact is that Trijicon optics that the fashionably anti-religious like to mock happens to be a technology that enables our soldiers a better view of the chaotic urban battlefield. It provides them with better target discrimination, and enables them to more easily tell the innocent from the enemy. These sights also serve (quite obviously, one would think) to help our soldiers put more accurate shots downrange, meaning a lower volume of overall rounds expended. Both of these factors mean that these optics help save the lives of innocents downrange.

Somehow, I think Jesus would approve of that.

Trijicon-Religious Aiming Solutions

Via SaysUncle, we have what we can only assume will be the next big investigative revelation out of ABC New Blog, The Blotter.

Uh, we can still say "revelation," without running afoul of Brian Ross... right?

Violence Policy Center Still Can't Tell Difference Between Living, Dead

This is getting rather ridiculous.

Weeks ago in a Pajamas Media article I eviscerated the shoddy "research" of the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun group President Obama repeatedly helped fund while a director of the Joyce Foundation.

In that exposeé, I highlighted the fact that VPC couldn't even total the number of deaths they reported correctly, "double-dipping" to create a higher false number of fatalities. But among the the biggest, most glaring weakness of the VPC report was the claim that at least one person they listed as killed, was never shot.

The VPC claims:

On March 8, 2008, Christine Burroughs, naked and covered with blood, ran to neighbor Alice and Lance Lather’s house seeking refuge from her enraged husband, Arthur Burroughs. Burroughs followed his wife to the home, fatally shooting Lance Lather. Burroughs then barricaded himself in the neighbors’ bathroom with his wife. A SWAT team and hostage negotiator were called to the house, but Burroughs shot and killed his wife and then himself. Christine Burroughs had previously told Alice Lather that her husband wanted to kill her because she wanted a divorce. Burroughs had been previously employed in loss prevention and security for T.J. Maxx and had possessed a concealed handgun permit since at least 1999.

As noted by citing several news accounts, including two that interviewed Christine Burroughs after the shooting, Mrs. Burroughs survived her husband's rampage. She was never shot. Period.

Gun control organizations routinely engage in hyperbole, fear tactics, and falsifying claims to pursue their political objectives. Still, even by the low standards of gun control groups, isn't claiming that someone died when they did not far over the line of acceptable behavior?

Would-Be Robber Killed With Concealed Handgun

It looks like someone made the wrong choice of victim at the ATM of my old hometown bank:

An off-duty Pitt County Sheriff's deputy on Wednesday night shot and killed a man who reportedly tried to rob him at an ATM on Charles Boulevard, the Greenville Police Department reported.

The deputy, whose name has not been released, was at the automatic teller machine at the State Employees Credit Union, 2296 Charles Blvd. when the incident occured, according to a news release issued at 1:30 a.m. Thursday.

I hope that the deputy that killed this armed theif is able to deal with the trauma that typically occurs following a shooting.

It is worth noting that the deputy was off-duty which made his appearance no different than the estimated 160,000 North Carolinians with concealed carry permits.

Finnish Mall Shot Up, Shooter Commits Suicide

Via my friend Jose Guardia comes news that a man walked into a mall in Finland's second largest city and killed four shoppers.

His body, and body of his wife, were later found:

Police say they found a body in the apartment of the suspected gunman, identified as 43-year-old Ibrahim Shkupolli.

His ex-wife has also been found dead in an apartment in Espoo, raising the total dead including the gunman to six.

According to Yle, Shkupolli used a 9-millimeter caliber hand gun.

Hundreds of people in the mall were panicked by the shots, witnesses said.

It wouldn't be surprising if Shkupolli murdered his wife over some sort of domestic dispute, decided that his life was over, and went to the mall to ruin as many lives as possible before returning to his apartment to commit suicide to avoid the consequences of his actions. Like many mass shooters, Shkupolli took the coward's way out.

People will not doubt focus on the fact that Shkupoli's first name is Ibrahim, and wonder if this was yet another case of a Muslim going on jihad. I suppose that is possible, but it doesn't seem likely based upon early reports.

