I know James Yeager can be a loose cannon, but it’s a good interview:
Category: Guns
What’s Going on With Bump Stocks?
I’m always surprised by how many people think the political process involves Very Smart People of good faith gathering ’round the table to try to solve the problems of the people. They are often shocked and dismayed when the actual process is explained to them, “That’s just not how it should work. Everyone should work together in good faith.”
Usually those folks have had zero or very minimal involvement in civic society. There’s nothing quite as eye opening as being involved with an organization that is run by committee. I’ve been either directly or peripherally involved in organizations like that since I was a teen, and so were my parents, and their parents before them. Decisions don’t come about because Very Smart People work together and problem solve, decisions come about by managing personalities and their interests. Even when the organization has leaders that are effective at managing those things, decisions are usually very suboptimal.
For example, very recently at my club we had the clubhouse repainted in a very drab, neutral color, without any accent coloring. It needed to be done to protect the building. But why not do an accent scheme that really makes it pop? Have you ever tried to get a body of people to agree on a color scheme? Drab doesn’t offend anyone, and no one has strong opinions one way or another.
So I get tired of people who say, “Why don’t you get in there and write some good legislation if you know so much about this?” Are you fucking kidding? I’m not jumping into that shit show unless you force me into it. Â I’m not conceding anything because “it’s the right thing to do.” People who approach democratic institutions with that attitude get eaten alive. That’s not to say I’m not willing to trade or make deals: that’s how things get done in a democratic body. But why would I concede something I don’t have to? Because it’s the right thing to do? Please. Any time you hear a politician talking that language, they’re blowing smoke up your ass. They know better, and are hoping you don’t.
It is with this in mind we approach the issue of bump stocks, which The Daily Beast is reporting is effectively stalled out in Congress. NRA needed to buy time, and kicking the issue over to ATF for a bit accomplished that. In the mean time, bills were introduced that predictably banned much more than bump stocks, and instead focused on any parts or modifications that affected the rate of fire, which includes nearly anything you can put in a semi-automatic firearm. Can a match trigger let me shoot faster? Sure it can. That might not be its intent, but it can. Can a lighter bolt carrier make the action of a semi-automatic cycle faster, theoretically increasing the rate of fire? Absolutely. These kinds of modifications are common, and while they are aimed at accuracy, they do incidentally affect the “rate of fire,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean in something that isn’t a machine gun.
So why not just jump in and give them better language? Because I’m not a damned fool and neither is the NRA. I’m not going to preemptively trade something because it’s “the right thing to do,” I’m going to trade for something else I want. And what if I can still get what I want without having to trade anything? I’ll do that too, and hold onto the bargaining chip because it might be useful at a later date.
On the other side of the argument are the folks on our side who think just shouting “no” very loudly is a legislative strategy. How much impact do you think Ron Paul had on the overall direction of Congress? Because that’s effectively what he did for his whole career. People who do that in deliberative bodies get ignored, and worked around. For these people, the question is this: would you rather sulk in the corner and take solace in the fact that you believe you’re right and righteous as you lose one thing after another, or do you want to actually play the game and win? The latter is what you’re seeing now.
Silencer Op-Ed From Someone Who Clearly Knows Nothing About Silencers
A silencer is a device that is attached to a gun in order to virtually eliminate the sound of the gun and the “muzzle flash” that accompanies the bullet. If the Las Vegas shooter had used a silencer, people would have just continued to fall over with no evident cause for heaven knows how long. No one would have known in which direction to look, and no flash would have been seen.
Did the writer of this article bother to do even the most basic of research? No, of course not. This is what he learned from movies, and it’s completely untrue. Gunshots fired from a silenced firearm are still very loud. Bullets breaking the sound barrier are very loud.
I am a novice at political writing. I am a children’s doctor.
You don’t say?
I have young patients who have been shot accidentally. I have patients who have committed suicide with guns. I have patients who are teenage children who have been shot in their neighborhoods.
