The Green Gun

Obama

2008-06-08T21:06:00.003-05:00

I've been too busy to update this blog like I should have been, and I plan on commenting more on politics later.

As of right now though, I'm very happy that Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Though I am a gun owner, and I take conceal carry very seriously, I generally lean very Democratic. I consider myself to be a "Blue Dog Democrat" in the same vein as senators Jim Webb & John Tester.

Right now, Obama's stances on conceal carry and other gun issues honestly worry me. Who Obama picks to be his running mate will honestly determine whether or not I vote for him. If Obama picks somebody like Bill Richardson or Jim Webb, then I know that he's willing to take a more moderate stance on gun issues, and I will vote for him.

keltec P3AT review

2008-06-08T20:24:00.002-05:00

So it's summertime, and it's too hot to carry my Taurus PT-145, so I wanted something smaller.

So I bought a Kel-Tec P3AT:

I wanted a small gun for casual pocket carry around the neighborhood, and this was perfect.

I have already bought a wallet holster for it:

And a DeSantis Nemesis holster is on the way. I've used the Nemesis pocket holster for previous guns and have really liked it. Back when I owned and carried a .38 special revolver, my DeSantis Nemesis was my preferred method of carrying it.

I was reluctant to settle with a gun in .380, and I considered getting the Keltec PF9 which is in 9mm, but I wanted something that I could easily and casually carry in my pocket without anybody knowing. Plus, with proper Mozambique Drills, 7 rounds of .380 should be enough for anything I'd encounter around my neighborhood. If I know I'm going somewhere more dangerous, I can always bring the .45 instead.

I've only put about 60 rounds through it thus far, but I'm impressed. The trigger is much lighter than my old revolver was. The recoil was much less than I expected. Again, it felt no where near as bad as a .38 +P round Accuracy was reasonable given a 10 foot engagement distance for self defense. I was able to stay on target and go through the magazine very quickly while maintaining control. I plan on stocking up on .380 and giving the pistol a proper 300+ round break in once I have some more spare cash, but until then I'll just have to put one 50 round box in it at a time on the weekends.

Overall I'm glad I bought the gun. It is perfect for pocket carry during the summer.

Montana & Obama

2008-02-25T14:13:00.003-05:00

An interesting wrinkle in the gun-rights controversy: Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment (at issue in the forthcoming Supreme Court case Heller v. D.C.) would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S.

This is amazing, and it does me proud. Montana has provided us with John Tester, an awesome Blue Dog Democrat and much else that is good.

Here is the full text of the resolution.

While I applaud the ballsy nature of this resolution, and the validity of it, I must take a moment to think: so what if the Supreme Court screws us over and decides that it's not an individual right? The implications could be staggeringly violent in this country.

The words "the beauty of Second Amendment is that it will only be needed when they try to take it away" come to mind.

On the other hand, should the court come down on the side of an individual right, it will be interesting to see how Democrats deal with this. Especially this year, given how vulnerable Obama (and Clinton) is on the issue.

I'll be honest. I like Obama. As a self described Blue Dog Democrat, I'm for many of the same social, environmental, and political issues as Obama. But he really turns me off when it comes to gun control, and in the general election, that's going to hurt him.

And Obama is very weak on this issue.

How weak? Very weak.

OMG THEY MAKE PINK GUNS!

2008-02-25T14:05:00.002-05:00

So in my previous post, I talked about how some in the media are taking notice that more women are getting into gun ownership, and accordingly, demanding pink guns.

Well, CNN took notice of this, and they want you to be afraid. BE VERY AFRAID OF PINK GUNS!

Hilarious. This is the worst kind of scare tactic ratings grabbing "journalism" that unfortunately, has become all too common these days in the media.

It's not even worth calling it journalism. It's one side of the argument, using scare tactics and emotional hyperbole to scare the common public about a non-existent problem.

women and guns

2008-02-16T07:19:00.002-05:00

"You want it pink, I'll make it pink," he said. "The sky is the limit. It's like nail polish."

So the media takes notice that more women are getting into arming themselves. Politically, I can only see this as a good thing. The less the freedom to protect yourself is seen as the domain of paranoid white males, the better.

I heard Obama recently say that he doesn't want to take anybody's guns away, but that he wants to get the guns out of the inner cities. While I generally like the man for other reasons, this is one where 1) I strongly dissagree with him, and 2) I think he's a liar. What does it mean to want to "get the guns out of the inner cities"? Isn't that just code for, "blacks can't have guns but whites can"? And isn't that extremely racist?

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

2008-01-09T18:35:00.000-05:00

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

Students for Concealed Carry on campus is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprised of over 9,500 college students, college faculty members, parents of college students, and concerned citizens (about 90% college students and 10% faculty, parents, and concerned citizens) who support the right of concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed handguns on college campuses.

In the wake of recent school shootings, such as the massacre at Virginia Tech, SCCC contends it is now abundantly clear that “gun free zones” serve to disarm only those law-abiding citizens who might be able to mitigate such tragedies.

a few quotes

2007-12-01T11:54:00.000-05:00

I haven't updated this in awhile, but I should. Needless to say I'm terribly excited about the Supreme Court taking up the issue of whether the 2nd Amendment grants individuals the right to bear arms. The decision they come to will have profound repercussions for both the 2008 election and for life in America in general.

And on that note, here are a few quotes.

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel Adams

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams

"Who is the Militia? The Militia is all of the people"
George Mason

and a few dozen others...

even gun control cannot stop spree killings

2007-10-24T18:07:00.000-05:00

Wanna take a guess as to where the worst mass shooting spree killing in world history took place? America? Wrong. Try South Korea:

Woo had an argument with his live-in girlfriend on the afternoon of April 26, 1982.[2] Enraged, he left the house and went to the police armory, where he began consuming large amounts of whiskey. After becoming drunk, he collected an arsenal[2] including a rifle and some grenades. He left the armory around dinner time armed and drunk. Walking from house to house, he abused his position as a police officer to make people feel safe and gain entry into their homes. Then he shot the victims, or killed the entire family with a grenade. He continued this pattern for a full eight hours.[2]

Once Woo had shot a certain number of people in a village, he would run to another nearby village to continue the massacre. In the early hours of April 27, after rampaging through five villages in Uiryeong county, Woo took his final two grenades and strapped them to his body. He took three people hostage and set the grenades' fuses, killing both himself and his final victims.

For a complete list of the world's worst spree killings, just take a gander at this rather morbid website:

http://www.spreekillers.org/

2nd Place behind Woo was Andrew Kehoe, who kiled 44 people with a rifle, dynamite, pyrotol, and a blunt instrument in 1927.

Gun Free zones?

2007-10-21T12:27:00.000-05:00

It's basically an established fact that gun free zones have done nothing to stop school shootings.

So, how should we solve the problem? Israel has a suggestion:

Since the 1970s, on school campuses in Israel, policy requires teachers and parent aides to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons. The result? School shootings have plummeted to zero.

Best Money spent all year

2007-10-03T19:03:00.000-05:00

It's membership dues time: http://vcdl.org/

Membership was $25.
I did that, plus $25 more for the gun shop legal defense fund (to fight the attacks by Bloomberg), $25 more just for the heck of it, and $25 to the VCDL-PAC.

I had to make out a second check for the VCDL-PAC.

On the first check for $75, I wrote, "For Michael Bloomberg :)"
On the second check for $25, I wrote, "For Hillary Clinton :)"

Join bitches. They do good work in this state.

Gun Owners in America

2007-09-11T17:11:00.001-05:00

Well, it looks like the Freakonomics blog picked up on Kyle Cassidy's Armed America, and has an excellent interview with him here.

Go check it out.

some satire

2007-09-03T10:05:00.000-05:00

...and how about some gun nuts

...and some more satire by lil' Chuckie Bloomer, age 6. ;)

The Gun License Challenge!

2007-08-16T09:48:00.000-05:00

"I'm winning!"

One Nation, Under Gun

2007-08-07T08:05:00.000-05:00

Kyle Cassidy's "Armed America" makes it to the mainstream news!

Here, go check it out.

Brownback on the 2nd Ammendment

2007-08-06T07:46:00.000-05:00

I won't vote for him because of other things he believes in, but here is an interesting video of him shooting various rifles (an AR-15, an M1 Carbine, and a blackpowder rifle). I find this video interesting considering Senator Biden's snide comments about another AR-15 owner whom I have previously mentioned...

Jered again!

2007-07-30T14:32:00.000-05:00

This time in video form:

I'd say that Jered and I have quite a bit in common, and I think he does a much better job of defending his beliefs in this video.

Jered Townsend

2007-07-26T08:50:00.001-05:00

So first, Here is a Reason Magazine interview with Jered Townsend, the YouTuber who asked the gun control question at the CNN-YouTube debates, I think he does a good job of defending his actions and his mental competency.

Looks like other news outlets have been curious about him too.

After the debates, he contacted Biden's campaign by email and phone asking if he could just talk with Biden to talk about the 2nd Ammendment. He'll never get a response though. Biden has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of winning over the 23 percent of Democrats who identify themselves as gun owners. What frightens me is that perhaps the silence of the other candidates (sans Richardson) paired with the loud applause at the debates, indicates their approval of Biden's comments.

This is political foolishness, as one in three Americans who live in the Midwest and South owns a gun, and it is precisely by tapping gun-friendly Democrats like John Tester & Jim Webb did the Democrats finally manage to achieve some victories. If the Democratic party hasn't learned from its 1994 mistakes, then they'll once again grab defeat from the jaws of victory in the next election.

The Democrats need to listen to what Richardson is saying. Most gun owners (except hardcore Libertarians) are fine with the idea of preventing criminals from being able to purchase guns. Some of us are even willing to provide a legal mechanism by which private individuals can safely sell their weapons to other individuals through a background check system (i.e. closing the gun show loophole). But you will not bring us to the table (or the voting booth) by calling us mentally unstable because we happen to like our guns as much as you like your Prius.

How local gun control gets passed

2007-07-25T13:23:00.000-05:00

This is how gun ineffectual feel good local gun control laws get passed in California:

Not for crime prevention reasons, but for feel good reasons. I'm sure this happens on the state level to some degree too.

I'm glad that here in VA there are laws on the books that prevents localities from crafting gun control laws, i.e. state law trumps local laws.

gun control laws

2007-07-25T13:10:00.000-05:00

A primer:

the CNN YouTube Debates

2007-07-24T09:15:00.000-05:00

So... Clowns Not News held their YouTube debates last night with all 8 of the current Democratic contenders. I didn't watch all of it, all I watched were a few short Q&A's that I saw online with the issues that concerned me.

So what pisses me off is that CNN chose this question:

Instead of this one:

Now, I'll be honest. Sometimes I hold one of my favorite rifles and yeah, I do treat it like a baby with all the care I give it. But, if I were trying to make a pro-gun argument while at the same time ask a serious question to all of the Democratic candidates, I would have posed the question in a manner similar to the second video, which is why I'm pissed off that CNN chose the one it did. By choosing the first video, it made gun owners look like nuts.

Plus, and this really pisses me off, they only allowed Richardson & Biden to answer the question. Even though the question itself wasn't phrased well, I would have liked to have heard answers from the top tier candidates, and not just form two long shots who won't get the nomination. How would Edwards respond to that question? And Obama? And yes, I would even have liked to have seen Hillary respond as well. Instead, we got Richardson squirm because he was placed in the difficult position of defending gun rights, while Biden slandered gun owners as mental. Great.

Thanks Clowns Not News, you have entertained and misinformed us again!

Armed America

2007-07-02T13:50:00.000-05:00

Kyle Cassidy, a regular poster on the Livejournal Guns community, has finally released his book, Armed America: Portraits of Gun Owners in Their Homes.

I think he does an excellent job of showing that we're not all just a bunch of crazed armed rednecks like Ted Nugent.

Anyways, here is the link to his book. Go check it out.

Kyle is a great photographer, and he's not as radical as Oleg Volk(who is so awesome it hurts). Anyways, he deserves whatever support he can get for this book. I had considered posing with my dad for Kyle's book, but that fell through due to medical issues with my dad.

BTW, Kyle has posted many of the photos up at armedamerica.org. Go check it out.

rolling back gun control in Canada

2007-06-28T08:18:00.000-05:00

So there is talk of rolling back the gun registration program in Canada because it has had little effect on crime or mass shootings, but has instead been a costly and invasive system.

I wonder if we will hear a peep from mr. Moore about this?

I wish I had a better source than just an LJ post, but here it is:
http://community.livejournal.com/guns/1340720.html

What struck me was some of the statistics cited:

"Of the 5,194 homicides committed between 1997 and 2005 [in Canada], only 118, or 2.27%, were committed with a registered gun. Of the 5,194 homicides committed between 1997 and 2005, only 63, or 1.21%, were committed with a firearm registered to the accused murderer. Of the 5,194 homicides committed between 1997 and 2005, only 111, or 2.14%, were committed by a person who held a valid firearms licence. Of the two million licensed gun owners in Canada, only 111, that is 0.00555%, used their firearm to murder somebody."

"We have the highest homicide rate in nearly a decade. The firearm homicide rate is the same as it was 20 years ago. Sixty-six per cent of murders in 2005 were committed without a firearm; 58% of the firearms homicides were committed with handguns; 9% were committed with banned fully automatic firearms, sawed off rifles and shotguns; and only 30% of recovered firearms were registered."

"Sixty-four per cent of the accused murderers had a criminal record, 6% for homicide. [...] Seventy-three per cent of the accused murderers had been drinking or on drugs. Thirteen per cent of the accused murderers were mentally ill; 45% of the murders occurred while the accused were committing another crime; and 22% of murder victims were involved in illegal activities."

It's still pretty unlikely that they'll roll back the registration scheme, but it is interesting to note some of the results of Canada's experiment with gun registration.

Gun Safety 101

2007-06-27T14:45:00.000-05:00

Another blogger has done an excellent job of explaining the basics of gun safety.