E.J. Dionne Gets His Stupid On

It is usually so depressingly easy to pick apart the pro forma op-eds from Washington Post columnist E.J Dionne that it isn't any fun at all to make the effort, but since his latest, Beyond the NRA's absolutism, is pre-demolished by an article I already wrote last week and the effort is minimal, I may as well go ahead and make the effort.

Dionne complains that a survey of the National Rifle Association's membership found that members polled by Frank Luntz actually went against the NRA's official position on a number of issues.

In his survey of 832 gun owners, including 401 NRA members, Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Sixty-nine percent favored "requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns," and 78 percent backed "requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen." Among gun owners who did not belong to the NRA, the numbers were even higher.

On the surface and without reflection, these all superficially sound like reasonable ideas and I completely understand why most people would agree.

But if you take away someone's right to purchase a firearm for being on a terrorism watch list, you just tipped off that potential terrorist that he is under investigation. You've just helped the terrorist. The counterpoint of that, that civil libertarians have been harping on since early in the prior administration, is that these lists are wildly inaccurate, with even Senators being erroneously tagged a s terrorists in federal lists. Compound that with the fact Americans hate to see a citizen's rights denied without the due process of law, and you have a host of very good reasons for the NRA to dig deeper and oppose an idea that sounds good as a theory, but which is horrible in practice.

Likewise, while I would like to see all gun sellers at gun shows be required to follow the laws that FFL dealers do, including requiring a NICS background check, I know that such restriction would be a fig leaf. Non-dealers would still be able to sell guns outside of the show with no restrictions at all, and no felon would be significantly inconvenienced.

And while I would certainly hope that a citizen would report a stolen weapon, I find the idea of the government compelling citizens to report stolen property of any kind offensive, and I fail to see what reporting a gun as stolen with have any impact on what the criminal does with a stolen gun. It is—again—a law that enables politicians to claim they "did something" without any real benefit.

But what really amuses me about Dionne's whining column is when he shows the innocence of a child—one not burdened with being academically gifted—when he bleats propaganda from the front group, Mayors Against All Guns.

NRA members also oppose the idea behind the so-called Tiahrt amendments passed by Congress. Named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), the rules prevent law enforcement officials from having full access to gun trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and require the FBI to destroy certain background-check records after just 24 hours. Talk about handcuffing the police.

The mayors' poll offered respondents this statement, antithetical to the Tiahrt rules: "The federal government should not restrict the police's ability to access, use, and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws." Among NRA members, 69 percent agreed.

As it turns out, the group—largely self-financed by anti-gun New York RINO Michael Bloomberg—blatantly lies about the Tiahrt Amendment, and what it does, while also obfuscating the fact that the BATF and Fraternal Order of Police want the law kept in place to protect the lives of police officers and informants.

I'm having a hard time to find who is more repulsive here. Is it Dionne for his intellectual laziness, or Bloomberg for his continued dishonesty?

It's a big world.

I think we have the space to revile them both.

ROK to Deploy World's Most Advanced Combat Rifle To Afghanistan

The U.S. XM-29 program faltered, then split, then was shelved, but the South Korean K-11 dual-caliber air-burst weapon is about to deploy to Afghanistan:

South Korean troops to be deployed in Afghanistan will be armed with the latest K-11 airburst assault rifles for self-defense, according to the Ministry of National Defense.

[snip]

Developed by the state-funded Agency for Defense Development, the K-11 consists of a semi-automatic 20mm smart grenade launcher, an under-slung assault rifle firing a standard 5.56mm NATO round, and a top-mounted computer-assisted sighting system with integrated rangefinder and thermal infrared night vision capabilities.

Using a self-detonation system, the 20mm round from the rifle can track its target and explode three to four meters above it. And it is also capable of penetrating walls of buildings.

I wouldn't want to tote this beast, but it gives South Korean troops some very interesting capabilities.