What does this have to do with silencers? How do the current regulations on silencers help any of these things? I’m sure he could come up with examples, all of which will be completely ignorant of how the devices actually work.
Also there are clear examples of successful gun control. Australia, a country with as high a percentage of gun owners as the U.S., was able to implement effective and fair gun laws that dramatically reduced gun violence.
They did this by banning every semi-automatic firearm in the country, and then confiscating them. Do you think this is even remotely achievable in a country where tens of millions of people own them, and you can’t even get the ridiculous pseudo-ban that existed from 1994-2004 reimplemented?
ATF Won’t Reclassify Bump Stocks
The Washington Examiner is reporting that ATF is refusing to reclassify bump stocks.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has signaled to Congress that it would prefer new legislation instead of new regulation to impose restrictions on “bump stocks,” which could end up being a major hurdle to any federal action on the firearms accessory.
This is what was likely to happen. If they changed their mind, they’d be setting themselves up for blame, and that is not something any federal bureaucrat wants to do. So they are kicking it back to Congress. Whether NRA tries to kill bump stock bills, or trades it for National Reciprocity remains to be seen.
“It is illegal to convert a semi-automatic to fully automatic,” NRA Executive Director Chris Cox said this month. “The ATF needs to do their job, review these and if there is [a need for] further regulation, then we will work on further regulation.”
I don’t know if that’s an indication of an impending deal, or whether it’s just more delaying tactics. I’ve seen no indication that the gun control folks are interested in a deal on bump stocks. They are much more afraid of National Reciprocity or SHARE. The former I understand: the unwashed flyover people being able to carry in Manhattan? Scare bleu! But SHARE? Really? A silencer in and of itself is only dangerous if I throw it at you really hard.
What You Feel When You Shoot
Bearing Arms links to a study that tries to understand how new shooters feel when they fire a gun for the first time.
Firing a gun can be startling. In response, first-timers can experience a fight-or-flight response – the body’s way of automatically responding to what it perceives could be mortal danger.
I remember the first time I shot in an indoor range, and I remember being startled by the noise, but I think that’s more aptly classified as the startle response. Even today, I can get that from gun fire if I’m not expecting it. But I’ve not experienced any of the feelings he mentions here.
The initial response and come-down that follows can lead to a strong sense of pleasure and reward in some people.
“That rush of serotonin feels good,” Fleming said. “A lot of people don’t like being scared, but there are people who like to jump out of aeroplanes or bungee jump.”
However, Fleming noted that most professional shooters he’s met – primarily police officers and military personnel – aren’t adrenaline junkies and espouse a “healthy respect for guns.”
Maybe people who don’t have that reaction are the ones who get into shooting.
Why They Get Nothing
The cynical and evil leadership of the NRA suggested that they may be able to support a ban on bump fire stocks. NOT. Not even that very small measure will pass muster with this group of disingenuous group of guys who represent the industry that sells these things.
There’s not even an acknowledgement that perhaps your side has drafted something that’s very broadly worded, and sweeps up far more items than merely bump stocks. Some will no doubt argue the broad language is done out of malice rather than out of ignorance. But whichever way it goes, the language of these bills is unacceptable. Show me some acceptable language, and we can make a deal. But with this? No deal. They honestly can’t help themselves:
So Speaker Ryan and Republicans in control of our country- what say you? Shame on them all. We need much more than a ban on bump fire stocks.
What we need is a comprehensive bill to make America safe again, including a ban on bump fire stocks, a reduction in the number of bullets in an ammunition magazine, a ban on certain types of assault rifles and the accompanying features that can be added to make them more deadly, universal Brady background checks, research into the causes and effects of gun violence, adequate funding for the ATF, stronger straw purchasing and gun trafficking laws, mandatory training before owning or carrying a gun, mandatory secure storage of guns, child access prevention laws, gun violence protection orders, limiting who can carry a loaded weapon around in public, and yes, perhaps even a system of gun registration.
