The Gun Blogs

HDNews highlighted a group of North Texas Action Pistol Shooters (who also happen to be bloggers) in a very posative feature.

You can find it here.

Ran across a couple news items concerning another bunch of gun grabbers, the Mayors Against Guns (no link for them, screw 'em)

Number one is a story about the counter suits going on in response to Mayor Bloomberg's law-breaking. Funny thing is, if this actually went down like it's reported here, no laws were broken, no straw purchase took place. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Bloomberg administration's sting operations involved two undercovers going to a dealer; one would ask all the questions, while the other "completely uninvolved in the sale process" would fill out the information for the gun purchase.

Now, helping someone buy something they are not familiar with (like I've done with a non-computer savvy friend in the past) isn't the same thing as buying a gun for another person. According to what I'm reading, the person who actually purchased the gun filled out the paperwork. No laws broken there as far as I can see.

How the hell does he get away with it? It boggles the mind.

This second one ticks me off. It's about a survey the group sent to all the presidential candidates. The reported then selects a couple sample questions. they are, of course, the ones no one could say no to:

Survey questions include "Do you support increasing the maximum penalty for illegal firearms possession from 10 years to 15 years?" and "Do you believe that gun dealers whose licenses have been revoked for selling guns illegally should be allowed to continue selling guns in their inventory without doing background checks?"

Anyone who answers "no" to either of these questions will look like a nutcase to the average American. Of course, I'm willing to bet there are other questions on that survey that are much less "common sense", and when Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and others "flunk" the survey, the spin will start.

Oh, now this is nice.

I just clicked over to get info on Tennessee's

not one

not two

but now three anti-gun mayors.

But, before I could get to the Mayors Against Guns site, I was greeted with this message:

The horrifying rampage at the Westroads Mall in Omaha is an appalling crime that has saddened the whole nation. The families and friends of all those affected are in our hearts and in our prayers.

- Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg & Mayor Thomas M. Menino
Co-Chairs of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition

How's that for dancing in the blood of the dead?

Oh, and Oak Ridge, call your Mayor and let him know he's on the wrong side of the issue, will ya please?

Jeff has more on the Bloomie survey.

Looks like S&W are doing pretty good:

Net product sales for the quarter ended October 31, 2007 were $70.8 million, an increase of 39.4% over the comparable quarter last year.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Bradies!

Prayers and much sympathy for the victims and their families. I can't imagine how I'd feel.

It's easy (way too easy) to find a biased, ill-informed piece on firearms in the news today. As we head toward a decision in the Heller case, no doubt there'll be more.

WCPO in Ohio does a good, non-biased report on concealed carry in the state. They stick to facts, and get them right.

And, although I like this statement:

We are not going to pass judgement on the law or its politics

it's a shame they had to say it at all.

As you may know by now, firearms maker STI has decided to quit selling their product in the state of California.

Good for them, Ruger, S&W, Remington, and the rest of you take notice.

(hat tip to just about everybody)

UPDATE: Found a better link courtesy of KdT.

When I first saw this over at Unc's Place, I was gonna have me some fun, but when I read it, I decided to let it go.

Why? Because it took place at Baylor College of Medicine, and I expect Docs (and Doc-lings) to be freaky about firearms. Same for clergy. It's their job to heal and bless people, and most of their interaction with firearms and their owners come from the bad side, ie gangs, murderers, etc. Although it's a very small part of guns in America, it's the part they see.

Besides, I don't think I'd want to go to a Doc that had a "Kill 'em All"* sign up in the office. Could you imagine hearing a priest saying "Shoot the bastards"? It's not in their job description.

Don't get me wrong, I'll still jump all over any gun banner, but unless it's really crazy talk, I tend to give those folks a pass.

* - Does not apply to Combat Medics/Corpsmen. One of the best ones I knew had a tattoo saying "Save the Best, Kill the Rest". Those folks really rock.

Malaysia has licence to make M4 assault rifles

Maybe cheaper AR platform weapons in our future?