I highly recommend this to everyone:

New shooter, going to the range with me? Read this.

Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA on gun control

2007-06-25T10:51:00.000-05:00

It's short but it's worth a read.

Gun control has worked for criminals and against law-abiding citizens elsewhere. California has a waiting period on firearm sales; prohibits private sales, trades and gifts of firearms between family members and friends; prohibits buying more than one handgun in a 30-day period; and has an "assault weapon" ban. But California's murder rate is 24 percent higher than the rest of the country.

Studies for Congress, the National Academy of Sciences and Health and Human Services have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime, at home or in foreign countries.

Whenever I've tried to use the example of Washington DC's handgun ban and the resulting increase in crime, my Liberal friends have countered with, "but DC is surrounded by places where you can buy guns". While this may be true, it still doesn't negate the fact that disarming citizens will increase crime.

A great example of this is Jamaica. You would think that a tiny island nation would be a great place to experiment with stringent gun control. Ban all the guns, the logic goes, and the criminals wouldn't be able to arm themselves. Alas, even on an island the black market prevails. The results of Jamaica's gun control has been staggering.

The UK's gun control has resulted in them having the highest knife crime of any country in Europe. There can be little doubt that eventually enough guns will be smuggled into the country to supply the criminal demand, and that violent crime rates will continue to increase.

gun control helps criminals

2007-06-25T10:09:00.001-05:00

I've argued before that gun control helps criminals, but this is the first time I've seen actual criminals pushing for stronger gun controls (presumably to disarm their victims) and then being busted for gun trafficking:

The founder of an anti-violence group called No Guns pleaded not guilty Thursday to federal weapons charges.

Hector “Big Weasel” Marroquin is accused of selling an assault rifle, a machine gun, two pistols and two silencers to undercover federal agents last fall.
...
Marroquin, 51, of Downey, is a onetime member of the 18th Street gang who founded No Guns in 1996, ostensibly to reduce gang and gun violence.

No Guns received $1.5 million from the city as a subcontractor on anti-gang efforts but its contract was canceled last year after authorities learned that Marroquin had hired relatives, including his son.

Hector “Little Weasel” Marroquin, is an acknowledged 18th Street gang member who pleaded no contest last week to home-invasion robbery and was sentenced to nine years in state prison.

Marroquin is charged with three counts of manufacture, distribution and transport for sale of an unlawful assault weapon, along with one count each of machine gun conversion and possession of a silencer.

The irony is hilarious.

The Nuuuuudge on Gun Control

2007-06-15T21:23:00.000-05:00

NRA, Democrats Team Up To Pass Gun Bill

2007-06-14T13:45:00.000-05:00

You may have heard about this in the news: the NRA and gun control advocates have teamed up to craft a bill that both sides can agree on. The goal: tightening the NICS background check system that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals & the insane.

The measure would require states to automate their lists of convicted criminals and the mentally ill who are prohibited under a 1968 law from buying firearms, and report those lists to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

As I'm in favor of preventing convicted felons & the insane from being able to purchase guns legally, I'm in favor of this as long as it's done right while respecting the rights of honest citizens, and allowing for a process that would enable the restoration of gun rights through petition.

The legislation requires state and federal agencies to transmit all relevant disqualifying records to the NICS database. It also provides $250 million a year over the next three years to help states meet those goals and it imposes penalties — including cuts in federal grants under an anti-crime law — on states that fail to meet benchmarks for automating their systems and supplying information to the NICS.

OK, so it's closing gaps in the system, and providing money to fix those gaps.

The bill would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.

This is very important. In addition to being an NRA member, I belong to the VCDL, and they were rather concerned that the bill include that measure. See, if you're a veteran and you come home from war, you're going to have some issues that need to be worked through, but with treatment you will have recovered enough that you should still be allowed to maintain your 2nd Ammendment rights. This portion allows for that rehabilitation.

It also outlines an appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongfully included in the system and ensures that funds allocated to improve the NICS are not used for other gun control purposes.

That part also makes a lot of sense. Let's say your name got on the list by accident, how could you petition it? This ensures that there is a way to do so.

Radical Libertarians are still opposed to this bill, but I'm pragmatic, and think that this bill would accomplish the goals of improving public safety while respecting 2nd Ammendment rights.

Boar Hunting with Pistols

2007-06-14T12:03:00.001-05:00

The fastest way to start a fight amongst gun enthusiasts is to ask them, "which round is better, 9mm or .45?" Ask that one and you'll be sure to see sparks fly. If you google for "9mm stopping power" you will undoubtedly come upon articles claiming that 9mm isn't enough. There are old police reports of plugging a guy with 11 9mm bullets and him still standing. It goes on and on.

In my opinion, a caliber capable of taking down a deer or a wild boar is plenty to stop an aggressor. Now, contrary to what some would have you think, handguns are used in hunting in some circumstances. Oddly enough, wild boar hunting is one of them these days. I honestly would love to attempt this. First because of the challenge of getting close to a boar without getting mauled by it, and second because I love pork, and the idea of eating 'free range bacon' just appeals to me.

The guys over at Gunblast recently decided to go wild boar hunting, with a S&W MP in 9mm. At first glance, I would have said, "that's crazy, 9mm isn't enough for a wild boar." Well, they have proved me wrong. He managed to put down the animal in two shots. Go over and read the story if you get a chance, and check out their other reviews while you're at it.

The key is to bring along the right type of 9mm ammo. See, bullets come in all types of loads. These are various combinations of gunpowders with bullet shapes and designs. For practice, standard military 'full metal jacket' rounds will do fine, and they don't cost much. But for self defense, I always carry some variety of hollowpoint overpressure ammo (known as +P for short). A hollowpoint bullet will expand when it hits flesh, and the overpressure ammo gives the round more power behind it.

Still, were I to ever get the chance to go wild boar hunting, I'd still bring a semi-auto rifle in 7.62x39 or .308 to back me up if the pistol doesn't put the animal down.

One final note: the ammo used to hunt boar in that article came from ExtremeShock. If you have a change, check out these videos of them firing bullets into ballistic gelatin. Ballistic gelatin gives a pretty good guesstimate of what a bullet does when it hits flesh. To be an even better test, the gelatin should have something to simulate a rib cadge in it.

the Real ID scares the shit out of me

2007-06-11T15:33:00.001-05:00

Seriously. I'm 100% behind the ACLU and whatever other groups are out there that are fighting this bureaucratic monstrosity.

If you haven't taken the time to read the Wiki on the Real ID, please do so.

Bill Richardson

2007-06-07T13:20:00.000-05:00

I would vote for this man. Too bad he really doesn't have much of a chance for the Democratic ticket.

I still want to be a Democrat

2007-06-07T10:05:00.000-05:00

Some people think that just because you own guns you have to be a Republican. This is hard for me to do, however, because I hold some liberal views.

I spend a lot of time on this blog talking about guns and what I think about gun controls, so I wanted to take a moment and point out some of my more liberal views. Needless to say, come election time, I've been forced to vote both ways on occasion.

First of all, I'm pro-choice. I just do not think that the government has the right to tell people what they can do with their bodies. Pregnancy is a private situation, and it should be a private choice. That said, I think the issue should be up to the states, as I recognize that what people believe in Utah isn't the same as in California.

Gay Rights. Gays should be allowed in the military. They should be able to marry or have civil unions. It's a human right in my opinion, and the arguments against it just do not seem very strong to me. I don't think that gays (or other minorities) should necessarily have more rights than anyone else, but they should at least be on common playing ground as everyone else. Again, since this is one of those very controversial issues, I think it should be left up to the states and not the Federal Government. I am totally against any sort of Federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The government has no right to dictate what I can or cannot do in my own bedroom amongst consenting adults.

Legalization of drugs: I'm against the drug war, because I think that it has caused more problems (both in our country and abroad) than it has solved. And I'm not just talking about marijuana here, I'm talking about everything. As much as I hate cocaine & heroin, I think they should be legal and regulated so as to take their trafficking out of the hands of hardened criminals. Our criminalization of cocaine has given countries like Columbia decades of bloody civil war and terrorism.

Environmental protection: I'm strongly in favor of protecting the environment. The fishing industry can and should be regulated so as to preserve fisheries from collapse. We should preserve vast stretches of forest for wildlife, and so that we can enjoy these areas! Here is a huge area where hunters & environmentalists can work together. After all, you can't go hunting if there aren't enough places to hunt!

Alternative energy: I am strongly in favor of removing any subsidies for oil, natural gas, and coal. I am strongly in favor of the government providing subsidies & incentives for people to develop, purchase, and install solar & wind power. Our fuel economy standards should be increased for all vehicles. Electric cars & motorcycles can and should be made, and if the government has to browbeat the auto makers into making these vehicles available to the public, then dammit they should. our addiction to foreign oil is helping our enemies. It is giving money to radical islamists and radical socialists in Venezuela. For security reasons alone, we must get away from using oil as much as possible.

Universal healthcare: I'm not yet decided on this issue, but I'm beginning to lean in favor of such a system. If they can make it work in every other industrialized nation (including Israel) then why not here too?

So you can see that with views like this, it is hard for me to vote Republican, but it is also hard to vote Democratic when they are trying to leave me disarmed and vulnerable to maniacs and criminals.

Democrats like Jim Webb do give me hope for the future though, that we can work something out within the party.

gun controls

2007-06-07T08:35:00.001-05:00

I just want to take a moment and point out that there are some gun controls that I think are good. These are just a few that come to mind:

"Shall Issue" Conceal Carry Permits: I'm a big fan of these for several reasons. First, to get the permit you have to go through an FBI background check, which prevents people with any sort of felonies from getting the permit. Second, you have to complete a gun safety class. When I took the class, most of the time was spent on the legality of carrying a weapon, and when it is legal to use it. This is very good information to have if you're going to be carrying a weapon, as using your gun in the wrong way will land you in prison, even if you have a nice permit. The "shall issue" part refers to a difference in state licensing. May issue states require that you have to prove a 'need' to carry a gun, which usually means that the local sheriff can deny you the right based on whatever excuse he makes up. Not the right race? Not a politician? Not a celebrity? Don't count on getting one. Shall issue states are far more democratic, in that as long as you pass the background check and take a safety class, then you can get one. Alaska & Vermont do not require any sort of permit at all to conceal carry. I'm not a fan of this, as I think that preventing criminals from legally carrying a weapon is a good thing. Oh, one more thing. You have to be 21 years old, which again, I think is a good restriction.

One gun a Month laws: I'm going to take some flak from other gun owners on this one, but I think it's a good law. We have it in Virginia, and it helps to prevent gun trafficking. The law basically says that you cannot buy more than one handgun a month (rifles & shotguns are not restricted because they are not used in crime as much). The law is good at preventing trafficking, but not good at stopping madmen, as we saw in the VT shooting where Cho was willing to wait another month to buy a second handgun (which also proves why waiting periods for handgun purchases are worthless).

Background Checks: I'm a firm believer that if you commit a felony, that you should loose your right to vote & own a firearm. These rights can be reinstated over time if the former felon proves that he or she has corrected their ways, but I think it should be a difficult process. All Federally licensed gun dealers are required to perform a background check when they sell a gun, even at gun shows. This process works for the most part. It does a great job of preventing felons from buying guns, but it is currently doing a lousy job of preventing nutcases, but this is mostly because there is a problem with the mental health bureaucracy reporting its info in a timely manner to the system. As far as the so-called gun show loophole, this pertains to the fact that sales between individuals are not regulated the same way. I am in favor of providing a method that people can use at gun shows to perform background checks, but I have not seen it proposed in a good way yet. In short, I would be in favor of closing the loophole if it is done in a way that is fair and doesn't create de-facto gun registration.

Regulation & licensing of Class III Firearms: Did you know that it's totally legal to buy a full auto gun in the USA? Well, it is, but you have to license & register it with the government, and pay a tax. I generally think this is a good idea. The people who buy these weapons tend to be upper-middle class people who have lots of money to spend on a hobby. Criminals don't use this method, as they can just buy these types of weapons on the black market instead.

Strawman Purchase: if you buy a gun for your buddy who is a felon because he can't legally buy the weapon on his own, you both deserve to go to jail. 'nuff said.

And now let's flip the coin around a bit. Gun Controls that I'm not in favor of:

Gun Free Zones: with the possible exception of courthouses (where I think only lawyers, judges, and the police should be armed) I don't think that there should be any gun free zones. Why? Because these zones do nothing but disarm the people who follow the law, and give criminals and maniacs unarmed victims. Massacres happen this way.

Assault Weapon Bans: the problem with these bans is that they focus on cosmetic features, most of which deal with the ergonomics or even safety of the rifle itself. These features are focused upon by anti-gunners because they are ignorant of and scared of these features. For instance, what purpose does a barrel shroud serve, and why do anti-gunners want them banned? Well, they make the weapon look menacing, but they are actually a safety feature: they keep you from burning your hands if you touch the weapon the wrong way after shooting it a bunch. Collapseable stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc. Why do these features make the weapon so much more dangerous? When was the last time you've heard of a 7-11 being held up by somebody carrying a rifle with a bayonet attached? Again, most of these features just make the gun look menacing. I've seen some military weapons enthusiasts do things like paint their weapons neon pink as a way of jokingly mocking the anti-gun crowd's fear of these weapons. Ted Nugent owns a pink tiger striped AR-15. The only feature that makes these weapons more dangerous than common hunting rifles is their magazine capacity size. If the antis were serious and understood weapons, they would focus on that feature alone (not that I'd agree with them being banned though).