Remember what I predicted in the beginning? A deal will be offered. The deal with be rejected, because whatever X is offered isn’t what the other side really wants. It will force them to show their hand, it will fire our people up and they will get nothing in the end.
After Sandy Hook, gun folks put out an initial offer on universal background checks, that would have provided a technological means for private parties to conduct them. That offer was rejected, and they overreached, got defeated, tried to put together that last-minute awful compromise in the form of Manchin-Toomey, and by that time the issue was so toxic, the only thing that could be agreed on was nothing.
So I predicted the same thing would happen this time. The gun control people were offered bump stocks, because we don’t really care that much about them and we have a stalled agenda we really do care about. But they aren’t interested in bump stocks. They want the whole kit and caboodle, and they can’t get it, they’ll take their ball and go home. This would seem to be exactly what they are doing. They are interested in death of a thousands cuts. What they aren’t interested in is true compromise: we give a little, and they give a little.
I keep seeing: “Bumps stocks aren’t enough!” Well, OK then. You get nothing.
Here We Go With Badly Drafted Bills
Now we have a bill number, HR3999, put forward by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, which is our bipartisan train wreck. You can see the text here, and it’s basically a restatement of Feinstein’s ban. Way overly broad, and not at all carefully drafted. Three Pennsylvania Republicans have signed onto this bill.
- Charlie Dent has been OK on the issue, but he’s now a retiring lame duck, so there’s not going to be much threatening him.
- Ryan Costello is Jim Gerlach’s replacement, and is showing to have little spine.
- Pat Meehan is no surprise here. He’s been weak on the issue from the get go.
I don’t expect any of these guys to come out and scream “machine guns for all,” but this bill is badly done. The problem is there are a lot of things that can affect the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearms without enabling it to fire like a machine gun. Among items that could be banned under this bill:
- Match grade triggers.
- Muzzle brakes.
- Recoil weights
- Buffer springs
- Bolt carriers of different weights.
The list could go on. NRA is taking the position that Congress and state lawmakers need to wait for ATF to complete its review. So far, the FSB reviewer who green lighted the bump stock is saying they couldn’t find any way to classify it as a machine gun. Really, you classified the Akins Accelerator as a machine gun, they took the spring out of it, and you green lighted that. Seems to me if the Akins Accelerator was a MG, adding a spring makes any reciprocating stock similar to it, only without a spring readily convertible. Not that I’m interested in giving ATF an out.
Like I’ve said, I’m willing to trade bump stocks for SHARE or National Reciprocity, but only if it’s done with precision. This bill ain’t it. Not even close. This bill we have to kill.
No Right to Sell Arms
The 9th Circuit sitting en-banc has ruled there’s no particular Second Amendment right to sell guns. So that means you can own one, but the government doesn’t have to let anyone sell it to you. At least one judge dissented from the facial challenge, and another concurred on the facial challenge but “dissented from the dismissal of the constitutional challenge as applied to plaintiffs, stating that the majority’s analysis of the Second Amendment challenge to locating a full-service gun shop in an unincorporated area of Alameda County substantially interfered with the right of its customers to keep and bear arms.”
If there’s a right to bear arms, there has to be a right to sell them. That’s like arguing for freedom of the press, but it’s illegal for anyone to sell presses. They’d never accept that in a First Amendment context.
The courts will continue to read the Second Amendment into meaninglessness unless the Supreme Court steps in to stop them.
Far Left Not Keen on Gun Control
Gun control has almost always been a desire of the ruling class, not those they wish to rule. You’re even hearing them using the “monopoly on violence” rhetoric that’s been going around gun rights circles for some time. This begs the question of how long the Dems will keep up the anti-gun rhetoric? Hillary’s reaction to the Vegas shooting didn’t seem to go over well with anyone. Is there perhaps some recognition that this issue has outlived its usefulness?