In a "better late than never" moment, the NRA (via SayUncle)
calls out Jayne Lyn Stahl on her Opinion piece (of shit) Another Poster Child for the NRA (which I talked about here) and can still be found here)

The article was published by the Atlantic Free Press here. One reason for the outcry this time around was the Atlantic's use of an NRA symbol with a picture of the Wisconsin mass murderer in the middle.

However, now the symbol is gone and the article has been prefaced with an admonition/paranoid screed that starts out like this:

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Read the First Amendment once again - it's one that you claim you defend with your guns.

I find it lame beyond belief when someone writes up something as objectionable as the article mentioned above, then invokes the First Amendment. I realize this is a "Publisher's Note", but what is it really? A bunch of whining sissies who got their nose bloodied and are running to mommy.

Just as the NRA bases its political activity on the principle that gun ownership is a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (which prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that infringe the freedom of speech and infringe the freedom of the press) protects the right of Jayne Lyn Stahl to express her OPINION.

It also protects the rights of those who find her opinion silly, paranoid or downright odious to express their OPINION. Freedom, meet responsibility.

Some of you who have written in claim that NRA members are law abiding, etc but others, at the same time, have made some pretty serious threats via email - which negates the other claims completely.

No it doesn't, it just shows diversity of opinion. That's a good thing, right? You shouldn't be making faulty and inflexible generalizations. That would be stereotyping.

Furthermore, the image was not chosen and created by Stahl but rather the editorial team.

Then you all are a bunch of assholes.

Our publication is not USA-based and we reserve the right to print what we want (our laws protect Freedom of Speech as well)

Not USA based? I don't care. You can be from the second ring of Saturn for all I care. Print what you want? Sure thing, sunbeam. I write what I want as well. Unlike you, I'm man enough to take any criticism that comes my way because of it.

whether or not we fully agree with what has been published.

I'm sure you fully agreed with what was published. It fits your world view.

I'm not going to address the rest of the "publishers note" for two reasons. One, you're not from the USA, so your opinion of my country does not interest me in the least. Second, anyone who refers to an administration as a "plutocratic kleptocracy" isn't worth any more of my time. Get back to me after you start shaving.

On another note, I don't fault the NRA for being two weeks late to this dance. They have their own way of doing things.

Finally, anyone who threatened the life of Ms. Stahl via e-mail or any other means should be subject to all applicable laws. Killing someone for being stupid is against the law.

Here's a challenge for anyone wanting to restrict my gun rights:

- Establish a G-Mail account.

- Set up an e-mail alert. Make the search terms "home invasion". Have the results come once a day.

- Wait a week, then tell me why I shouldn't have a gun - accessible - in my house.

Here is an extreme case of an Anti-Gun Pants Shitter. He's hard to argue with, mainly because he doesn't have any facts. Just invective in ALL CAPS and even BOLD ALL CAPS. (Can multiple punctuation marks be far behind?!?!?!?!?!?!)

Here are a few tidbits from the sidebar of his site:

This blog exists as a source of dissemination of factual information on guns, gun violence, the victims and perpetrators of that violence, and political efforts to make our society safer.

Sounds good so far, right? It doesn't last long.

I am a busy man. Posting material and arguments here takes up a lot of the spare time I have. I have no desire to respond over and over again to such silliness.

Where have I heard that before? Here, for one and here as well. The only desire of these types is one-way conversation.

If you would like to add something useful to the material I've posted here, by all means, please do. Your thoughtful comments are welcome.

Somehow I think "thoughtful" is a synonym for "thinking like I think" in this case.

Finally, an attempt at taking the moral high ground:

I do this work for the life of my daughter and the memory of my sisters Tia (1968-1993) and Shannon (1969-1997), both victims of American gunism

Vague enough to lead most folks to thinking there was tragedy involved without ever saying so. Color me skeptical. What gunism is, I have no idea.

What got me going on this guy wasn't anything he's posted (it's all drivel), but this posting by 308Mike at The Gun Thing

It's the Mauser/Kates report, all about facts and stuff. You know, the stuff people like Alex don't want to hear.