Banning of all semi-auto weapons: Yes, with a semi-automatic weapon you can fire the gun faster than you could with a bolt action, but the rate of fire isn't that much more than with a lever action, or a pump action, or from a revolver. Plus the semi-auto mechanism also reduces felt recoil, which makes the weapon easier to control (which is a huge factor for women). Banning semi-auto weapons would remove a huge section of firearms that are legitimately used for hunting as well. Furthermore, it is counter productive. The US Government routinely sells off old surplus WWII & Korean war semi-auto rifles to members of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The US Government has a vested interest in making sure that its populace (or at least a percentage of it) already knows how to shoot, and how to shoot well. Why? Because in the case of invasion, or of a really big war (WWII levels) what we would need is lots of people who already know how to use a weapon properly.

Gun registration & licensing: I'm totally against the registration of firearms, as it does nothing to prevent crime. As John Lott has pointed out repeatedly in his research, these controls do not affect violent crime. What they do create, is a list of guns which can be confiscated at a later time.

Gun owner registration & licensing: I am generally against this on purely Libertarian grounds, but it is one of those things that I could probably live with if I had to. I've stated before that I'm in favor of conceal carry licensing. In a way this creates a list of gun owners, and if things got really bad, this means that the government has a list of people to round up guns from. On the other hand, a weapon is a dangerous tool. Shouldn't we require people to go through training and licensing as we do with cars? This is probably one of the few gun control measures that I might be able to give some ground on, if the licensing was done correctly. Some states require you to get a license to own a handgun. If this license were combined with conceal carry ability, then I'd be fine with it. Good arguments can be made on both sides of this particular issue. In either case, I think that this should be something left up to the states to experiment with, and that the Federal Government should let the states experiment with systems in this case to see what works best.

Jackie Mason, aka TheUltimateJew, on Gun Control.

2007-06-05T20:03:00.000-05:00

sometimes a picture is all you need

2007-05-31T11:25:00.001-05:00

So here, have two:

conceal carry on campus

2007-05-30T10:05:00.001-05:00

So, I'm a member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (which is so much better than the NRA for defending gun rights in Virginia), and as part of that I get their weekly newsletters via email.

Well, this was in today's email:

VCDL member Dr. Jerry Coffey told me that he was at the Richmond gun
show last Saturday and VCDL member Alfred Mercer let him sit and rest
for a few minutes at the VCDL table. A young man in a Virginia Tech
t-shirt (I am withholding his name) came up with a concealed carry
question. After a few questions of our own we learned that he was a
current student at VT and held a concealed carry permit.

At the time of the Cho massacre, this young man was in an adjacent
classroom building where bloody escapees from the carnage sought
refuge.

He described the gaggle of PhDs at the front of the room who
apparently had no idea how to protect themselves or their students
from the wholesale murder going on next door. His first thought was
that (in compliance with VT policy) his pistol was far away in his
apartment where it could NOT do anybody any good.

So, if this student had been allowed to carry his firearm on campus as he is allowed to carry it just about everywhere else in the state, he could have stopped the massacre. Gun Free Zones are victim disarmament zones. They are criminal empowerment zones.

But they have Gun Control in the UK!

2007-05-04T10:42:00.000-05:00

More reporting on the 'effectiveness' of the UK's gun controls can be found here:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-04-09td.html

What is striking is that despite wall to wall coverage with Big Brother style Closed Circuit TV's and draconian gun & knife controls which prevent honest citizens from defending themselves in any way, violent crime has only gone up.

On the VT shootings: balancing gun rights & gun controls.

2007-05-03T11:29:00.000-05:00

I wanted to take some time before posting about the shootings at Virginia Tech. For one, because I have a friend that goes there (he’s doing fine, thanks), and two, because people need a chance to grieve before calmly reflecting upon a tragedy and what can be done to prevent further tragedies.

That said, I would like to share my thoughts on the issue.

First, I think that the following people should not be able to buy or own weapons: 1) the mentally retarded (sorry, I hate the PC terms for them), 2) the insane, 3) convicted felons. To my understanding of the law, I know at least 2 & 3 are already banned from owning weapons. In the case of the VT shooter, he was insane, but the bureaucracy failed to inform the government system which provides the backbone of all background checks. This is a gross failure, and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has taken steps to rectify this, as is necessary.

However, there is more than that. People who take the time to get the training and the license to carry a concealed weapon should be allowed to carry that weapon anywhere, with the possible exceptions of courthouses. In courthouses, I think that the only people who should have arms are Judges, Lawyers, and Cops (and all 3 groups should be armed), because by participating in the justice system, they are placing their lives in jeopardy whenever they deal with violent criminal offenders.

Virginia Tech blatantly refused to let law abiding citizens to carry weapons onto their campus for protection. They openly cheered a legislative victory that solidified their ‘gun free zones’ which were supposed to protect them. But as we see time and time again, gun free zones do not protect anybody but the offender. Criminals don’t bother to obey laws. Government should try to limit the ability of criminals to do harm, but Government should not limit the ability of honest citizens from defending themselves.

This issue is very personal for me, because I both hold a conceal carry permit and I work at a university. I do not carry while I am at work. I leave it in the car, as required by current law. But there isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t wonder what would happen, what I would do, if something like the VT shooting were to happen here. And it’s not like we don’t have our share of crazies or shootings either. One of my coworkers here had lived in some apartments near the campus for nearly a decade while he saved up for a home, and he described to me the various times he’s heard gunshots. Also, recently on campus a non-student was found in one of the computer labs with a concealed butcher’s knife on him. He was arrested, kicked out, and charged with trespassing. But what if he comes back with a gun now? He certainly has a score to settle now. So, I feel justified in my desire to carry, but am prevented only by my employer, who I do not feel can guarantee me adequate security.

I’ve also heard what the gun control groups have been saying about this. I’ve heard them say that perhaps a waiting period for gun purchases would have helped. Well, there already was one. Virginia has a ‘one handgun per month’ law, which is to prevent gun trafficking. I have no problem with this law. The times that I’ve wanted to buy more than one handgun, I’ve simply waited a month. And that’s exactly what the VT shooter did. He waited a month to buy his second handgun. So obviously a new waiting period would not have stopped him either.

Then there is the argument that, “well, the shooter must have used hi capacity magazines in his handgun, and those were banned under the Assault Weapons Ban which recently expired, so we should ban them again”. This is wrong on several counts. First of all the AWB only banned the production of new hi capacity magazines for civilian use in the US, it did not ban the sale of existing hi capacity magazines. So, the AWB basically just made the price of these items go up for the decade that it was in place. Now that the ban is gone, the price has gone back down. Some states have put actual bans on hi capacity magazines, limiting people to 10 or 20 rounds. Virginia is not one of those states.

But what if we did ban all magazines above 10 rounds? Would it have made a difference? Sometimes I wonder about this. I usually carry a revolver, because I’ve had too many random jams with semi-auto pistols. The magazine springs have to stretched periodically if you’re going to keep them loaded all the time, otherwise they loose their tension and won’t properly feed the round into the chamber. I have grown to distrust this. Revolvers will shoot every time. Call me old fashioned. My revolver holds 5 rounds, and is only good at close range (under 25 yards at the most). So in an actual gun fight, I wouldn’t want to go up against somebody with a long barreled Glock with a 33 round magazine. No, definitely not, as I would be at a tactical disadvantage.

But does that mean I think we should ban these magazines to improve my tactical advantage? Again, banning them will not make them disappear, it will only make the existing magazines worth more on the black market. It may have made the VT shooter’s task of obtaining the magazine more difficult, but somebody with enough determination would not have been stopped.

Furthermore, what difference does a 10 round vs. a 33 round magazine really make? I’ve seen videos of trained shooters swap out three 10 round magazines in the time it would take me to unload one 33 round one. So with practice, even 10 round magazines can be just as deadly.

More to the point, even somebody armed with just a 5 shot revolver like mine can put a stop to a shooting. In the case of the Utah Mall shooting, an off-duty officer who was carrying a concealed weapon (against mall rules, btw), was able to stop a man armed with a shotgun and a handgun.

Mass shooters are cowards; they are looking to kill unarmed people. Any armed response is enough to put them from an offensive to a defensive mode, and this defensive mode then gives the police enough time to move in and finish the job if necessary.

Another thing that bothered me about the shootings was the overall victim mentality. You will note that the classrooms with the highest number of dead and wounded were the ones that responded passively to Cho’s attack. Laying down and hiding underneath your desk is no way to save your life. In those classrooms where the students managed to barricade the doors, they managed to save lives. A man with a gun is not impervious to attack. Even if you don’t have a gun on you, you have objects near you that can be used as missiles. Books can be thrown, desks can be piled up, doors can be barricaded. The shooter himself could have been rushed while he was reloading.

Why did we not see more of this? I think this is because people have gotten used to the idea of somebody else being responsible for their own protection. This pacifist mentality must be dropped. In ancient China, pacifist Buddhist monks trained with arms, and bravely stood up to tyrants, pirates, and criminals of all types; yet they remained pacifist at heart. That is to say, it is possible to be a pacifist, to be a humanist, who loves his fellow man and would seek no harm to him, while at the same time preparing oneself for conflict with evil men, should the need arise.

No amount of gun control will stop evil men from doing harm to innocent people. Just look at the UK, where they have banned private handgun ownership. Criminals there have learned how to obtain weapons on the black market, while honest law abiding citizens must remain unarmed like sheep before wolves. Crime has soared there. This is madness.

Although I applaud the steps taken by Governor Tim Kaine to fix the bureaucracy that failed, I understand that even the best system fails now and then. One day a shooter with no mental health or criminal history will buy a gun, and go on another shooting spree. I don’t hold any illusions about preventing it. What I hope, is that his victims will have what they need to protect themselves.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Ben Franklin

2007-04-17T11:30:00.000-05:00

“I am pro-gun, I've got a lot of ‘em. And what I tell folks is because of the Patriot Act we damn well better keep ‘em."

Jon Tester (D) Montanda

Maybe they'll want knife control next

2007-04-09T13:11:00.000-05:00

John Lott pointed out in his blog that:

In the United States, 5.9 percent of Americans were victims of knife attacks over five years, while for the UK it was 12.2 percent.

So they banned handguns in the UK, and that didn't stop gun crime. It didn't even stop violent crime, as the criminals just arm themselves with knives now if they can't get smuggled weapons. The end result is that now the UK is the knife crime capital of the world:

The tragedy occurred as a new study of 28 countries found 13% of violent crime victims in England and Wales had been stabbed or threatened with a knife. Scotland came close behind. Only Spain and Portugal had worse figures, while countries such as Italy, the United States, Estonia and Mexico all had less knife crime.

Amazing. The sad thing is that their solution is to just introduce knife control.

Disarming honest law abiding citizens will not disarm law breaking criminals who know how to buy weapons on the black market. What more proof do they need?

And what exactly is "the Militia?" as understood by our Founding Fathers?

2007-03-15T20:08:00.000-05:00

And now for a bit of Historical Analysis by the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, Second Session, February 1982:

In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.

If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.

Another BBC Have your Say

2007-03-15T20:00:00.000-05:00

So the BBC Asked:

Is debate about the Middle East being stifled at western universities?

A top university in the UK has been accused of "selling out" academic freedom of speech after scrapping a talk by the author Matthias Küntzel.

His lecture on Hitler's Legacy: Islamic Anti-semitism in the Middle East, was cancelled by Leeds university after safety concerns were raised.

Also, San Francisco State University (SFSU) is putting the College Republicans on trial for hosting an anti-terrorism rally at which participants stepped on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags, one of which bore the name of Allah.

Are you at university? What do you make of these stories? Are western universities stifling debate on the Middle East? Should universities be places for free debate, whatever the topic?

Here is how I responded:

There is a reason why the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution included the right to bear arms as one of the bill of rights, because armed free men are not afraid of the tyranny of religious zealots, whatever their stripe, and a freedom from fear to speak is what truly enables freedom of speech to be open, honest, and complete. This is what has allowed the American experiment to include Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Puritans, Greek Orthodox, and religions of all kind, variation, and flavor to live in relative peace thus far, though they have each spilled each other's blood in the past in their respective homelands. Wherever free men are not armed, you will find deficits of freedom.

And for good measure, I signed my name Publius.

Go tell the BBC how you think.

John Lott on the DC Gun Ban

2007-03-14T09:35:00.000-05:00

John Lott, whose work I greatly respect and whose blog I regularly read, chimes in about the DC Gun Ban and its overturn by the DC Courts. He has this to say about the 'effectiveness' of DC's experiment with gun control:

But the long-term changes in crime rates before and after the ban are difficult to ignore. In the five years before Washington’s ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. During this same time, robberies fell from 1,514 to 1,003 per 100,000 and then rose by over 63 percent, up to 1,635. The five-year trends are not some aberration. In fact, while murder rates have varied over time, during the 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.

Indeed. Gun bans only disarm law-abiding citizens. I have no problem with background checks or Conceal Carry licensing mechanisms which enable law abiding citizens to arm themselves while preventing felons from doing the same. But the gun banners don't want to compromise on this. They falsely believe that you can wave a magical legislative wand and all the guns will disappear. The recent history of Washington DC, the UK, and Australia show how wrong they are.

A Revolutionary Idea

2007-03-14T08:40:00.000-05:00

So the recent DC District Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment has really made some waves, and the mainstream media has utterly failed to give this the attention that it deserves. The fact that they found that "the people" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment are the same "people" in all the other Amendments, and not "the state national guard" has really pissed off Liberals & hoplophobes everywhere. Reason magazine has a great editorial about this today.

I really hope that this case goes up to the Supreme Court, and that SCOTUS agrees to hear it. The results will either be a great victory for American rights, or it will cause a new civil war.

Victory in DC & HR1022

2007-03-11T14:39:00.000-05:00

So there has been some amazingly good news lately. The DC circuit court of appeals has ruled that DC's gun ban is unconstitutional, and more importantly that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. Here is a pdf copy of the court's ruling.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the Democrats are busy committing political suicide by beginning to back HR1022, which is a new assault weapons ban. I'm hoping that the Blue Dogs will put a stop to this, otherwise we'll see the Democrats swept out of power like back in the 90's after they did this.

