Did this guy get fired for taking up David Codrea’s Airsoft Challenge? Sketchy on details, but if it was the case, do you think the paper would publish the result?  I doubt it.
Category: Guns
Missing The Big One
I was watching Nightline last night, and they ran a story of people who were cashing in on the Virginia Tech tragedy in various ways, such as registering domains like www.vatechlawsuit.com, and the like. Of course, they seem to have overlooked a pretty big example of this.
For the record …
… despite the fact that I’ve said I can live with some gun control, I still think it’s pretty much useless. While I think we will have to live with background checks, if you look at the statistics, the number of criminals who obtained firearms through straw purchase increased by just about the same number as the decrease in criminals who got their firearms through licensed dealers before the Brady Act went into effect.
Now the gun control folks think they need to shut down straw purchasing, but of course ignore the fact that it will just probably increase theft and gun smuggling.
But the technology exists to screen at point of sale without affecting my ability to go into a gun shop, pay money, and walk out with my purchase. Shutting down other avenues would mean some serious infringements, and shutting down straw purchases is probably not even possible. Even if you could do it however, the demand would be satisfied through other channels. Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals who demand them is a losing battle. The public demands we make a token effort, and I doubt the courts would invalidate and instant background check as an unconstitutional infringement. But I think it’s important to point out that the token effort is still mostly useless. Where there’s demand for a product, someone will step up to supply that demand. Even if banned civilian sales entirely, there’s always smuggling. It’s not hard to make guns, or smuggle them. We certainly see it done regularly with illegal drugs. Guns aren’t materially different.
McCarthy Magazine Ban
Carolyn McCarthy, who doesn’t even know what a barrel shroud is, has proposed new limits to be placed on magazine capacity.  Gun Laws News has the details on H.R. 1859.  Did anyone check to see if she knows what a magazine is?
Can someone tell me how having 10 rounds in a magazine makes a firearm any less lethal? It takes a few seconds to change a magazine. The Virginia Tech killer would have had to carry three magazines instead of two? Pardon me if this sounds rather useless.
The good news is, the bill has no cosponsors, and it’s been two days. Typically legislation that has legs will have a lot of cosponsors right out of the gate. We’ll see if she can manage to guilt some of her colleagues onto the bill, but it looks to me like it doesn’t have legs.  Still worth a letter to your Congress Critter though.
Reasonable Disccussion, a novel Idea
Still some commenting going on over at Dr. Helen’s. I thought I’d replicate some of it here for the gun blogosphere, because I think it’s good stuff.  Helen comments:
[…] Notice the politics of how hard or easy it is for certain people to get guns– if there is threat etc. of domestic violence against a woman, a man loses his right to purchase a gun–even if he is accused unfairly. However, if someone stalks women, scares the crap out of university classes and is said to be an imminent danger to himself or others, then neither the courts nor the hospitals have a duty to report this because they might stigmitize the mentally ill. If a man is stigmitized as a domestic abuser, well surely he is guilty without much investigtion! It is one extreme to the other. We must look at the facts logically and think about what should legitimately constitute a reason to deny a person access to a weapon. Surely, we can do that without mass hysteria against the innocent. Or maybe I am being naive.
I think this is a really good point, but I’m a pessimist about resolving it. I replied:
I think, unfortunately, in this issue, it’s very difficult to have a reasonable discussion. Not among individuals, but in the political space, as far as what would be appropriate public policy on the matter.
We have plenty of people on the pro-gun side who believe “shall not be infringed” means that no federal or state controls on possession of firearms are constitutional. I disagree with this notion, but the issue is full of absolutists.
On the anti-gun side, it’s been pretty clear all along that their goal is to ban most firearms, particularly ones that are useful for self-defense. I have no doubt that many want to see all firearms banned. This precludes any reasonable debate on the issue, because the anti-gun side is always seeing every measure as a baby step towards the eventual goal of prohibition.
There are gun control laws that I am willing to accept and don’t think are that infringing, but I generally won’t say that in the political space because it emboldens the other side. I think there’s quite a lot of us who would be more open to a reasonable discussion if the other side weren’t pushing prohibition.
Of course, they claim to not be pushing it, but the fact is they have never met a gun control law, including the DC ban, that they didn’t like. I don’t think there’s really much reasonable discussion to be had as long as that’s the case.