Mike says:

In their analysis, Kates and Mauser compared different countries, different population groups and different types of interpersonal violence, homicide and suicide throughout much of recorded history, and found that the old anti-gun axioms that you so often hear are false:

* More firearms do not equate to more homicide or more suicide.

* Fewer firearms do not equate to less homicide or less suicide.

In fact, more often than not, just the opposite is true.

I bet Alex and Bryan Miller are falling over each other to get a copy of this. Or not.

It's also available for (free) download at that location (can't get the link to work here), so go get a copy!

Anything to further Reasoned Discourseâ„¢ .

There's a new gun control method being floated. This one comes from OSHA. Go check out the details the NSSF provides for us, including OSHA contact information.

Here's the important part:

For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters.

Has this been a problem in the past? I can't seem to recall any Cabela's or Bass Pro Shop going up in smoke because of the lighter in my pocket. Similarly, I can't remember a single ammunition/flare/ordinance plant turning itself into a crater.

Jump on this bandwagon! I've said it before, the way the gun grabbers are gonna get us is ammunition control.

How much is a good reloading setup these days?

Hat tip to Mister Bane, who always has his ear to the ground.

Internet Gun Trafficking. Yep, That's the problem. At least if you're completely freakin' clueless.

This year's mass shooting incident at Virginia Tech shone the spotlight directly into this murky commercial sector. The Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, purchased his 22-calibre Walther semi-automatic pistol from thegunsource.com, a Wisconsin-based online gun dealer for a mere US$ 267. A snip. In this case, state legislation prevented the pistol from being shipped directly to Cho's campus dormitoryroom, and it was instead delivered to a nearby pawn shop – always a wise precaution.

In addition to handguns, most states allow the online sale of militaryor military-type weapons and ammunition as well. One of the leading online firearms retailers in the USA, www.impactguns.com, offers hundreds of personal defence items for purchase over the web.

You couldn’t make this up, so here it is straight between the eyes as it were. Impact Guns is currently running a "Father's Day Special" on semi-automaticAK-47 assault rifles. For example Dad mightask junior to buy him the Kalashinikov modelAMD65 7.62x39 with a 30 round magazine and folding stock, which apparently makes the weapon easier to conceal. Pops might also get a kick out of a WASR10 7.62x39 AK-47 assault rifle complete with bayonet. So handy for the rush hour don’tcha know.

These weapons are "in stock" ready to be shipped "within 48 hrs" of purchase at the Father's Day sale price of $415.79 dollars, marked down from $461.99.

Now, for those of you with a clue, what do they completely fail to mention here? Could it be that federal law requires that all interstate gun transfers be made between companies or people who have federal firearms licenses? The Cho incidents relation to the gun being purchased on line completely ignores that he had to go through the pawn-shop because it has an FFL. They mention the theGunstore.com and completely fail to mention that their site specifies that the transfer must be through an FFL. They're in WI so the transfer to VA required the involvement of an FFL.

Didn't mention that Cho passed the NICs check either, but hey, when you're distorting the truth you don't actually need facts.

Internet gun sales were, in fact, officially recognised as a problem as far back as 1999, when New York Senator Charles Schumer proposed a bill in Congress called the "Internet Gun Trafficking Act", which sought to "plug a gaping loophole in the enforcement of federal firearms laws--the ability of felons and minors to find guns for sale on-line and illegally acquire those guns without detection."

Schumer's bill got nowhere but, in 2005, a particular piece of legislation covering aspects of the gun industry and weapons ecommerce in the US was voted into law . The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" legally "prohibits civil liability actions from being broughtor continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products."

That pretty much says it all.

Yep, it does indeed say it all. The only problem is that this is the biggest lie I've seen in a very long time. If someone buys a gun online and it doesn't go through an FFL holder, the seller and the buyer are committing a felony. About the only way you could buy a gun online would require the user to purchase it from an individual in his own state who is making a private sale and then must meet all local and state requirements. I would also bet that in the majority of states, even that is illegal.

And not in a good way.

Alphecca has the story of Les Baer moving, or trying to move, its operation out of anti-gun Illinois and into Iowa.