I highly recommend that you write your congress person about HR1022. I have written letters to both of my Senators & my House Representative. Here is what I wrote them:

Dear Congressman XXX

I recently learned that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy has introduced HR 1022, a bill “To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.”

I strongly urge you to oppose this bill. HR 1022 is an affront to our 2^nd Amendment Rights as citizens.

Here is what the DC Court of appeals recently ruled in Parker vs. District of Columbia concerning the 2^nd Amendment and it’s stance as a guarantee of the right of citizens to be armed:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

I strongly agree with the DC court’s ruling and interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment, therefore I strongly urge you to oppose HR 1022.

Thank you sincerely for your time.

FBI study confirms that criminals ignore gun laws

2007-03-07T09:41:00.000-05:00

According to the December 28, 2006 issue of Force Science News, the FBI research focused on 40 incidents involving assaults or deadly attacks on police officers, in which all but one of the guns involved had been obtained illegally, and none were obtained from gun shows.

The Force Science News is published by the Force Science Research Center, a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University in Mankato. The newsletter quotes Ed Davis, an FBI Criminal Investigative Instructor, who told the International Association of Chiefs of Police that none of these criminals who attacked police officers was "hindered by any law - federal, sate or local - that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws." The newsletter also stated, "In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows."

The report is a 'smoking gun' in terms of revelations about the sources of crime guns and the failure of gun control. Apparently anti-gun owner politicians and police chiefs do not want the public to know the truth as they campaign against the so-called "gun show loophole". Now it's time for the IACP leadership, police officials, and political leaders to acknowledge that gun laws don't stop criminals, that they only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, and that gun shows are not the 'arms bazaars for criminals' as they have been portrayed.

The FBI's website says that "Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers" is available from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program Office, FBI Complex, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306-0150 or by calling 888-827-6427

I really don't have much more to say than that. The link has the pdf's of the report. I highly recommend sending copies to your elected representatives.

And now for a short instructional video

2007-02-11T13:34:00.001-05:00

On the difference between full auto assault rifles and civilian semi-autos:

Another Brit turns sour on gun control

2007-02-08T10:48:00.000-05:00

In a letter to the British Home Secretary, MP Kate Hoey writes: "As I am sure your officials will tell you, there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that by banning legally-licensed cartridge pistols and closing legally-operating shooting clubs, we would all sleep safer in our beds. Yet today there are more hand guns on our streets than 10 years ago."

The UK was a classic gun control confiscation scheme: first they introduced mandatory gun licensing, and then later they used that registry to round up all the guns. Of course the criminals didn't bother to register their weapons, so after the confiscation crime has soared. The UK now has some of the worst crime in Europe, because their citizens are defenseless. As I've pointed out in previous posts, their citizens are now doing the only sane thing: they're rearming themselves illegally.

Why? Because the right to bear arms is a universal right of man, as understood by our Founding Fathers, who were products of the Enlightenment. It would behoove us as a nation to spend more time reading the works of the Enlightenment in our colleges. But then I'm biased, because I think a classical education is best.

More on Crime in the UK

2007-02-06T15:49:00.000-05:00

In the UK they've got it all: cameras, ID cards, DNA Databases, and the strictest gun controls in Europe.

What did this give them?

One of the worst crime rates in Europe, apparently.

Britain has one of the worst crime rates in Europe, a report said yesterday.

It is the most burgled country in Europe, has the highest level of assaults and above average rates of car theft, robbery and pickpocketing. Only Ireland has a worse record.

Estonia, Holland and Denmark make up the rest of the EU's five ''high-crime" nations. All had rates more than 30 per cent higher than the average. Spain, Hungary, Portugal and Finland had the lowest rates.
advertisement

The report follows one of the most comprehensive law and order surveys in the EU. More than 40,000 people aged over 16 were questioned in 18 countries about their recent experiences of crime.

Factors associated with high levels of crime included urbanisation, a large number of young people in the population and a binge-drinking culture.

Risks of being assaulted were highest in the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark and lowest in Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Spain and France.

The Gun Show Loophole

2007-02-03T22:45:00.000-05:00

So, here is a quick flash animation with a quick explanation about the "gun show loophole" and some statistics at the end.

kudos to you, Democrat Paul Hackett

2007-01-18T12:21:00.000-05:00

The other day I posted about how rifles are not great for home defense, and that shotguns should be used instead. This is not to say that rifles don't have their uses: hunting, target shooting, your constitutional citizen militia duties, etc.

Today I found a case of why using a rifle, even though it is physically a good choice in defense, is a bad political choice.

Indian Hill lawyer and former congressional candidate Paul Hackett - armed with a loaded assault rifle - chased down three men in a car after it crashed into a fence at his home in the early morning hours of Nov. 19.

His "assault rifle"? It was a semi-automatic AR-15. A rifle that you could pickup for anywhere between $600-2000 depending on what you add onto it. A rifle that is the civilian, semi-auto version of what our troops use. It's a great accurate rifle. Depending on how it's configured it can be a perfect long range varmint rifle or a fun short range plinker.

But, because it's a so-called "assault rifle", people are going to give him shit for this. If he had used a shotgun, he wouldn't be getting part of this heat.

Just look over at the left-wing Huffington Post, in the comments section, to see how he's getting grilled about this in the public mind. Some of the gun ignorance there is astounding, to say the least. It just shows again that people often fear what they don't understand.

The funny thing is that of all people for this to happen to, Hackett was one of the most well trained for the situation.

Hackett told police "he had done this about 200 times in Iraq, but this time there was not a translation problem."

Personally, I completely support what Paul Hackett did. I don't even have a problem with the fact that he used his AR-15. But the fearful mentality of this country, which has been force fed this idea that "assault weapons" are evil, makes people unable and unwilling to see that they do have legitimate uses.

Oh, and for the record, he ran as a Democrat. So kudos to him.

Closing the Gun Show Loophole

2007-01-17T00:34:00.000-05:00

RICHMOND, Va. - Legislation introduced Monday would require private sellers at gun shows to obtain a criminal background check on buyers.

The measure would close the so-called gun show loophole, where licensed dealers are required to run background checks on anyone wanting to buy a gun, but unlicensed dealers - those selling guns from their personal collection - are not.

OK, first some background on gun shows. At every gun show that I've been too, you will find that nearly all the guns that are being sold by dealers setup along tables. These dealers are licensed by the government. When you buy a gun from them, you fill out some paperwork, which the dealer must keep for several years before destroying. The dealer is also required to call the state police and perform a criminal check. If you come up clean, then you can buy the gun.

Now, amongst this sea of tables & licensed dealers, you'll have a couple dozen guys who have their unloaded rifles slung over their shoulders, usually with a piece of paper taped to the gun with a price on it. These are the guys who are looking to unload their rifles. These are the so called "unlicensed dealers". These are ordinary people, who own guns, but for whatever reasons they want to sell off that old shotgun, or whatever. Currently, transactions between these people are not regulated, which is the "loophole" that oft gets talked about.

The problem is that a very small number of guns find their way into criminal hands via person to person sales, which sometimes occur at gun shows. What gun control advocates are calling for in this bill is the following:

Let's say Bob has a rifle and Joe wants to buy it from him. Bob & Joe would have to go to one of the many dealers at the show. They would pay the dealer $15, and the dealer would then run the background check on Joe. If it came up clean, then Joe could buy the gun from Bob. Otherwise, no deal. Either way, the dealer gets to keep the $15. However, if the deal goes through, then dealer must now keep that record on hand for the next 20 years. This, for a gun that they did not own, for a gun that they did not sell.

Now, let's say you're that dealer, and 20 years from now you get audited. It's already hard enough to keep the records straight and available for the guns that you bought and sold, but now you'd be required to deliver information on transactions that you merely acted as the mediator for. This is unfair.

Also, at most gun shows, the dealers are very busy calling in background checks for actual customers. If this law passed, I doubt that Bob and Joe would be willing to find an agreeable dealer who would perform the transaction and be willing to keep the paperwork on hand for the next 20 years.

Next, let's say Bob didn't go to the gunshow. Instead, he sold his old duck hunting shotgun to his pal Bill, who he has known for years. This would be illegal under the new laws.

Furthermore, many gun owners are very paranoid about licensing schemes, which in other countries have been used as lists for when gun confiscation is dictated by the government. Keeping a record of a civilian gun transaction on hand for 20-25 years, is in effect, keeping a list of all gun owners.

So, how would I fix this problem?

I would shift some of the burden here. Let's say that instead of that plan, we go with this: at each gun show, the state shall provide two police officers who shall oversee all person-to-person transactions. One of the officers will have a laptop, which will have a cellular wireless card, that will allow him to run instant background checks right then and there on the spot. From our example, Bob and Joe would go to the cops at the gunshow, and the state would oversee the transaction. The state should then only keep the paperwork on file for a period of no longer than 5 years. Because really, if the guy was going to commit a crime with his newly purchased duck hunting shotgun, he would have done it within the first year or two of ownership. After 5 years, he has proven to the state that he or she is a law abiding citizen. This would close the loophole, while providing honest citizens a means of safely transferring firearms to other law abiding citizens as they wish, while providing reasonable privacy protections.

Or at least, this is the best solution that I could come up with when plagued by insomnia.

Which Handgun Should I buy?

2007-01-08T11:25:00.000-05:00

So you've decided to buy a handgun, oh the choices that you have. There is a huge variety of handgun styles, brands, and calibers; all of which are important. I'm going to try to make this simple for you though.

Calibers

There is an endless debate as to what caliber to use in a handgun. Most of this debate goes around how much "stopping power" a round has. Generally, the wider the bullet, the bigger the hole that it will leave in the body, the more likely the attacker will cease to be a threat. There are endless debates about this, so what follows next is pure opinion.

For semi-auto handguns, choose the largest caliber that you are comfortable shooting with. If you are comfortable with shooting pistols in 45, then fine. It's a great caliber, and it has plenty of stopping power. That said, it is murder on your hand when fired out of a small compact handgun. If you don't want to handle a 45, then get a 9mm.

For most people, a handgun chambered in 9mm is fine. Even my wife can handle shooting any of my 9mm handguns. For semi-autos, don't go with anything smaller than 9mm. If you want to get something in 40 cal, that's fine. But no 32's, 380's, or 9mm Markarov! They do not have enough power.

For revolvers, you have it easier. Any gun chambered for 357 magnum can also fire the lighter 38 special round, but not visa versa. Don't go with any smaller round than either of these, and only carry something larger if you're planning on defending yourself against bears.

Full Frame Autos

Full frame semi-autos are for people who can get away with carrying a gun on their belt, or in a shoulder holster under a jacket. If you can do this, then they can be great weapons for you. If you're buying a full frame auto, get something in 45. There are plenty of weapons makers out there that make clones of the classic "1911" style 45 that the US Army used for decades. These weapons only hold 7 rounds though. If you want a full sized auto that can hold 12 rounds, you have more choices. However, I am of the opinion that these weapons are too big to be realistically carried on a day to day basis, so I am going to recommend against them. Again, your personal situation might be different. If I was in a situation where I wanted the maximum firepower strapped to my belt, I'd probably buy one of these. Full frame autos are more accurate because they have longer, heavier barrels than compact models. Also, the heavier the gun, the less recoil you feel. Again though, it's a trade off between more firepower vs concealability.

Long Barreled Revolvers

Long barreled revolvers in 44 magnum or larger are for bear hunting, cowboy shooting, or pretending that you are Dirty Harry. They can be fun to shoot though. If you buy a revolver with a long barrel though, you probably won't be carrying it around for self defense. I own a long barreled single action revolver in 22 & 22 magnum because it's fun and it's cheap to shoot, but I wouldn't for a second consider it as a sidearm.

Compact Autos

The best two choices for concealed carry weapons are compact semi-autos and snub nosed revolvers. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. For compact autos, the first choice is which caliber. As before, I recommend either 45 or 9mm. The second choice is what type of safety device do you prefer? Some compact semi autos have a manual safety switch which prevents the trigger from moving. Others rely on a safety device which is disabled by holding the gun. This is achieved by either making a double trigger like on all Glock pistols, or as a plate on the rear handle that when depressed by gripping the gun, releases the safety. You can also choose to have no safety at all. Most compact autos have what are called double-action triggers. Double action triggers have a long, heavy pull. With these, when you pull the trigger, the first half pulls back the firing hammer (which may be concealed), and the second half releases the firing hammer (or striker system).

The next consideration in choosing a compact auto is the size and shape of the weapon. This is an intensely personal choice. You should feel comfortable gripping the weapon. If you don't feel comfortable gripping it, you might not fire it correctly. Before buying any weapon, I highly recommend at least holding it. If you can find a shop that will let you rent and fire it, then that's even better. Find something that you're comfortable with. Now here are some suggestions.

If having no manual safety doesn't bother you, and you'd like to have the smallest most concealable 9mm on the market today, then consider either the Kel-Tec P-11 or the Kel-Tec PF-9. Kel-Tec makes the smallest, lightest conceal carry handguns on the market today, and they are backed by a lifetime warranty. They are also some of the cheapest handguns on the market. The problem that I have heard about these weapons is that you need to polish & lubricate them properly in order for them to function correctly all the time. For the novice handgun owner, I wouldn't recommend them for this reason.

The next two obvious choices are the Glock 26 in 9mm or the Glock 36 in 45. They have that strange double-trigger safety (i.e. both triggers must be pulled in order for it to work) that I'm not a big fan of, but I know lots of people who love these weapons.

Personally I prefer a manual safety, which is why I own a Taurus Millennium Pro PT-111 in 9mm. They make them in 45 caliber too. The Millennium Pro is a lightweight double action pistol. It can hold 12 rounds of 9mm or 10 rounds of 45. It has a manual safety which I like, because I often carry this weapon in a pants or jacket pocket with no holster.