Shocker: Brian Ross and The Blotter Get Details of Fort Hood Story Wrong

There are two constants we can expect from the ABC News blog The Blotter.

They will report in great detail on stories involving the criminal use of a firearm.

They will invariably get significant details grossly wrong.

Whether the subject is Mexico's drug cartels, items restricted by the 1994 Crime Bill, or basic descriptions of guns used in massacres, Ros and ABC News are predictably incompetent, and their streak continued today as they try to discuss some of the weaponry purchased by Fort Hood Jihaidi, Major Nidal Hasan:

Right next door to the strip club is the gun store, Guns Galore, where authorities say Hasan bought his semi-automatic pistol and bullets and in the weeks before the shooting, 13 extra ammunition clips that could hold up to 30 bullets each.

As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of modern firearms will tell you, modern handguns do not use clips. They use magazines, and yes there is a distinctive difference between a single piece of spring steel that holds a group of cartridges together (a clip) and an enclosed, spring-loaded mechanical device that encloses and protects cartridges an actively feeds them into a firearm's chamber (a magazine).

Then there is the fact that one cannot readily buy a 30-round magazine for the Five-SeveN pistol as ABC tries to claim.

Precisely two magazines are available with the Five-seveN, a 10-round magazine for states that restrict the number of cartridges a civilian's handgun can carry, and the standard 20-round magazine that the weapon was designed to accept. No one makes a 30-round magazine for the Five-seveN, though CMMG has a 10-round extension one can purchase separately and install to the base of the factory 20-round magazines. There are no reports that Hasan actually purchased such extensions, much less used them in his attack.

But that sort of inaccuracy is par for the course for a propagandist far more interested in pushing a political agenda than actually reporting the facts, and Ross is quite consistent in framing stories in such a way to give gun control groups an edge.

After all, who needs facts?

The "Cop Killer" FN Five-seveN

The media is wasting very little time informing us that the weapon used by Major Nidal Malik Hasan in his rampage at Fort Hood was a "cop killer."

Ft. Hood terrorist used a cop killer FN-Five Seven tactical pistol—20 round clip -- Examiner

'Cop Killer" Gun though to Be Used in Ft. Hood Shooting, Offiicals Said -- ABC News

Fort Hood shootings: gunman used 'cop killer' weapon in massacre at US Army base -- UK Telegraph

Ironically, there is no known record of that weapon even being used to kill a police officer in the United States, and there is a distinct possibility that Sgt. Kimberly Munley, wounded while engaging Hasan, may have been the first American law enforcement officer ever shot with a Five-seveN.

How did the Five-seveN get it's "cop killer" reputation, then?

It was created in a Brady Campaign press release in February of 2005.

SOCOM SCAR/ Remington ACR Updates

The FN SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) that has been deployed in small numbers with U.S. Special Forces will finish an initial deployment in December. Jane's is reporting that a much larger follow-on order of 15,000 5.56 SCAR-L(ight) and 5,000 7.62 SCAR-H(eavy) modular rifles is expected to follow in 2010.

Jason Spradling of Remington addressed rumors about the 6.5 chambering listed for the much-anticipated Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle).

The Firearms Blog had assumed that the 6.5 cartridge would be the 6.5 Grendel, but an industry insider informed him that Remington was not developing a 6.5 Grendel variant, and someone else said that Remington may be developing their own 6.5 cartridge.

Jason confirmed with me via email yesterday that Remington was not actively working on a 6.5 Grnedel variant... or a 6.5 cartridge of their own.

"We have mentioned the 6.5 in our communications on the ACR simply because that platform is capable of handling the Grendel or something like it. At this point, there are no plans to chamber the ACR for the Grendel. However, that may change if we receive enough input from the marketplace to make it seem necessary."

The SCAR-L and ACR are destined for a collision course in the defense market as direct competitors as a replacement for the M-4 carbine. Both rifles are also going to be developed with semi-automatic variants for the civilian market. The SCAR-L and SCAR-H are currently priced north of $2,500 (sometimes far more).