An anti-gun group is trying to block the move. In their statement, they say:

“Every feature on the guns are designed for mass killing, so does it make sense to sell these to the general public?” Johnson asked. “Semiautomatic weapons are designed for combat. A military weapon is designed for mass killing.”

(emphasis mine)

After years of us pointing out that the previously banned "assault weapons" were only capable of semiautomatic fire, anti-gun groups have added it to their list of scare words.

One can only hope the general public knows better.

(h/t Unc)

Well, another shooting at a school. When are people going to learn? Now, everybody's going to be yelling more gun controll and we need better gun laws. ever woundered how a single person can walk into a room and blow away 30 people? What do you think would have happened if he walked into class and shot the teacher and then turned and looked at the class only to see most of the class was pointing a gun at him just before they blew him away. IF YOU WANT MORE GUN CONTROLL, HAVE EVERYONE BUY A GUN AND KEEP IT ON THEM AT ALL.I think the good people who go by the law far out numbers the bad people. Then it would be just a matter of time before all the bad guys are done in. I do know this, You would never hear of anyone killing 30 + people. I know that after they shot one person, SOMEBODY is going to shoot them. Think about it? Woodzman

By woodzman

I'd like to say at the outset that this is not an indictment of any victim's actions at Virginia Tech. Something like this should never happen, and I doubt anyone would know how'd they react when put in a similar situation.

I've already heard the cries of "America's gun culture" as the cause of this. As Nylar so ably points out below, anti-gunners are going to use this incident to advance their agenda of disarmament.

There is a cultural factor to all this. It concerns fight or flight; the most primal reaction to confrontation. Very few at VT managed to do either. Only a handful of people jumped out of windows to avoid being shot. So far, only one has been pointed out as trying to fight back by holding a classroom door closed.

How did this instinct not kick in when those folks knew there was a shooter on the floor? Because they've been taught since early childhood not to resist an attacker. Don't fight back, just give them what they want and they'll go away. Same thing for running away; you might provoke your attacker - don't do it.

Looks like we've managed to do what intellectuals have been wanting for years: we've overcome our most base instincts. We've risen above the animals. Fight or flight is a thing of the past, and we've become a bovine herd. Hooray for smart people!

One problem: there's a substantial segment of our population who haven't done away with their most base instincts. They've harnessed them, embraced them, and have no reservations using them to get what they want. They are predators in every sense of the word. They identify the weak and pounce. If the prey runs or fights, the predator simply employs their own fight or flight instinct. Many times they go off in search of an easier target. Predators don't want to work hard.

There are 60-80 million gun owners in America, depending on who you listen to. There are over 300 million Americans total. That means 20-27% of America owns a gun. Does this mean 73-80% of Americans have lost the will to fight or flee? Once all the facts are in, do the math and see for yourself.

Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good.

- Thomas Sowell

UPDATE: Looks like I'm not the only one thinking this way.
(via Alphie)

This is bloody pathetic.

Catherine Crowley tried to change a state gun law after her 18-year-old son killed himself with a shotgun he bought at a Wal-Mart. Her endeavor fell short when lawmakers rejected her idea to require a waiting period for young people to buy guns in Maine. But her effort can now be seen in a new documentary. The 55-minute film, "There Ought To Be A Law," provides a look at Crowley’s experience navigating the legislative system in hopes of getting a law on the books to make it harder for young people to get their hands on guns. Crowley is hopeful the film can carry forward her message. If enough people see it, she might ultimately succeed, she said. "I’m not defeated unless I give up," she said. "If I keep going, eventually I’ll have enough people who’ll say, ‘Enough is enough."’ The film begins with footage of Crowley walking through Woodlawn Cemetery in Auburn with flowers in hand to place on her son’s grave. Larry Belanger Jr. killed himself in his Lewiston apartment on May 23, 2004, but gave no indication why in a note he left behind. Crowley and a friend found her son’s body when they went looking for him in his apartment, located in a house next door to Crowley’s home. When Crowley, a mother of four, learned that her son had bought the shotgun at a Wal-Mart a day and a half before turning it on himself, she went to the store and talked to a manager: How could an 18-year-old, her baby, simply walk in and buy a gun without a waiting period? She was told that Wal-Mart hadn’t done anything wrong; if she didn’t like the law, she could try to it get changed.