With all compact autos, you will need to practice with them to get comfortable and effective with them. Their shorter barrels make them less accurate, and their lighter frames make you feel more recoil. Both of these take some practice to get used to, but a few hours at the range will enable you to get proficient with them.

Snub Nosed Revolvers

Ah, the snub nosed revolver. The belly gun. They're old fashioned, only hold 5 or 6 rounds, and lack any other safety device beyond a double action trigger, but they're perfect for close range defense as a concealed carry weapon. As I mentioned before, if you get one in 357 magnum then you can also shoot 38 special out of it. So, get it in one of those two calibers.

With snub nosed revolvers, you really only have two big choices to make: whether the hammer is exposed or concealed, and whether the gun has a full grip or a short grip.

Here is what I own, it is a Smith & Wesson 642 in 38 special. It has a concealed hammer (also called hammerless) and a short grip. With the concealed hammer, it's double action only. If I had an exposed hammer model, like this Taurus Model 85, then I could manually pull back the hammer to have a shorter single action trigger pull. For comparison, here is a Taurus 444 in 44 magnum with an exposed hammer and a full grip.

The great thing about snub nosed revolvers is their size and weight. Some only weigh 13 ounces unloaded. They can easily fit in a pocket, or with the right holster they can fit in your pants and nobody can tell that you're carrying a gun. The problem with the lighter weight guns is that the recoil becomes a problem. Smith & Wesson makes a 357 magnum revolver that only weighs 12.5 ounces, but shooting 357 magnums out of it will give you blisters on your hand. A gun that is painful to shoot is a gun that you won't practice with. Therefore for most people, if you're going to get a snubnosed revolver, just get one in 38 special. Or if you are a glutton for punishment, get it in 357 magnum but only shoot 38 special out of it.

The biggest problem with snubby's is their effective range. With their short barrels (usually less than 2 inches) and light weights, they make it difficult to hit anything beyond 30 feet. The other problem is that you only bring 5 rounds to the fight. That being said, most defensive encounters take place at under 10 feet and involve less than 3 rounds.

For novice shooters, a compact auto might be a better choice because it gives you 10-12 rounds. Personally I carry my revolver everywhere, but when I know I'm going into a bad neighborhood, I try to carry the auto.

Again, this is an intensely personal choice. I've tried to give some guidance here, but the right handgun for you will probably be different than what the right handgun is for me. I hope that I've helped some people by at least pointing them in the right direction with these two articles. Before you buy any handgun, be sure to at least hold it, and if possible, try it out. If you've never shot a handgun before, find a gunshop with an indoor range and ask them about getting lessons. Buying a handgun that you'll never practice with, that sits in your closet, in its case, does you no good.

And last of all, if you simply do not feel comfortable owning a gun, then don't. Carry a knife or some pepper spray instead. Confidence in yourself and in the weapon is a must if you choose to carry for your protection.

What Gun Should I Buy?

2007-01-08T10:37:00.000-05:00

I get asked that question sometimes by people who are new to guns, so I think it's time to dedicate several posts to this question.

The first thing when considering a firearm purchase is, "what will I need it for?" because that is what determines everything else. So, I'll try to break this down into several categories.

Most people who want to buy a gun do so for "self defense". Well, what do you mean by self defense? Do you mean you want a gun to defend your home with? Or do you want something that you can carry with you? Or something that can have multiple purposes, like hunting & home defense? The question really is, do you need a handgun, a shotgun, or a rifle?

Rifles

A rifle? Most people do not need rifles. There, I've said it. Do I need a rifle? No. Do I own a rifle? Yes, several actually. Rifles are made to shoot things at long distance, generally at 100 or more yards. There are very few self defense encounters that necessitate the use of a rifle. The only obvious one is combating a "lone gunman" type of attack, as in the case of Charles Whitman; where a deranged lunatic takes up a position and begins slaughtering people, and a few men who happened to have rifles in their cars were able to return fire. Since I already own a rifle, I really should keep one in the trunk of my car, just in case, but I don't because I haven't been able to justify that level of paranoia to myself yet. There have been other cases where a rifle could be handy in self defense, but they are rare. Using a rifle for home defense is fine, but you have to keep in mind that the rounds will penetrate multiple walls before stopping. Then there is the entire public relations thing. Let's say you were in New Orleans after Katrina, and you had to defend your house from armed looters who wanted to kill you, rape & kill your wife, and take all your food. Let's say that you shot and killed one of them. It's completely legal to do this. And eventually the media might even report it. But let's say you defended yourself with an AK-47, and the media found out. My gut instinct is that CNN wouldn't be kind to you about it, and that you'd have more of a legal or PR fight to clear your name than if you had used a common shotgun. That being said, I'd still probably reach for my AK instead of my shotgun in that situation. Rifles are good for hunting, target shooting, and for being part of the citizen militia.

Shotguns

Shotguns are great. They are the most versatile weapon available to the citizenry, and they don't usually have the same stigma as the dreaded "assault rifle". The great thing about shotguns is their versatility. You can buy slugs, buckshot, or birdshot; and there is a staggering variety of rounds.

For self defense, shotguns have one purpose: home defense. Buckshot has the best stopping power of any round when used at close range, which is exactly what you'd need it for when defending your home. Some guys say to use birdshot because it won't kill the intruder. This is wrong because birdshot will not cause a deep enough injury to stop an attacker. Birdshot is for birds, buckshot is for intruders. For the newbie, a slug is a large single bullet meant for deer hunting at close range. Buckshot is a load of 30 caliber round bullets, usually packed 9 to a load. It is meant for taking out deer sized animals at close range. Birdshot is for small birds, squirrels, or skeet shooting. They also make special loads for turkey or duck, but don't consider those for self defense either. Buckshot is the best for close range self defense. At close range one round of buckshot is like shooting somebody 9 times with a 9mm handgun. Unlike popular myth, you still have to aim with a shotgun, but you don't have to aim hard. In other words, just point the damn gun where you want it to fire, and you'll hit it, but don't think that you can just wildly spray from the hip and hit anything with it.

If you're going to buy a shotgun, I suggest going with the old standard pump action. You can buy one relatively cheaply, and it doesn't matter what brand you buy. For defense, you can buy one in either 12 gauge or 20 gauge. Recoil will suck either way, so you might as well get the 12 because it will give you more power and more metal.

The great thing is that if you buy a shotgun for home defense, you can also use it for fun things like skeet shooting or hunting. If you've never gone skeet shooting, go do it. It's loads of fun. If you live in Northern Virginia, you're blessed. Go checkout the Manassas Park shotgun range. I think they'll even let you rent shotguns there, and they have guided instruction.

The bad thing about shotguns is that you can't exactly walk around with one in your pocket. So while a 12 gauge pump action shotgun might be the best home defense weapon, it is not the best choice for somebody who can only afford to buy one gun and wants to have protection wherever they go. For this, you'll need to buy a handgun.

Handguns

If you want self protection for you and your family whether you are in your car, at the grocery store, or at home, then you'll have to buy a handgun of some sort.

The topic is so important that I'm going to dedicate a whole separate post to the issue of "which handgun should I buy?" For now though, I just want to cover the basics.

With handguns, there is a staggering variety of choices. The array of choices is overwhelming to most people. The key is to keep reminding yourself, "what do I need this gun for?"

You are not Dirty Harry, nor are you Leon the Professional. You might want to go out and buy a long barreled 44 magnum, but how are you going to carry it? Open carry is legal in Virginia, but it is not in many states, and even where it is legal, you'll get plenty of funny looks if you walk around doing your grocery shopping with a hand cannon strapped to your belt.

This is why I recommend that if you're going to buy a handgun, buy one that you're willing to carry with you. Personally, I own several handguns. The first handgun I bought was a full-sized Taurus PT-99AF, because I wanted one that looked like the classic Beretta 9mm that I'd seen in movies. With the wisdom of age, this was not a good purchase. Large frame handguns are great if you can hide a gun in a holster on your belt, covered with a jacket, but good luck trying to do that in 90 degree heat in the summer. Large frame, long barreled, high capacity handguns are made for people who need to have a gun on their belt. Now, if you're going to go hiking in bear country, or you're a cop, then fine; wear a gun on your belt. You need it. For the rest of us though, the only handguns we should be considering are in the concealed carry or compact size.

As for what handgun you should buy, that'll be covered in the next post.

Unsafe Gun Owners

2007-01-08T10:27:00.000-05:00

As a gun owner, it pisses me off to know that there are people out there who don't handle their firearms in a safe manner. As a Libertarian, I know that legislating safety won't work.

Case in point. On New Years Eve this year, I was standing out on my back porch listening to the sounds of ships blowing their foghorns, citizens setting off firecrackers, and idiot gun owners shooting off their guns into the air. Of these three activities, only one is legal in VA.

Firecrackers, mortars, bottle rockets, and roman candles are all already illegal here in VA, so people just drive into the nearest state where they aren't and buy them. Setting them off is illegal, but only marginally enforced.

Then there are the people who fire their guns into the air on NYE or the 4th of July. Now...if you live in the country, and you want to fire your shotgun into the air in a safe direction, then fine. Do so. Your little metal pellets won't go more than 200 yards at most before they come back to the ground. But if you own a pistol, and are firing off those rounds into the air, know that they do infact come back down. A neighbor of mine had a window in her car blown out by a stray bullet this New Years.

Firing a gun in an urban area is generally already illegal unless used in self defense, and I bet that most of these goofballs that do it have been drinking already, which is also a felony offense.

So, I don't have any delusions about being able to prevent this sort of thing except through reasoned argument. So if you must fire off a celebratory magazine, please do so into the ground where it won't hurt anybody.

QOTD

2007-01-04T19:48:00.000-05:00

"Show me a man who wants you disarmed, and I will show you a man who plans to do something to you which you would not allow if you had any means to prevent it."

-- L. Neil Smith

Handgun Drills

2006-12-20T09:01:00.000-05:00

Once one takes on the responsibility of owning a handgun and learning the necessary laws, it's time to start thinking about practicing with it.

So, here is a page dedicated to handgun drills.

Most of these drills involve the use of snap caps, which are dummy bullets with a spring in them that prevent the firing pin from being damaged when you pull the trigger without a live round in the chamber. If you're going to do drills, buy some snap caps. The last thing you want is to break your firing pin and not find out until you really need it.

Gun Control Arguments vs Facts

2006-12-18T14:03:00.000-05:00

Since I brought up the subject earlier, I'd like to look more at gun control in Australia and the UK.

First the UK, where crime has skyrocketed since the implementation of strict handgun controls.

Then there is Australia, where:

we see a dramatic rise in violent crime in Australia since the gun ban, along with a relatively flat trend in property crime rates, demonstrating the criminals’ understanding of the basic principles of cost/benefit analysis, choosing the quicker method of confronting an unarmed victim. At the same time, the USA saw significant drops in both violent and property crime rates, proving the adage that an armed society is a polite--and safer--society.

And finally, we have evidence here in the USA on a state by state basis. For clarity, "Right To Carry" is shortened to RTC in this article, and they are referring to states that have Right To Carry conceal carry laws where law abiding citizens can apply for and receive a concealed weapons permit so long as their criminal record is clean, whereas non RTC states have other limiting factors (i.e. the local sherif decides if you can carry, or you must prove that you have a need to carry a weapon). The grading system they are referring to is the gun control grading system by the Brady Campaign for more gun control (i.e. states with lower grades have fewer gun controls).

Since 2001, RTC states, where more people carry guns in public, consistently average a “D”. Brady continues to be unhappy with the country’s direction regarding gun control: between 2001 and 2005, RTC states increased from 32 to 38 and Brady downgraded the U.S. average from “C-” to a “D+”. Their response is curious, since the national violent crime rate fell 7.0% during this time frame.

Even worse for Brady, violent crime trends are not spread equally across all states. RTC states (average Brady grade “D”) saw an aggregate 7.8% drop in violent crime, while non-RTC states (average Brady grade “B”) saw a 5.2% decrease. Even when Brady grades synchronize with violent crime trends, it fails to give an accurate picture: Brady dropped the national average grade from “C-” to “D+” in 2005, the same year that the violent crime rate increased 1.3%. This would seem to make sense, as a lower grade is supposed to reflect less safety for citizens. Unfortunately for Brady, most of that increase occurred in non-RTC states, which saw an aggregate increase of 2.8%, while RTC states increased 0.6%. Using Brady’s criteria of grading each state as an equivalent entity, non-RTC states averaged a 5.6% increase in violent crime, while RTC states averaged a 0.6% increase. Since 2001, the violent crime differential between RTC and non-RTC states increased from 26.0% to 27.5%, meaning that RTC states are becoming relatively more law-abiding compared to non-RTC states.3

For full disclosure, I made this post while concealing my 38 special revolver in my coat jacket, and no crimes were committed or prevented.

gun control in the UK

2006-12-17T21:49:00.000-05:00

Two links showing the state of gun control in the UK

First, despite some of the most restrictive gun control laws on the planet, criminals are having no problem at all arming themselves in the UK.

Sounds pretty bad eh?

On the other hand, it looks like some citizens in the UK are rearming on their own.

The AK-47...in the Washington Post

2006-11-26T16:28:00.000-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Over Thanksgiving, I got into a nice discussion with one of my in laws about guns. He, being of the Michael Moore camp, was telling me how he has recently softened his position towards guns because he realized that if he was for social freedoms, he'll probably have to be at least warm to 2nd amendment freedoms too. I brought up my reasons for owning guns, which included enjoying historical collecting of them, their use in hunting, their use in target shooting, their use in personal defense, and I of course mentioned their Jeffersonian use: fighting tyranny. His response was that, "a rifle is useless against a man in a tank."

This is true. But we wouldn't have to shoot at the men in tanks, only the men in suits.

Today's Washington Post has an article by Larry Kahaner, author of "AK-47: The Weapon That Changed the Face of War".