I’d love to have a reasonable discussion, but because the Brady Campaign, once called Handgun Control Inc., just wants to crap all over the second amendment, rather than have a reasonable discussion, and listen to our concerns, it’s not going to happen. If the Brady’s are truly interested in keeping guns out of the hands of the criminally irresponsible and mentally incompetent, they need to accept our right to bear arms. As long as they are pushing a disguised prohibitionist agenda, there will be no reasonable discussion.
The NICS Improvements
Dr. Helen brings up the topic of NICS improvements. This started out as a comment over on her blog, but it started getting big, so I figured I’d do a linky-then-comment deal here instead.
The NICS improvement bill was something that has been talked about on the gun blogosphere before. A lot of folks are against it because they are against background checks entirely, largely because they don’t believe in the concept of “prohibited person”. It’s often heard that once you serve your debt to society, you get your rights back.
I am sympathetic to the argument, because I do think the current laws catch way too many non-violent people in its net. There is no compelling reason for denying someone convicted of tax evasion their right to keep and bear arms, and yet it is done. I do oppose a large portion of the current felon in possession law. Felon in possession should only apply to people who have committed violent acts, not to non-violent felonies, which there are many.
I do support laws which prohibit criminals, who commit acts of violence, and are convicted through due process of law, from possessing weapons. It’s accepted in our legal tradition that people can be deprived of their liberties through due process; if part of the sentence can include being thrown in jail for several year, part of it can also include not possessing weapons for whatever amount of time the legislature sees fit. I also support people who are adjudicated mentally incompetent from possessing arms.
That said, I think the current practice of Congress not funding any of the programs that can restore the rights of people is wrong. There should be a path for people who have lead clean lives for years to have their right restored. I’m sympathetic to someone who as an 18 or 19 year old, might have gotten in trouble with the law, but has lead a clean life for years and is now a responsible member of the community. There should be recourse for those people.
But it doesn’t alter the fact that if we’re going to have NICS, and we are, it’s not going away, that it should function effectively. It’s already illegal for the people who have those criminal or mental health record to even touch a firearm, so it doesn’t alter the legal situation to have NICS updated with those records.
So therefore, to the disappointment of many of you, I’m sure, I support making sure NICS has the data it needs on criminal and mental health records. We should accept that, and concentrate on things like getting rid of Lautenberg, getting funding for restoring rights to people who have truly reformed themselves, and modifying felon-in-possession statutes to only cover truly violent and mentally unstable people.
It’s Hard to Say Goodbye
I sold two of my collection in a private sale. My Romanian SKS, and a CM-11, both to my friend Jason.  The CM-11 I never shoot. To tell the truth, I aquired it back when I first started buying guns because I thought it looked scary enough that it might eventually get banned, in which case I could cash in. Maybe I sold it too soon, but I could no longer justify the room it was taking up in my safe, for something I never shot. Jason has a full auto M-11, and the uppers on the full auto and semi-auto versions are interchangeable, so he can use it.
This is the first time I’ve sold part of my collection. I plan to aquire a new SKS with my C&R license. The CM-11 sale was just making room in my safe. The one complication is that the SKS is C&R eligible, and although I acquired it before licensing, I’m selling it post licensing, so I’m not sure whether I record it in my bound book. I have to call the ATF to find out for sure. I have seven days to find out. I’m pretty sure the answer is no, I just have to record the disposition in my personal firearms record.
Either way, my current plan is to get a Yugoslavian SKS, and a Nagant revolver. Later, hopefully, I can get an M1 Carbine, and M1 Garand.
Two Things To Watch For
There are two things I can see the anti-gun groups, the media, and the politicans pushing out of this.  The first is another law limiting magazine capacity.  The other is stricter mental health screening for gun purchasers.
Magazine Capacity Limitations
They tried this in 1994. Even if they removed grandfathering, there are a lot of magazines floating around out there that exceed ten rounds, and virtually all magazines exceed five. Magazines are currently completely unregulated. There is no way a law banning them will have even minimal compliance. Magazines exceeding the limit will continue to be common and available, even if Congress bans them.
It also doesn’t take long to change a magazine. As this killer must have done several times while he was systematically executing his classmates. Would it have really made a difference if he had needed to carry three ten round magazines rather than two fifteen round magazines? I doubt this would have altered the end result. In fact, I can’t really see any situation where magazine capacity limits would save lives. Magazines are just too easy to change.