Pricing for the ACR has not yet been released.

Applying Rights Equally

A letter to the editor in the Arizona Daily Sun asks an interesting question:

If I understand it correctly, a lot of folks are saying health care is a right for all and we all should help pay for it. I'm wondering: Since owning a gun is a right, do you think everyone can chip in and get me a new rifle?

That sounds like a better use of tax dollars than most.

"I'm Sure Everyone is Exploring Their Options Right Now."

I contacted several shooting industry sources regarding California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to sign oppressive ammunition restriction bill AB962.

The bill requires ammunition to be held behind the counter, restricts sales to individuals to a maximum of 50 rounds per month, bans direct mail and internet sales, and requires retailers to collect intrusive personal information for each sale including:

Date of transaction.

Buyer's date of birth, full address, driver's license number, right thumbprint and signature.

Brand, type and amount of ammunition purchased.

Name of the salesperson who processed the sale.

While the law theoretically affects only handgun ammunition, many rifles also shoot handgun-caliber ammunition and owners of those firearms will be affected as well. That information would be turned over to the government which would effectively be able to compile a backdoor handgun ownership database on all California gun owners.

The prohibition does not outlaw the unregistered ownership of handgun ammunition, nor does it stop individuals from crossing state lines to purchase as much ammunition as they desire. In effect, it penalizes law-abiding recreational shooters, while potentially creating a lucrative market for ammunition smuggling into California.

The California Association of Firearms Retailers (CAFR) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) are highly critical of the bill, stating:

NSSF has estimated that AB 962 would cost California at least $2.92 million annually in lost sales taxes and $629,000 in increased operating costs for state agencies. Lost retail sales in California were estimated at $35.7 million. These estimates followed the recent release of a study by the Governor's Office of Small Business Advocate that show over-regulation of small businesses in California costing the state an estimated $492 billion, almost five times the state’s general fund budget and almost a third of the state's gross product. The Small Business Advocate study also found that California's regulatory burdens costs an average of $134,122 per California business, $13,801 per household and $4,685 per resident each year. Small businesses are 98 percent of the state's enterprises and provide 52 percent of the jobs.

"Despite the excuses given this morning by the governor, nothing will change the fact that this legislation will drive many small, independent retailers already struggling in a poor economy out of business or force them to flee California's burdensome and hostile regulatory environment for greener economic pastures elsewhere-- taking with them their jobs and tax revenue," said CAFR President Marc Halcon.

I sent email to contacts within the ammunition industry, and few seem willing to talk about a possible response.

I asked them all the same specific question: Do you anticipate sanctions by manufacturers against the state of California in response for this law, perhaps similar to Barrett's refusal to sell or service CA state agencies after the ill-advised .50 BMG rilfe ban went into effect?

While anti-trust laws keeps the companies from discussing such an idea with one another, one highly-placed industry source was willing to provide his opinion off the record.

He would not rule out a decision by one or more ammunition manufacturers to refuse to do business with the State of California while the ban was in effect.

"Nothing would surprise me. I'm sure everyone is exploring their options right now."

If ammunition manufacturers do decide to go this route in response, state and local law enforcement agencies may have to find other vendors to supply their ammunition, or face running low on ammunition themselves.

Are Our Troops Getting the Best Weapons?

In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.

When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?

Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of veterans far more qualified to opine on whether or not the M-4/M-16 family of small arms are the best that money can buy, but it doesn't take a great deal of qualification to suspect that the answer to this question is "no."

The basic weapon design for the M-16/M-4 is over 40 years old. While there have been modifications and upgrades during its service lifetime, it has always been prone to failure in adverse conditions. The shorter M-4 carbine, with an abbreviated gas system, is also said to be less reliable than the longer barreled M-16.

Then there is the issue of the cartridge the weapon uses. While the 5.56 NATO round can create devastating wounds at higher velocities, the shorter barrel of the M-4 reduces the velocity of the small .22-caliber bullet so that at extended ranges, velocity drops off enough that the bullet merely penetrates straight through without immediately stopping the enemy. I've written before about soldiers I've spoken to directly that had to shoot insurgents in the head after multiple shots to the torso failed to stop them.