The article is relatively neutral, and it reminds me why the AK-47 is my favorite weapon. I own two of them, and plan on adding at least an RPK (a long-barreled, squad machine gun version) to my collection at some point. The article does a great job of explaining how that simple rifle enables any citizen off the street to be able to effectively resist a modern army; examples of which include Iraq & Afghanistan.

Guns Preventing Crime in the News

2006-11-16T16:00:00.000-05:00

It's hard to find a story on the mainstream news about guns preventing crime. As a result, people like Michael Moore tend to think that there are no possible civilian uses for handguns in a civilized society.

To help counter this, I've added three new links to my blog:

The NRA's Armed Citizen - a searchable database of self-defense news stories by state.

The Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, which keeps track of news stories about civilians using guns to prevent crime. They also even report when those incidents don't go so well.

The other is keepandbeararms.com, a gun related forum & portal that also keeps an updated listing of news stories with civilians using guns to prevent crime.

"Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns."

2006-11-16T09:23:00.000-05:00

Gun rights organizations are often criticized for not "compromising" or not agreeing to "reasonable" gun controls. Gun owners are chided for being paranoid, after all nobody wants to take away their guns.

First, the word compromise in this context is a misnomer. The term "give-back" or surrender is more appropriate because no guarantee against further erosion of gun owners' rights is ever put into law. The anti-control groups never receive concessions in return for any new gun control law.

Gun owners do have legitimate cause for concern. Although a majority of Americans do not want handguns outlawed, a significant minority does. In nation-wide polls taken over the last twenty-five years around 40% are in favor of banning the civilian possession of handguns. Almost 20% are in favor of banning the civilian possession of any kind of firearm.

Michael Moore: A Liberal's Pledge

2006-11-16T09:10:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the recent Democratic victory, Michael Moore wrote us a letter:

I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.

In this letter, he states what he wants the Democrats to do with their new power. What caught my attention was this:

We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.

My response?

1) Apparently Mr. Moore thinks that hunting is the only valid use of a gun. To that use I would add the sports of target shooting & sporting clays, and the more valid use of weapons in self defense, something Moore doesn't believe in. And of course, the Jeffersonian use of keeping the power of government in check, which is the best use for so called "assault weapons".

2) Apparently Mr. Moore has never heard of hunting with handguns, which does take place. And hunting with a handgun, is far more challenging than hunting with a rifle for a variety of reasons.

3) Apparently Mr. Moore didn't pay attention to the beliefs of many of the new Democratic Senators & Congressmen; the so called Blue Dog Democrats, who believe in protecting our 2nd Ammendment rights, like Senators John Tester & Jim Webb.

4) MOLON LABE, Mr. Moore, MOLON LABE.

I'm trying to be hopeful that the Democrats won't kick themselves in the nuts by trying to outlaw handguns or semi-automatic rifles, but given their long track record of self destruction, I don't have high hopes. The two dumbest things the Democrats could do with their new power would be to raise taxes & push gun control, as that would drive all those moderate voters who helped the Democrats achieve victory after 12 years of defeat back into the Republican camp.

Conceal Carry Methods

2006-10-30T17:42:00.000-05:00

I've decided to share with you how I conceal carry my handguns. The way I carry may not be the perfect or even the right way, but here are some ways that have been comfortable for me.

But before we begin, let's talk about "open carry". Openly carrying a handgun in a holster is legal in some states. I live in Virginia, and open carry is totally legal here.

As you can see, I have my Taurus Milenium Pro PT-111 in 9mm in a holster on my belt, and it is openly visible. It is totally legal to walk around in public like this in Virginia. Not that I'd recommend it though, because unless there is some sort of natural disaster going on, walking around with a pistol strapped to your belt will likely at best get you some nasty looks, and worst, some freightened and ill-informed citizen who doesn't know that this is legal will call the cops on you so that a nice policeman can spend some time harrassing you.

But what happens if you decide to put on a jacket?

Now it's concealed under the law, even though the holster is poking out underneath the jacket. In order to carry a gun concealed in most states, you will need an appropriate conceal carry permit, often shortened to CCW.

So, on to the conceal carry methods that I use. In this demonstration I will be concealing my Smith & Wesson 642 Airweight revolver in 38 special.

I will be carrying it in an Uncle Mike's Inside the Waisteband Holster, usually shortened to IWB. It's a cheap, lightweight holster. The inside of the holster allows the gun to be smoothly drawn from it, while the outside provides some friction against your clothing. It has a belt clip for added support.

Here is the easiest and most obvious way to conceal a handgun, although it is not the best: in your pocket. This only works if you have deep pockets. With some pants I find that the handle of the gun is clearly visible if someone was looking down my pockets. The other problem with this method is that it leaves an obvious gun print in your pants. Using either an inside the pocket holster or an IWB holster shoved down your pocket does manage to break up the obvious gun print to some extent, but it's still not great. I very rarely carry using this method anymore.

A fairly comfortable way to carry is inside the pants, on the side, like this.

In a proper holster, and a long enough shirt, you can't tell that anything is there at all.

This method is very comfortable if you have pants that are loose enough. With tight pants though, forget it. This method also only works if your overshirt is long enough.

The only other problem with this method is that when looked at from the front or the back, you might not appear symetrical, thus revealing to the careful eye that you are packing something.

Moving around and sitting with this type of carry method are comfortable and will not easily reveal your weapon.

Another method is to conceal the weapon in the small of your back like this.

With an overshirt the weapon is easily concealed. The problem with this method is two fold. First, the weapon is harder to reach in a hurry. Second, sitting down will either block your access to the weapon, or cause the weapon to protrude slightly in your shirt, revealing that you are packing something.

However, if you'll just be walking around all day, this is a very comfortable method of carrying.

The deepest method of concealment that I use is down the front of my pants like this.

If you're wearing an undershirt, you can tuck the shirt on top of the holster, leaving only the belt-clip visible like this.

With an overshirt, the entire rig is totally concealed.

This method used to be really uncomfortable for me because...well, I got a beer gut. But I've been working out and loosing weight over the past couple of months, and this method is now comfortable. I can totally conceal the weapon without worrying about it being seen. When the rig is properly placed, I can even comfortably sit down with the gun like this.

There are drawbacks to this method. First, if you have to get to the gun, you have to lift up your shirts with your weak hand, while reaching for the gun with your strong hand. This takes practice.

Second, if you're overweight, the handle of the gun is going to stick into your gut when you sit down.

Third, you have a loaded gun that is pointed right at your genitals. However, with a proper holster and a strong double action trigger, the chances of this gun going off accidently and blowing off your nutsack are pretty close to zero.

By far though, my favorite way to conceal a handgun is to just stick it in a jacket pocket. Depending on your jacket, the weather, and your creativity, you can easily hide a handgun on you. Now you don't see it.

And now you do.

The limits of this method really comes down to your own personal style & the weather.

If the weather is nice & the circumstances allow, this is the method I choose most often because it's the most comfortable.

So these are the methods that I use. There are other methods, such as ankle holsters, or pager paddle holsters; that are available, but I haven't bothered with them yet.

Again, I'm no expert in this, but consider it a decent intro to how to conceal carry.

As far as how to conceal carry legally, you should consult your local state's laws. The links to the right of this blog provide a good starting point for that. If you live in Virginia, you can check out my intro to gun ownership & legally carrying a handgun.

Columbia, SC, 8-17-2006

2006-10-26T22:41:00.000-05:00

From The State, Columbia, SC 8-17-2006

According to police, two men wearing masks invaded Allen Cooper's home and began robbing him at gunpoint. Cooper gave one of the masked men some cash, but, unsatisfied, they ordered him to call back two people who left the house prior to the robbery. Cooper contacted Rhea McCary and James Robertson, who returned, but senses something was wrong. When they arrived, Cooper bolted out the door yelling, "They've got guns!" The attackers began shooting, striking McCary in the arm, but McCary returned fire, killing one of the suspects. The second suspect fled and was still at large at press time.

Indianapolis, IN 8-19-2006

2006-10-26T22:37:00.000-05:00

From the Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, IN 8-19-2006

Nothing seemed out of the ordinary inside a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant when a man approached the counter and placed an order. But then he demanded of the cashier, "Give me the money before I shoot you." Initially, Paul Sherlock joined the other customers as they bolted for the door. But then he stopped out of concern for the cashier. He recalled a June 2005 incident in which a carjacker shot at him. That was also the day he decided to buy a gun and apply for a carry permit. Police say Sherlock faced the suspect then pulled out his 9mm pistol. The suspect put his hands in the air and Sherlock ordered him to lean against a window. Police apprehended the man without incident. The accused's "gun" turned out to be a screwdriver.

Armed Citizen experience

2006-10-26T22:26:00.000-05:00

I get the American Rifleman, which is the NRA's magazine. In it they reprint news stories about people using their guns in self defense. I'm going to start making it a regular part of this blog to reprint these stories.

A couple was at home with their 15-month old son when two armed men, one of them a convicted felon with a history of break-ins, kicked in the front door. According to police, one of the residents shot both intruders with his handgun, causing the felon to flee and the other burglar to fall dead inside the house. "I think probably if he had not had a gun, he would have been [killed], as well as the female in the house, and possibly the baby," said Sgt. Jack Cates of the Durham, NC, police department. The uninjured residents fled next door with their son and called police. Minutes later, a man showed up at the hospital suffering from a gunshot wound. He was charged with first-degree burglary, armed robbery and felony possession of cocaine. (The News & Observer, Raleigh, NC, 08-12-2006).

Concealed Carry arguments

2006-10-25T11:39:00.000-05:00

I was going to write a lengthy post about the arguments for allowing citizens to conceal carry handguns, but then I found somebody that did it much better.

This is the best argument for allowing people to conceal carry that I have yet read.

Most of it is based on John Lott's book, More Guns Less Crime.

For full disclosure, I am writing this while concealing my snub-nose 38 special revolver in an Inside the Waisteband Holster (usually just shortened to IWH) that is shoved down the front of my pants. The only part of the gun visible above the pants is the black rubber grip and the plastic holster clip on my pants, and both of these are easily concealed by my sweater.

And yes, I'm writing this while at work. Why am I carrying a concealed weapon at work? Because after the recent spout of school shootings, I'd rather have the ability to shoot back if some maniac decides to unleash terror here.

The expired Assault Weapons Ban

2006-10-24T08:25:00.000-05:00

I hear alot in the media about how horrible the expiration of the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" was. The people who say this don't have a clue about what the ban actually did. Why is this? Because before the ban you could legally buy a semi-automatic AK-47 clone just as easily (in most states) as you could buy a single-shot shotgun. And during the ban? You could still legally buy that semi-automatic AK-47 clone, but now it's had a few minor cosmetic changes made to be in compliance, and you couldn't buy new magazines that held over 10 rounds. But, you could still buy used mags that held 20, 30, or even 75 rounds, at a cost premium. So what did the ban really do? It made all the hi cap mags more expensive, and it made the so called "assault weapons" look slightly different, with no real functional change.

For more details on what the ban did, check out: What is an "Assault Weapon?" and Comparison: "Assault Weapons" vs. Other Firearms

Now, that being said, some states do have further restrictions placed upon semi-automatic weapons. California being one of them. Some states merely have limits on what type of magazines you can purchase (i.e. none over 10 rounds). I would never move to California for this reason.

Also, the Assault Weapons Ban had absolutely no effect upon the legal & licensed purchase of full-automatic weapons, which have been heavily regulated since 1934. In America, it is completely legal to purchase a fully automatic weapon if you go through the proper FBI background checks and pay hundreds in fees. But, due to an artificially low supply of these weapons, their price is usually 10 times the cost of their comparable semi-automatic clones. What this basically means is that only the upper-middle class and above can afford such expensive toys.

Defensive Gun use on CNN's front page

2006-10-24T07:55:00.000-05:00

I actually found this one on CNN's front page today, but I wasn't able to link directly to it.

So, I found the Kansas City channel where the video is from. Enjoy:

A robber pulls out a small gun on store clerk. The clerk pulls out a .357 magnum and resists. A shot is fired, and the robber flees.

Rosie O’Donnell: The Second Amendment is 'Not Really a Right'

2006-10-23T07:43:00.000-05:00

Yup. Rosie O'Donnell thinks that the right to bear arms isn't really a right. Despite it being right there in our constitution. I wonder what she thinks of other rights, say freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or a right to a trial by jury?

I'm not going to spend much time on this one because it's too easy. Just remember that while Rosie likes to use tragedies like the recent Amish school shooting to push her agenda forward, that while she claims that nobody should have semi-automatic weapons, that her own bodyguard carries one.

So what does this say? This says that she's ok with her people being armed to protect her, but she's against us proles from arming ourselves because we can't afford a bodyguard.

Gun Control in the UK & Australia

2006-10-19T08:33:00.000-05:00

Why draconian gun control laws only disarm the victims, from a Canadian perspective:

Since 1997, it has not been legal for ordinary Britons to own a handgun. Yet since the ban, handgun homicides have gone up, not down. In the six years prior to the ban, there was an average of 33 handgun murders a year in Britain. Since then, there had been an average of nearly 43, an increase of 30% despite the ban.

In the years since the handgun ban, violent crime in Britain has spiked and the streets of the major cities are awash in illegal guns smuggled in from abroad. By Scotland Yard's estimate, as many as 4 million illegal handguns have entered the U.K. in the past nine years.

In Manchester, for example, police report an average of two firearms offences each day by 15- to 20-year-olds, alone. In most categories of firearms crimes other than murder, Britain is now more violent than the United States.

Australia has had a similar experience.

Following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, in which a crazed gunman killed 35 people at a Tasmanian resort, the Australian national government banned most semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns. Nearly a million civilian guns were confiscated (with compensation) in the months after the shooting.

Yet, while gun crimes in Australia are now noticeably lower than in 1996, shooting incidents actually rose by more than two-thirds in the five years after the government-imposed gun "surrender."