Weekly Gun News – Edition 65
I started this feature not long after Sandy Hook, because the amount of bullshit flowing in the media was high enough that I couldn’t cover it all. This is a feature I’m happy to skip because of lack of news, but since we’re in the aftermath of a particularly bad mass shooting, the news is flowing. There are a few surprising things, however. One is that the gun control groups aren’t getting much traction. I have alerts for Everytown, Brady, and CSGV. For the most part the press aren’t writing about them. However, NRA’s announcement changed the news cycle.
The media were very quick after the incident to spread far and wide that in their estimation, Nevada’s gun laws are awful. They were even chiding Nevada for failing to implement Bloomberg’s badly drafted background check law. That narrative dried up quick once the facts started to come out.
This is the big article of the week: “I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.”
If you read nothing else here, you’ll really want to read this. Worth sharing even on the vast wasteland of social media.
This bit by Sci-Fi author Larry Correia is also worth your time. Probably one of the best things I’ve seen defending suppressor deregulation.
The Federalist: “6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn’t Coming To Your Side On Gun Control”
Because it worked so well in 2016: 2020 Democrats Target Guns.
This one is going to be fertile ground for the conspiracy loons, because it’s increasingly looking like we aren’t going to have answers.
Guns now at forefront of Virginia Governor’s race. This won’t help the Democrat. Bloomberg is also dumping a lot of money into the race. You remember last time he did that and almost cost Terry McAuliffe the election?
It would be helpful to Senator Murphy if this was actually true: “Mass shootings are an American problem. There’s an American solution.” Unfortunately for him, it is not.
Smart guns won’t stop mass shooting, says Wired. I don’t know, judging from the thumbprint reader on my phone some days it just might.
We must ban springs! One easy way ATF could have ruled against bump stocks is to argue they are readily convertible. Just add a spring.
The Federalist: “When You Politicize Shootings You Make It Harder To Find Solutions” An excerpt: “Those in the press who mislead the public on all these issues give themselves away, as well. They are interested not merely in stopping mass shootings, but limiting gun ownership.”
Patrik Jonsson, whose reporting on this issue has always been fair: “Why gun experts don’t support banning – or buying – ‘bump stocks’”
Your hearing is a joke to them.
Gun groups now rejecting Pat Toomey’s “landmark background check bill.” How does it feel to be a sucker, Pat? I told you, none of those people will ever vote for you. Last election, a lot of us didn’t either!
Remember that when someone starts to argue that your hobbies aren’t worth precious lives, that we tolerate an awful lot of death and societal harm for people’s pleasure in other contexts, so what makes you such an peculiar asshole? And unlike guns, alcohol isn’t particularly useful for self-preservation in most situation, though I suppose it’s a useful fuel and disinfectant.
Bearing Arms: “In the wake of the Las Vegas shooing, YouTube has banned all videos demonstrating how to modify firearms so that they can fire in more rapid succession.” Oh well, Internet freedom was fun while it lasted.
The New York Daily News thinks they’re being played by Congress and the NRA. If your goal is more semi-auto gun bans, then yes, you are. And we are very good at it. The truth is that overreach on the part of the anti-gunners is why nothing happens. We’ve been willing to make trades, and we’ve made trades. The other side seems to have a real issue with that.
What if I were attending a shooting match or training class in Vegas? Or Reno?: “While amassing private collections of firearms may be consistent with the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment, it is hard to accept that anyone has a protected right to appear in the time and place of their choosing bearing more than 10 rifles.” I don’t offer advice to Bridge players because I don’t know or understand the game. But hell, bring up guns suddenly everyone’s a fucking expert.
An oldie, but worth bringing up again: “There’s No Correlation Between Gun Ownership, Mass Shootings, and Murder Rates” I did a similar analysis years back and got the same result. Once you start controlling for confounding factors like urbanization, income, etc, you’re admitting that the problem is more complicated than just the prevalence of firearms.
Raise your hand if you thought Jimmy Kimmel’s cry-a-thon was a bit much. Ben Shapiro has an excellent retort. So does Charles C.W. Cooke.