Likewise, the cartridge has been criticized from the beginning because the high velocity lightweight bullets fail to penetrate light cover and stop the enemy on the other side. This is a significant problem, especially as U.S. troops typically encounter an opposition with 7.62-caliber weapons that have greater penetration capability.

Our soldiers are armed with a weapon advanced in years with a history of failing at the worst possible time, chambered for a cartridge with a dubious record of stopping the enemy in real-world combat scenarios.

Of course, our military knows this.

The XM-8 program developed a lighter, more reliable 5.56 weapon. The military cancelled it, but civilians can get a semi-automatic version for themselves. There are also other, more reliable weapons being used in small quantities in the field, from the HK416 to the FN SCAR.

Other cartridges are being tested as well, from the 6.8 SPC specifically developed for the military, to the 6.5 Grendel.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are not arming our military with the most modern, reliable, or potent weapons.

I'll leave it for others to explain why.

UnManned Handgun Attacks, Wounds Three

Tales of the gun weird:

Michael Thourot had just pulled his hand away from the warm metal when it started spewing bullets.

Moments before, Sherri Thourot had watched her husband fire and reload the Jennings 9mm. Then he set it down for her to shoot next at the range.

That's when the handgun started firing on its own, she said, spinning around in circles, landing the Thourots and an Irish tourist in the hospital.

"Nothing like that has ever happened," said Sherri Thourot on Sunday evening from her room at Lakeland Regional Medical Center.

1 Free Gun, 2 Classes, 5 Days: The FrontSight Training Package

So I mentioned briefly Tuesday that I was contacted by the staff at Front Sight Firearms Training Institute last week, inquiring into whether or not I might be interested in partnering with them for a promotional venture.

Guess what? I looked it over, and it seems like a good deal.

Without further procrastination, let's get to it.

Here is what Front Sight is offering.

Four Day Defensive Handgun Certificate that allows you to attend a $2,000 Four Day Defensive Handgun Course at any time in the future with no expiration date. Have better gun handling, marksmanship and tactical skills than 99% of the people who carry a gun for a living! Your shooting buddies will ask, "Where did you learn how to shoot like that?" You will proudly tell them, "Front Sight." Course Value: $2,000. Being the Best Shooter in your group of shooting buddies... Priceless!

One Day 30 State Concealed Weapon Permit Course that gives you all the training, paperwork signed off, finger prints, and certificates to apply for permits in FL, NV, and Utah. Reciprocity agreements in place allow you to carry a concealed handgun in 30 states. Course Value: $500. Comfort of being armed and trained to handle anything... Priceless!

All 7 Front Sight Dry Practice Manuals, each over 100 pages with photos of all the techniques we teach in our Four Day Defensive Handgun, Tactical Shotgun, Practical Rifle, Select Fire M16, Uzi Submachine Gun, Empty Hand Defense and Edged Weapons Courses. These manuals are your "Perfect Practice At Home Front Sight Instructor!" Manuals Value: $280. Ability to dry practice all the correct techniques and continue to improve your skills between courses... Priceless!

Limited Edition, Stainless Steel Folding Knife with Front Sight Logo etched in handle. You can't get this knife anywhere at any price. This is a special run of knives made specifically for this offer. If we sold a logo knife in our pro shop, which we don't, it would be priced at $300 or more. You get it as part of this package. Knife Value: $300. Cool factor when you whip it out to open a box, slice an apple, or dissuade an attacker... Priceless!

Front Sight Instructor Belt, Holster, Magazine Pouch, Flashlight Holder and Flashlight. All the right gear you need to wear on your belt for a Four Day Defensive Handgun Course. Gear Value: $230. Knowing you are outfitted for your first Front Sight course with the same gear the Front Sight Instructors wear... Priceless!