More media bias & armed teachers

2006-10-17T10:26:00.000-05:00

So, this cartoon really riles me.

The cartoon's point is that if we were to allow teachers to arm themselves, then they would cause more harm by pulling out their guns all the time.

Sigh...where to begin.

Well, first of all under current Federal Law, schools are "Gun Free Zones" where nobody is allowed to have weapons. Well...we can all see how well this law works. These Gun Free Zone invisible legal force shields have done nothing to prevent or stop armed nuts going bezerk in schools filled with defenseless people.

Second, in many states (although not in Wisconson) it is already legal for people to legally carry a handgun. Here in Virginia it is legal for anyone legally capable of purchasing a handgun to carry the weapon in plain view in a hoslter on their hip.

Those of us like myself who want to carry these weapons concealed so as to not freighten people, get conceal carry licenses so that we can have their weapons on them under cover.

So, have laws that permit people to carry handguns turned our society into a more or less dangerous place? Do we regularly see legal, permitted concealed handgun owners in Virginia pulling out their handguns and threatening their fellow citizens all the time? Hardly.

I personally don't think that teachers should be forced to carry weapons. That said, I think they should be granted the same rights as the rest of us. That if a teacher wants to go through the training and permitting steps required to carry a concealed handgun on their persons while at work, I see no reason why we should prevent them.

And remember, all teachers need not be armed for the presence of weapons to be an effective deterrant. Only the treat of armed victims need be there for it to be effective. But perhaps I'm not being eloquent enough, so here again is Thomas Jefferson on the matter:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. -- in "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

But again, if we were to listen to the media, then we would think that the moment anyone is allowed to defend themselves with a handgun, that they become maniacs capable of enforcing their tyrany upon us with rampant violence. Sigh...

Q: Why do we need Assault Rifles?

2006-10-12T11:53:00.000-05:00

A: Because the 2nd Ammendment is the last source of redress for garunteeing the rest of our constitution, when all other options have been exhausted.

What sort of thing would constitute the point at which armed rebellion against a tyranical power was necessary? Well, I believe our founding fathers thought it had something to do with Habeas Corpus...

Let us all pray that these infractions can be redressed via legal & political actions.

40 Reasons to Support Gun Control

2006-10-10T08:19:00.000-05:00

Media Bias

2006-10-10T07:59:00.000-05:00

So shooting rampages are a statistical annomally when you consider the odds. You have a far greater chance of being killed by a shark attack, by lightning, or by a moose, than you do from being killed by a lone mad gunman. Furthermore, most of the shooting rampages tend to happen in places where it is already illegal for people to carry firearms on them, thus disarming only the victims, as the perpetraitors don't bother to care about the laws.

Which brings us to this: every time a lone gunman pops up and shoots some disarmed victims, the media goes into a feeding frenzy to stir up the gun control crowd. Here is a livid example:

Even with a toll of nine dead in three violent school shootings in one week, the United States is unwilling to consider restrictions on guns openly bought and sold across the country.

Thankfully those still in control of the government have some logic left in them about this issue. When asked about the recent shootings at an Amish schoolhouse, the Governor of Pennsylvania said:

gun controls would not have stopped Amish school shooter Charles Roberts from acquiring the 9mm pistol, shotgun, rifle, stun gun, and 600 rounds of ammunition found on his body, because he had no police record or diagnosis of psychological illness.

Exactly. We have plenty of gun control legislation that already prevents known felons from purchasing guns legally. How do felons get guns then? Illegally, much the same way they buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug. Further gun control only has one purpose: to disarm people who obey the law.

In short, I shall bring up this quote again, because it rings the loudest:

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

--Thomas Jefferson

Armed America

2006-10-03T11:33:00.000-05:00

People who are not familiar with guns often have this view that gun owners are either criminals or a bunch of homophobic Bible thumping rednecks.

Which is why I absolutely love this project: Armed America: Portraits of American Gun Owners in Their Homes.

The idea was to photograph a hundred gun owners, in their homes, and do a gallery show. I figured this would take about two years. But very soon after I started, it became evident that my ambitions were too low. My mailbox flooded with letters from people I didn't know wanting to participate -- I realized that I could probably photograph a hundred people in two months, but it wasn't a number of people that was important, it was their stories -- a cowboy in Texas, a survivalist in Montana, a deer hunter in Pennsylvania, a sheriff in Georgia, a soldier in Idaho.... What I really needed, I realized, was to get moving, to drive across the country and find America somewhere between here and there.

BBC News Have Your Say

2006-10-03T11:09:00.000-05:00

So the BBC News website has this forum where you can post your reaction to recent news stories.

Are you in the area close to this incident? What can be done to make schools safer? Would tightening the law on gun possession make a difference? Is there a 'gun culture' that's becoming more prevalent? Do you own a gun? If so, why? Send us your views.

Well, this morning I figured, "hell, I'm not doing anything yet" so I posted my views. I don't have the exact wording, but it was something like this:

I wouldn't want to live in a country where only the police & the military had guns. I wouldn't want to live in a land where victims cannot defend themselves against criminals.

Why is it that these types of shootings always happen where the vicims are disarmed? Like schools?

This is why I have the necessary gun permits and carry a handgun on me.

Or something very close to that, because again, I can't recall the exact words, and I haven't been able to find my post on the BBC site. Which for awhile made me think that they had censored what I had written. I mean, they are Brits, and the Brits are very anti-gun.

But then something very unusuall happened. As part of posting, you have to give a name, a location, an email address, and a phone number. And about 10 minutes ago, I got a phone call from a guy from the BBC World News asking if I'd like to participate in a call-in radio program and air my thoughts on the issue. Now, my first reaction was, "yes!" but then my brain got going and thought, "you remember all those times you've watched Fox News or the Daily Show and you have thought, 'how did these people agree to get ambushed like this'? Well, here is your chance not to sound like a Raving Mad American Gun Loonatic to all those anti-gun Brits."

So I respectfully declined to go on the air "because I'm at work right now". The guy then asked if they could still use my written comments for the show, and I said, "Definitely."

I only wish I could have remembered to give them the url for this blog. Oh well...

Thomas Jefferson

2006-09-24T17:56:00.000-05:00

Aw hell. The more I read about Thomas Jefferson the more I admire the man and respect his views.

Have some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson

http://www.fightthebias.com/Quotes/thomas_jefferson.htm

Some thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

2006-09-24T17:41:00.000-05:00

I personally like the first of these the best:

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams

"Disarmed citizens encourage crime and violence. Armed citizens encourage criminals to find a safer line of work."
--Harry Browne

"Australia's ban on handguns did not stop a killer from shooting 54 people, 35 of them fatally, in a 1996 rampage in Tasmania: He resorted to rifles. ... Thinking (gun control) measures will prevent episodes of mass murder is like thinking you can reduce drunk driving by banning Budweiser. ... After the 1996 slaughter, the Australian government outlawed semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. As part of the deal, it bought back 640,000 guns from their private owners. The result? In the first year of the new ban, the murder rate rose 3.2 percent and armed robberies were up 44 percent."
--Stephen Chapman

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
--Jeff Cooper

"Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave."
--Andrew Fletcher, (1698)

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."
--Sammy the Bull Gravano, Mafia informant, on gun control

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
--Patrick Henry

"I will not seek the capitulation of firearm manufacturers through the use of asinine lawsuits or the doling out of taxpayer-funded government contracts. I regret that you feel either of these tactics to be worthwhile endeavors."
--Thomas Jefferson

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated."
--Thomas Jefferson

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
--Richard Henry Lee

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms."
--Vladimir I. Lenin

"The advantage of being armed...the Americans possess over the people of all other nations.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, Federalist No. 26

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
--James Madison, Federalist No. 46

"Who would have guessed that the shots heard 'round the world 225 years ago would fall on deaf ears in a nation now more sympathetic to the gun-grabbing Redcoat than the gun-bearing rebel?"
--Michelle Malkin

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
--George Mason

"Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property."
--Thomas Paine

"One ironic legacy of the Clinton administration is the rearming of the American citizenry. Each time Clinton and his friends in Congress threaten another round of anti-gun regulations, the American people respond by stocking up...."
--Llewellyn Rockwell

"The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was meant to inhibit only the federal government, not the states. The framers, as The Federalist Papers attest (see No. 28), saw the state militias as forces that might be summoned into action against the federal government itself, if it became tyrannical."
--Joseph Sobran

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
--Joseph Stalin

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power by rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
--Justice Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the Constitution"

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
--Mao Tse-Tung

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
--Henry St. George Tucker, Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England," 1768

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the America people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
--George Washington

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster

On the recent shooting spree

2006-09-18T08:41:00.000-05:00

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."

-William Burroughs

Massad Ayoob

2006-09-14T10:54:00.000-05:00

Some of you might think it strange to hear that one of the best handgun instructors in the USA goes by the name of Massad Ayoob. He's an Arab American who has spent his entire life as a cop, but he is most widely known for winning a variety of handgun shooting events early on in his career. Since then he has worked as a firearms instructor and has written lots of books and articles about proper shooting techniques.

Anyways, I found a cluster of articles written by him, and many of them are excellent reading.

Four Fundamentals of Marksmanship

2006-09-14T10:50:00.000-05:00

Right from the US Army's manual:

The Four Fundamentals of Marksmanship.

It's good reading for both the beginner & the experienced marksman.

Woman in wheelchair shoots mugger

2006-09-09T08:07:00.000-05:00

Another example of a woman who would otherwise not be able to defend herself using her gun in self defense:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Margaret Johnson might have looked like an easy target.
But when a mugger tried to grab a chain off her neck Friday, the wheelchair-bound 56-year-old pulled out her licensed .357 pistol and shot him, police said.
Johnson said she was in Manhattan's Harlem neighborhood on her way to a shooting range when the man, identified by police as 45-year-old Deron Johnson, came up from behind and went for the chain.
"There's not much to it," she said in a brief interview. "Somebody tried to mug me, and I shot him."
Deron Johnson was taken to Harlem Hospital with a single bullet wound in the elbow, police said. He faces a robbery charge, said Lt. John Grimpel, a police spokesman.
Margaret Johnson, who lives in Harlem, has a permit for the weapon and does not face charges, Grimpel said. She also was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and later released.

Purchasing & Carrying Guns in VA

2006-09-04T17:07:00.000-05:00

So a friend of mine asked me to post about what it takes to purchase a handgun and to legally carry it in Virginia.

So let's start with the rules for gun ownership in general. The NRA maintains an exellent online matrix of gun laws in all 50 states. Each state's gun laws are summarized there, and I do mean summarized, because the intricacies of gun related laws can be mind boggling. Since I live in Virginia, these are the laws that apply to me and most of my friends. Basically it boils down to this: there are no licensing requirements for purchasing firearms in the state of Virginia. This applies to all single shot, pump action, semi-auto, bolt action, etc rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Anything full-auto is heavily regulated by the Federal Government, and requires special FBI background check, licensing, and expensive fees in addition to the bloated prices for full-auto weaponry (usually just take the cost of whatever gun it is in semi-auto, and add a zero).

The Virginia Constitution is very clear about gun ownership & rights, even more so than the Federal one:

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Article 1, Section 13.

You can purchase a gun in Virginia at any gun store, pawn shop, or gun show as long as you meet several basic requirements. Those are: you have not committed & been convicted of any felony crimes. Misdemeanors are ok as long as they are not related to domestic abuse. If you ever commit and are convicted of a felony, you loose your right to own a gun and to vote, and I'm fine with that, as I think the two go hand in hand. Furthermore, you cannot buy a gun if you have ever been committed to a mental institution. When you purchase a gun, you have to fill out two questionaires that go through criminal history and other related topics. But, if you're a US citizen, have declared Virginia residency, and have no felonies or domestic abuse misdemeanors on your rap, then you're OK by Virginia law to buy a gun. After you fill out the paperwork, the licensed firearms dealer will then make a call to the state police where they will run a background check to make sure that you're telling the truth about not being a felon. If it's a busy day, like when there is a gun show going on somewhere in the state, the background check can take an hour or so, but usually the process takes less than five minutes.

Gun dealers are required to keep these records on hand for a period of months, after which they are destroyed, so that the Government could never go back and get a list of who owns what guns incase they decide they want to round up all the guns from all the gun owners. This is very wise. Remember kids, the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment is to remind our elected officials that they serve us, not the other way around.

Anyways, back to gun purchasing. Guns purchased from a pawn shop will be used, and sometimes you can get decent deals there. Guns purchased from licensed gun shops will be expensive, but new, and they often will do cool things like special orders for you if you know exactly the gun you want. The cheapest way to pickup a gun is at a gun show, where you have dozens or hundreds of merchants competing for your business. I've often seen the same gun at shows for a half dozen different prices.

In Virginia, there is a rule that you can only buy one handgun a month, with no limit on other types of firearms. This was created to prevent gun traffickers from buying up a dozen cheap handguns and selling them on the streets or running them up to NYC and doing the same. An added bonus to having a Conceal Carry Permit in Virginia is that this rule doesn't apply to you anymore, although it still might if you have a wife.

Oh yeah, people under 18 can't buy guns in Virginia, and firearms dealers can't sell guns to people who they think will then sell or give the gun to somebody under 18, unless it is a family member. Oh, and if you have a restraining order on you, you can't buy any guns either.

There is one caveat to all these legal loopholes however. There are very few restrictions placed upon sales between private individuals who are not selling firearms as a business. i.e. if I were to buy a gun, and I wanted to sell it to my friend Bob, I could legally do so, so long as to the best of my knowledge, that I knew that Bob was not a convicted felon. In Virginia, if you sell your gun to a convicted felon, and the guy commits a crime and is caught, and the police somehow trace this back to you, they can slam you with what's called a "Strawman Purchase". They are not kind in such situations, so don't even mess around with this.