I feel sorry for her in a minor way. On the other hand, blaming an inanimate object for her son's death is foolish. I'm wondering how much retrospective she's taken on why he was broken in the first place. People don't commit suicide because they are functioning properly. I may sound harsh, but the logic of going after gun legislation to fix the problem of suicide is to deny the actual cause of the problem. If she were looking for legislation to assist those who are suicidal, I'd applaud.

It strikes me that people that use guns to commit suicide aren't crying out for help. They really do want an end. A person who wants to die that clearly will find other means to do so. Look at Japan for an example. They have nearly no guns at all, yet have a high suicide rate. Lots of jumpers in Japan. Jumping being another method of assured end.

Now the nice misinformation:

Craven’s bill initially called for a 10-day waiting period for people age 22 and under to buy a gun. It was later watered down to require parental consent for 16- and 17-year-olds to buy firearms. In the end, though, the bill was defeated.

Yep. Apparently they want you to believe that a 16 or 17 year old can buy a gun at this time. They can't, with or without parental consent. Federal law requires you to be a minimum of 18.

(F6) Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee?

Yes. Under the GCA, long guns and long gun ammunition may be sold only to persons 18 years of age or older. Sales of handguns and ammunition for handguns are limited to persons 21 years of age and older. Although some State and local ordinances have lower age requirements, dealers are bound by the minimum age requirements established by the GCA. If State law or local ordinances establish a higher minimum age, the dealer must observe the higher age requirement.

[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), 27 CFR 478.99(b)]

But you wouldn't get that from the article.

But the most moving parts are Crowley’s personal story and the agony of losing her son. The film includes footage that leads viewers up a staircase to Belanger’s apartment — the same stairs Crowley ventured up before finding her dead son. It also shows the pain she felt when she came across messages on Internet forums that attacked her, questioned her parenting skills and even blamed her for her son’s death. Even though Crowley favors a waiting period, she says she isn’t opposed to guns in general. Her son was in the National Guard, and she was raised in a hunting family. Her efforts, she said, have been about teen suicide, public safety and families. Craven, who is featured prominently in the film, said she already has submitted a bill for this legislative session calling for a 10-day waiting period for anybody wanting to purchase firearms. The bill won’t pass, she said, but maybe it’ll keep the debate going.

It's sad she was attacked at the forums, but when you attack the deeply held beliefs of others on the AlgoreNet, you're bound to get kicked. Of course, this will certainly play out as the nasty gun nuts attacking the victim of their stupidity. I just don't follow that it's about teen suicide and public safety. Hell, her kid could have offed himself at the National Guard and it wouldn't have involved a purchase. Then what would she have done?

Another wonderful bit of anti-gun propaganda coming to a theater near you.

As most of you know, Surplusrifle.com is closing down and had their material for sale on CD (I got 'em both)

Now, the Bad News:

12/25/2006 7pm PST - Surplusrifle.com at this time has closed its online store. Please don't worry if you have already sent in a mail order we have set aside enough CDs to cover all inbound mail orders.

But, there's Good News, as well:

Please check back in February, 2007 as Surplusrifle.com CDs and Manuals will be for sale again by Tennessee Gun Parts right here at the Surplusrifle.com web site.

Many thanks to Layne and the folks at TGP

Kopel's concise evaluation of the changes related to the Dems taking control of the House.

The Second Amendment has emerged from the biggest Democratic victory since 1974 with relatively little damage. One reason is that in races all over the country, Democrats returned to their Jefferson-Jackson roots by running candidates who trust the people to bear arms.

Go and read the results. I have to admit, my home state of NH has gone completely off the edge. Hopefully that will be repaired in the next election.

Here's a link to Dave Kopel's election blog entry at the Volokh Conspiracy.

He gives some perspective on the movement of the congress with the changes the newly elected.

I'm hoping to find an updated version of this.

So far the analysis has been pretty slim. But it's early yet.