Front Sight Logo Armorer's Bench Mat. Neoprene bench mat measuring approximately 16" x 12" featuring the Front Sight logo and exploded view disassembly diagrams for the 1911 pistol, Glock pistol, and AR-15 Rifle on it. Armorer's Bench Mat Value: $40. Having a Front Sight padded mat to clean and work on your guns... Priceless!

Front Sight "Any Gun Will Do-- If You Will Do" Logo Shirt. I have had so many reports of people seeing our students proudly wearing their Front Sight shirts all over the country. Our students wear them to shooting ranges, gun shows, rock concerts, Disneyland and even church! You too will enjoy proudly flying Front Sight's colors. Shirt Value: $30. Wearing it to your liberal brother-in-law's house party... Priceless!

Front Sight Logo Hat. Perfect accessory item to wear with or without your Front Sight shirt. Keeps the sun out of your eyes and your mind in Condition Yellow (If you don't know what Condition Yellow is you REALLY need to take a course with us!) Hat Value: $20. The acknowledging nod you get from other gun owners when they see you wearing it... Priceless!

Right there I think that Front Sight has a week's worth of experience lined up a a reasonable price, but the other previously-mentioned take home prize makes the deal even sweeter.

Yes, your very own Springfield Armory XD, in your choice of 9mm, .40 S& W, or .45 ACP.

I've made no secret that I'm a fan of the XD, and Front Sight will give you one once you are enrolled.

Folks, this is one great offer.

What should you expect to get out of this investment in your shooting skills?

The ability to draw from a concealed holster and put a controlled pair of shots to the target's thoracic cavity from 3-5 yards away, in less than 1.5 seconds.

Folks, that is strong. Admittedly, I can't do that now. Can you?

I'm hoping that you will consider signing up.

With competence comes confidence.

Affiliate Partnership with FrontSight

You may notice above that there is a banner ad to FrontSight Firearms Training Institute. After being approached by one of their staff last week about promoting a training package I decided to partner up with them, as FrontSight has a excellent reputation as a shooting school and the package they are promoting includes a Springfield Armory XD that you get to take home.

I'll have more on this later tonight or tomorrow.

In the meantime, you can read up on some the links to articles about them they so graciously provided.

Front Sight
Ignatius Piazza in Small Arms Review
Ignatius Piazza
Ignatius Piazza Blog
Ignatius Piazza in Times Democrat
Front Sight in National Enquirer
Ignatius Piazza in Handvapen
Front Sight in Sierra Times
Ignatius Piazza in Forbes
Ignatius Piazza in Playboy Magazine German Edition

Or since seeing is believing:

Long Guns I'd Like to See

Every once in a while I get the opportunity to test some exquisite firearms.

The last to pass through my hands was Ruger's first entry into the AR market, the piston-driven SR-556, which I was able to outfit with an Insight Technologies MRDS optic. I just returned it last week after having it for three months, and it was tough to send back. I'll post my range report in the weeks to come.

Having a newly-released gun in your hands sometimes lead you to try to get into the mind of the designer to try to understand why they decided on the features they brought to market, and in my case, that leads me to wonder about other firearms that I'd be interested in seeing developed from existing firearms, or entirely new designs.

There are two that I've been kicking around in the back of my mind in recent weeks, one being a 5.56 Garand, and the other is a user-friendly dedicated home-defense shotgun.

The 5.56 Garand

The Garand needs no introduction. It was America's premier service rifle in World War II through the Korean War, a semi-automatic firing eight .30-'06 rounds loaded from an en bloc clip.

There are millions of Garands in the hands of American shooters, with the vast majority of them chambered in the traditional .30-'06, but the .308 Winchester increasing being adopted in new rifles. Modification of Garands into other calibers is nothing new, with custom Garands chambered in .338 Magnum and 458 Magnum being available to those who can afford them, but I'd like to see development taken the other way.