More Mental Health Screening for Purchase
It’ll inevitably be proposed that gun purchasers go through more rigorous mental health screening.  Except proposals requiring physician signoff, references, or making anyone who’s had mental health treatment a prohibited person. This one could be the one we have to worry about the most, because people will more easily see the relationship between the current tragedy and the proposal.  But keep in mind that millions of people are treated every year my the mental health profession, and only a small fraction of them are truly dangerous. Ever taken anti-depressants? Want to be a prohibited person because you one saw a psychiatrist? Do you want your neighbors being consulted and asked if they think it’s OK for you to have a gun? I Don’t either. This is a massive invasion of privacy, and we can’t stand for it. I would also note that Canada does have these strict requirements, and so does Massachusetts.  But it didn’t stop mass killers from committing their acts there.
You learn something new….
Feinstein may be clueless about the content of her ban. However, the picture book story isn’t about her. It’s about the drafting of the California state AW ban, after the Stockton murders.
The drafters did indeed look at a picture book (Gun Digest, I think) and just pick out guns based on appearance.
That’s why California (and copycat jurisdictions like Denver) banned the “Encom CM-55,” which doesn’t exist. The CM-55 was made by another company, but the words “Encom” and “CM-55” appeared on the same page, and so the stupid drafters thought they referred to a single gun.
It’s also how they banned the non-existent “H-93” rifle — because Gun Digest had a typo “H” instead of “HK” which the California legislature blindly copied.
I had heard that, but always figured it was just a story. They actually did go through the magazine and pick out scary looking guns? Unbelievable.
Our Albatross
If there’s one thing I’ve noticed in responding to the new calls for gun control in response to the Virginia Tech tragedy, among people both on the internet and off, it’s that most people’s perceptions of the issue are woefully uninformed. It’s shocking to me how many advocates of gun control don’t even know the most basic things about firearms. Even the queen of the gun control herself, Carolyn McCarthy, didn’t know what a barrel shroud was, even though her bill, H.R.1022, bans firearms that have them.
The basic problem we have is that a large portion of the general public, especially in more urbanized areas, have absolutely no experience or knowledge of firearms themselves. So when folks like the Brady’s and their friends in the media report that the Walther P22 is a high powered killing machine, they have no basis in knowledge that would raise doubt about the veracity of that statement. We on the gun blogosphere may giggle at the idea, but a lot of people genuinely don’t know any better.
We bear the burden of a population that’s easily mislead because it doesn’t have first hand knowledge of firearms, and doesn’t really care too much about self-defense issues, the right to keep and bear arms, target shooting, hunting, or any of the other things we talk about here. That is the core of our problem. The fact that the media is ignorant and doesn’t even try to hide their overt hostility towards guns and shooters is a big problem too, but if people were better educated on our issue, they’d know the media were ignorant and misleading.
That’s why I think the best thing we can do to help ourselves is to educate people we know, and try to at least give them a bit of familiarity, so they can identify media hysterics when they see it. Try to get someone to the range, especially someone who has never shot before. The best anecdote to the bullshit being spewed by the anti-gun crowd and their accomplices in the media is direct first hand experience with firearms. Take the opportunity to not just entertain, but to educate.
One of the things I like to do is take someone clay shooting. Aside from being a lot of fun, it introduces people to the shotgun. Later, when I take them over to the target range, I’ll let them shoot an AR-15 or an AK-47. They can see these scary looking weapons but neat holes in the paper, and fire a single shot with each pull of the trigger, just like any other self-loading gun. If you have access to a plinking range, let them shoot water jugs with it. Let them do the same with a pistol. Then let them do it with your shotgun. Most people are quickly shocked by how much damage a shotgun does to targets. That’s often a good opportunity to point out that at close ranges, the shotgun is probably the most lethal firearm ever devised by man, and yet it has common sporting uses, and very few people believe it ought to be banned. Even in largely gun-free Britain, shotguns are still lawful to own, with a proper shotgun certificate from the police. In my experience, if you can get someone to the range, they aren’t likely to adopt the idea that we ought to ban shotguns too.
We will never go back to being a society where the majority has a reasonable familiarity with firearms. Thanks to technology and laws surrounding the issue, it’s become much more complicated than it was a century ago. But it’s important to do what we can. If we can at least, each of us, make a few people understand that a .22 caliber target pistol isn’t a high powered killing machine, and realize the media is full of crap when they hear that, we’re doing ourselves a favor. Most people don’t appreciate being mislead and lied to, and when it comes to guns, they get that all the time.