When you purchase the gun, you must present two pieces of identification. One must have your picture, your name, and your current address on it. The other only needs to have your name and current address. I particularly like using my Drivers License along with my Voter Registration Card, but your Vehicle Registration will work too, as will any power bill in your name at your current address. Once I got my conceal carry permit, I was very happy to be able to use that as my 2nd form of ID (the gun store clerks look at you a little less suspicious).

So, let's say you've cleared the sane legal hurdles that we have in Virginia and have purchased a handgun and now you want to carry it. Good news! In Virginia, we have laws that make sense for those concerned about self defense. First of all, it is totally legal to openly carry a handgun on you at all times, except onto certain restricted areas. Those 'gun free' zones are places like schools, post offices, court houses, and churches. Furthermore, if any private business posts a 'no guns allowed' policy, you have to comply legally. These gun free zones apply to both conceal carry and open carry. Open carry means having a loaded handgun in a clearly visible holster on your belt. It must be clearly visible for it to be considered open carry. Now, while this might be legal, it isn't exactly advisable, although some gun rights activists do open carry all the time. Why isn't it advisable? Because people in our society aren't used to seeing armed people walking around. They get scared, and they call the cops, and then you get harrassed for doing something that is completely legal. So, this is why people opt to get conceal carry licenses.

A great resource for conceal carry info in any state is packing.org. It has state-by-state info and a forum where people can ask questions. Here is the page for the conceal carry laws of Virginia.

The basic process of getting a Conceal Carry Permit (abreviated to CCP) is fairly simple. You have to have written proof that you have completed a gun safety class. This can be any gun safety class, such as the one that's required of all hunters before they can get a hunting license, or one offered by the NRA. Most people however choose to take a class specifically tailored for concealed carry, and I highly recommend them. Most of these concealed carry classes do have a shooting proficiency requirement though. It's fairly basic, but it is not easy to complete with a short barrelled handgun or snub nosed revolver. If you're going to take one of these classes, either bring, borrow, or rent a gun that has a longer barrell than what you'll be carrying on you because the test will be much easier that way. Remember kids, a longer heavier barrel translates into increased accuracy. When I went to take my conceal carry course, one guy was smart enough to bring his match 22 caliber target pistol, and he effortlessly passed the test.

Once you've got that piece of paper that proves that you have completed a conceal carry course or gun safety class, you must take a copy of this to your local courthouse, along with some cash. I think the fee is something like $50. So, you fill out the paperwork, you pay the fee, and then you get fingerprinted. The Williamsburg couthouse where I had this done had an electronic fingerprint machine that digitally scanned in my prints, so I didn't even have to get ink on my fingers. Then the government does an extensive background check, and if you're not a felon or a stalker (see above) then they grant you a license. The government has up to 45 days to get this license to you, and sometimes they'll take 44 days. It just depends. Oh, and in Virginia, conceal carry is a 'shall issue' state, not a 'may issue'. There is a difference. In a 'shall issue' state, as long as you pass the background check and submit to the licensing and finger printing, they'll give you the permit. In 'may issue' states, you must prove to your local sherif that your life is in danger and you need to be armed. This is bullshit, because depending on the political views of your local sherif, he or she can deny you the ability to defend yourself. Maryland is such a state.

After you've completed your licensing requirements and received your license, you can now carry a concealed loaded handgun just about anywhere. Anyone interested in the fine details of where you can and cannot carry, refer to the packing.org links above. Note however that in Virginia, you cannot carry a concealed weapon legally into any restaurant that serves alcohol, but it's totally legal to carry it openly. Some people comply with this. Others go by the philosophy that a concealed weapon that is carried discretely will not attract attention to yourself, do so at your own discretion.

As far as how to conceal the gun, I think I'll save that for another post, as there is an entire artform to it.

Having a CCP is handy for a number of reasons. For one, it makes transporting your guns to and from the range easier to comply with legally, as the rules for carrying weapons in your car are rather byzantine; unless of course you have a CCP, in which case you can just carry it however you want. Now that I own an easily concealable & reliable revolver, I carry it with me every time I leave the house. If I'm going to work, and I'm taking a car, I'll usually leave the weapon in the vehicle while I'm at work. If I'm taking my motorcycle, I'll leave it in my motorcycle jacket; as I do not want to be noticed carrying a weapon around my place of employment. This does make me less safe, and in the very remote chance of a maniac lone gunman, I'd have no means of defending myself and the others around me at the time unless I'm near either my car or my motorcycle jacket, but it's a tradeoff I make in order to comply as best as I am willing with the rules of my employer. Although, with a small enough gun that is properly concealed, I have been known to leave it on me.

The biggest drawback to the CCP is that you are now a licensed gun owner. The government knows that you own at least one handgun, and if things ever got politically nasty for gun owners, the gun nazis would have a list of people to round up. The way I look at it, is that if things ever got that bad: (1) I'd move to another state, (2) or give up one of my guns while concealing the others, or (3) take the Jeffersonian approach, and remind my government that they can have my guns from my cold dead hands. Liberty is never free, and to paraphrase Jefferson, sometimes the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of true patriots.

One more word of advice, if you do choose to buy a gun, I highly recommend picking up a copy of The Virginia Gun Owner's Guide. It covers everything I have mentioned, and it also covers things like when you can legally use the gun to defend yourself. Although, if you take a conceal carry course, they will most likely go over those legal situations where you are allowed to pull the trigger in order to protect your life or the lives of others. The Virginia court system has a decent track record for siding with people who used their firearms in defense of their lives or property, so you do have some legal history on your side if you ever had to pull the trigger, but you should only do so as an absolute last resort.

That said, it's very rare for a gun that is used in self defense to actually have to be fired. A few months ago, somebody on the Livejournal Guns community asked everyone to post if they had ever used their conceal carry weapon to prevent a crime or defend their lives. Amongst the dozens of posts, there was not one where the trigger actually had to be pulled. In all of these cases, just pulling out the gun was enough to end the crime. Now think about that. Most of these cases were never reported to the police, so they never turn up in government crime statistics.

So for those that are willing, I highly recommend going through the legal hoops of purchasing a handgun legally and obtaining a conceal carry permit. After all, the more honest law abiding citizens that are armed, the more criminals have to fear us, and therefor the less crime.

S&W 642 practice

2006-09-02T15:11:00.000-05:00

So I went down to Bob's Guns of Norfolk this afternoon for some target practice with the new Smith & Wesson 642 revolver. Since I bought the gun there, I've got a year membership to their indoor range. I brought my own ammo, targets, ear, & eye protection with me, so I didn't have to buy anything there today.

So, this was my first time firing the revolver. I honestly thought the recoil was going to be worse than it was, given that the revolver only weighs 15 ounces, but the recoil was quite managable. The 38 special rounds felt only slightly harder on my hand than my 9mm pistols do, and the +P ammo wasn't bad either.

So I had intended on practicing firing at 10 feet, but the rangemaster told me that I had to use my target at the full 25 feet because of the size of the target. Now, this is kinda silly, because 25 feet is about the maximum effective distance for a 2" snubnosed revolver in 38 special. Especially since most defensive situations will be under 10 feet.

Anyways, I complied and fired 20 rounds of full metal jacket at the target using both hands, 5 rounds of FMJ using one hand, and then 5 rounds of +P ammo using both hands.

Here is how I did (you can click it for a larger view). 20 rounds made it within the rings. 8 rounds made it into the shaded portion, and 1 clipped the paper, and 2 missed completely. Not bad for the first time shooting the revolver, and that it being at its maximum effective distance. The long 9 pound double action pull will take some getting used to. As you can see, many of my shots were pulled off to the right. This is due to me not squeezing the trigger properly, which is due to me not being comfortable with the trigger yet. I plan on picking up 5 'snap caps' which are dummy bullets that you can safely practice pulling the trigger with, in order to get more comfortable with the trigger pull of the revolver.

So, I still need to practice with it, but I'm comfortable enough carrying it for everyday use. Again, this revolver is for close range defense. Its meant for defense under 10 feet, and I think it'll be fine for that distance. Again, I've got a year membership with Bob's Gun Range so I'll be back once I buy some more cheap ammo to practice with.
Oh, if you look closely at the image of the target, you can tell which are the holes for the +P shots, because they are slightly larger and more round than the other more 'punctured' holes. Of those 5 rounds, 1 made it on the X line, one on the 9, two in the seven, and one nicked the shoulder.

As far as the range itself, it was fun, and fairly crowded. It's a small indoor range that only allows pistols & pistol caliber carbines. It was very well ventilated. I'll be back again, at least monthly, once I buy some cheap FMJ ammo to practice with.

Your secret protectors

2006-08-31T08:23:00.000-05:00

So last night I went out for sushi with my wife, a liberal friend of hers (gay, vegan, 6th year colege student, etc) , and his liberal female friend (English major, 5th year college student, etc). Both are very nice people, and fun to talk to. No qualms about that. Had a great time at dinner, etc.

Anyways, so after we left the restaurant I notice a disheveled looking white guy approaching us. My hand immediately goes into my pocket, ready to pull out the Taurus PT-22 (it was all I had on me, I know...I should have had the revolver), thumb ont he safety. The guy then gives us this story about how he's a Vet (they always say that) and how he needs money so that he and his wife can eat dinner (a nice addition to the usual bum rap), but really, this guy was probably just a junkie or a meth head who was working the nicer part of town because he knows that suberban white kids have money and are suckers.

Anyways, we politely responded that we didn't have any spare change, and proceeded to head on our way. The guy briefly followed us, and I kept an eye on him, but then he moved on.

So, on our way home our liberal friends were all like, "Oh my god, I thought we were going to get mugged and killed by that homeless guy!"

And I was just like, "Trust me...that wouldn't have happend," and I left it at that, because I knew that they'd freak if they found out that I had a gun on me, even if it was legal.

I looked over at my wife and patted my pocket where I had the gun, and she just smiled.

So here I am. The Greengun, your silent bodyguard.

Anyways, it just makes me wonder how often something like this happens to other people who are conceal carry permit holders. Maybe I should have brought it up that I was armed. You know, to help dispel the image that only cops & robbers carry guns. Maybe if more anti-gunners knew how many of us there are out there and that we're not gun waving maniacks it would do them good. Oh well...next time.

Smith & Wesson 642

2006-08-26T18:39:00.000-05:00

So, I bought a new revolver today. It's a Smith & Wesson model 642 airweight revolver in 38 special. I bought it to be a reliable every-day conceal carry gun. I currently have a Taurus PT-22 that I carry when I need something small, and this revolver will take its place. I would have traded the PT-22 in at the gun shop, but the trade in price wasn't worth it, so I'll hold onto it a bit longer. I'll probably try to see what I can get for it at the next gun show.

So, the S&W revolver is only 15 ounces unloaded. It has an alluminum alloy frame, with a stainless steel barrel and cylender. It can shoot both 38 special and the 38 special +P rounds. +P ammo means that it uses a special "overpressure" type of gunpowder that gives the bullets more velocity, and thus more power. Remember kids: F=MA. If you want more stopping power, you've gotta add either more mass or more acceleration.

Anyways, here is what it looks like:

The silver bullet on the left is a Federal Hydra-Shok 38 special +P, it's what I'll be carrying in the gun when I take it with me. The bullet on the right is a standard 38 special full metal jacket round that I'll use for practice.

Here is another shot of the gun:

As you can see, it is a "hammerless" revolver, in that the hammer that strikes the cartridge is totally concealed; it's internal, so that it can't snag on any fabric when you pull it out of your pocket. Which is where I'll be keeping it most of the time, although it fits well both inside my pants along the belt line or in the small of my back. Again, I can carry this concealed legally in Virginia because I have a Concealed Carry Permit. Conceal carry permits are great in that they allow honest citizens to conceal a weapon on them for protection against whatever may come. Some people keep fire extinguishers in their cars or homes, I keep guns.

Moving right along, here is what the revolver looks with the cylender extended for loading:

Again notice that it only holds 5 rounds. 5 shots is enough for personal protection in most situations, although if I know that I'll be going into a really bad neighborhood, I'll take the Taurus PT-111 with me instead, because it can hold 13 rounds of 9mm in the magazine & chamber.

This last pic is a comparison of 38 special bullets to 9mm bullets just so that you can see that the bullet width is about the same, but the 38 special cartridge holds more gunpowder, so it has more power overall.

Target Shooting: Gun Cleaning

2006-08-25T09:54:00.000-05:00

This is the last in the Target Shooting educational series, and it's one of the most important. A clean gun is a functional gun. Semi auto guns over time, get clogged up with partially burnt gunpowder and other residues, so it is very important to keep them clean in order to keep them functional.

Some older military types of ammo are corrosive, and will damage the barrel if you don't clean it after use.

Before I ever learned how to shoot a gun, my dad taught me how to clean one.

This is the last in this series, but I'll try to keep this blog posted with other educational types of films and tutorials soon! Until then, enjoy:

Target Shooting: Glock 9mm

2006-08-25T09:53:00.001-05:00

Target Shooting: 375-H&H

2006-08-25T09:53:00.000-05:00

Target Shooting: Revolvers

2006-08-25T09:52:00.001-05:00

Target Shooting: Semi-Automatic Handguns

2006-08-25T09:52:00.000-05:00

Target Shooting: Gun Sights

2006-08-25T09:51:00.000-05:00

Target Shooting: Pistol Action Types

2006-08-25T09:50:00.001-05:00

Target Shooting: Semi-Automatic Rifles

2006-08-25T09:50:00.000-05:00

Target Shooting: Pump Action Rifles

2006-08-25T09:49:00.002-05:00

Target Shooting: Bolt Action Rifles

2006-08-25T09:49:00.001-05:00

Target Shooting: Rifle Types

2006-08-25T09:49:00.000-05:00

Target Shooting: Rifle Ammunition

2006-08-25T09:46:00.000-05:00

Another great intro to Ammo from the Target Shooting series.

Target Shooting: Handgun Ammunition

2006-08-25T09:43:00.000-05:00