I'd like to see a Garand design modernized and scaled to the 5.56 cartridge. Imagine a Garand at 90-percent the size of the original, with a forward-mounted short section of picatinny rail for "scout"-type scopes, with a detachable rear sight (and perhaps a folding rear backup iron site). Even scaled to 90-percent, I wold think an 8-10 round en bloc clip is quite possible.

I imagine it as a truck gun, equally suited for utility work, plinking, predator, and defense or light to medium game hunting.

The Home Defense Shotgun

While the 5.56 is a nice " want to have," the next firearm on my wish list is for a real and vital market that in my experience, is under-served.

When I was selling firearms, the most heart-wrenching work I took on was trying to help someone who had recently been the victim of a crime. A young couple just starting out was living in rough part of town, awoke one night to a someone high on drugs battering open their front door. A single older lady found signs that someone had tried to force open her apartment window. A single woman in her 20s, visibly shaken, scared that her obsessive ex-boyfriend was going to break in one night and hurt her for leaving him.

None of these customers was the caricature of a gun owner that liberals love to set up as strawmen, and none really wanted to purchase a gun. What they really wanted was the sense of security that only firearms can provide in a potentially dangerous situation.

For each of these customers, I wish I had a better option than what I had on the shelves. What I wish I had to sell was a very easy to operate, compact and nearly foolproof shotgun, one that was light and compact enough for women and smaller-statured men, without punishing recoil, and with at least 4-5 rounds in the magazine. I still don't see a perfect solution on the market (and a one-size fits all solution will never exist), but something built off the basic concepts behind the Kel-Tec RFB would certainly be a step in the right direction.

The RFB is a very compact bullpup-style .308 rifle that ejects spent shells forward, meaning it can be used ambidextrously without any modifications. A similar weapon chambered in 20-gauge with simple iron sights and larger game loads (#4-#6) could certainly be the in-home, last defense gun that I would have recommended if we had it on the shelf.

I don't know that there is a significant market for either firearm, but it would certainly be interesting to see how such concepts might work out.

NC Supreme Court Issues Emergency Room Stimulus

Because what this world needs is more armed ex-cons:

The North Carolina Supreme Court says a 2004 law that bars convicted felons from having a gun, even within their own home or business, is unconstitutional.

The state's high court ruled Friday in the case of Barney Britt of Wake County that the General Assembly went too far five years ago when it toughened restrictions on felons owning guns as part of a broad anti-domestic-violence bill.

Update: Okay, I'm a dolt.

For whatever reason, I had it in my head that the Court was allowing violent ex-cons to own firearms, and I was not thinking about non-violent offenders. Sadly, the article doesn't do a good job in defining precisely what the court said.

If it turns out that the ruling affects non-violent offenders, I'll agree with those that state they have paid their debt to society. If it applies to violent offenders as well, I still have a problem with it.

Debunking the Latest Violence Policy Center Propaganda

The VPC — an organization funded by Obama when he sat on the Joyce Foundation — invents their own reality with an assault on gun rights.

Seems rather fitting, considering how much of the progressive agenda is based upon a community-based reality.

About Those Open Carry Advocates in Phoenix, and the Liberals Who Loathe Them

As I hopefully made clear last night, I think that open-carrying firearms at political protests—even when perfectly legal—is needlessly provocative and counter-productive. While the open carry advocates are attempting to get across a message that open-carrying guns is legal and hope to normalize the practice, doing so at an event where there is already political controversy is going to have the opposite effect and polarize those who might otherwise be more accepting of their message.

But while I disagree with the idea of open-carrying at political events, I must say that I was impressed with how these open carry advocates conducted themselves. They coordinated their display with the Phoenix Police Department, who provided them with a liaison officer. They were also courteous to those around them, remaining calm and well-behaved (with the exception of the mysterious "other" rifle-carrying man that only one CNN employee seems to have seen).

And despite the shrieking we're hearing for the hyperbole-prone left, there is not a double-standard at play between the security afforded this President and the last.

One blogger at Firedoglake whined:

Once again we see how irony deficiency maims the conservative's ability to reason: those mo