The Eclectic One

…Because labels are a poor substitute for thinking

Posts Tagged ‘guns’

California Police Chiefs Back Off On Gun Control Measure

Posted by Bill Nance on January 13, 2010

Well, they did it. The California hoplophobes, a decades-long majority in the state legislature  has finally managed to come up with a gun control idea so stupid even the notoriously anti-gun California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) can’t support it: Microstamping.

In case you don’t know what microstamping is, here’s a good description along with California’s iteration of the process:

Firearms microstamping is the process by which firearms manufacturers would have to micro laser-engrave a gun’s make, model and serial number on two distinct parts of each gun, including the firing pin, so that in theory the information would be imprinted on the cartridge casing when the pistol is fired. Legislation mandating microstamping in California was signed into law in 2007 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and was slated to take effect this New Year’s Day (2010); however, since the technology remains encumbered by patents it cannot be certified by the California Department of Justice and therefore has not been implemented.

Other people have written about this incredibly bizarre idea California is trying to mandate, but I thought I’d add my 2¢, with the excuse of the letter the California Police Chiefs Association (Which has rarely met a people gun control idea it didn’t like) sent to the California AG saying essentially, “woops.

{From the letter: } Publicly available, peer-reviewed studies conducted by independent research organizations conclude that the technology does not function reliably and that criminals can remove the markings easily in mere seconds. We believe that these findings require examination prior to implementation.”

In other words, the technical flaws of the idea without any other argument needing to be made makes this a stupid idea. But the letter itself is a perfect example of the ignorance and hypocrisy inherent in the idea of requiring the microstamp in the first place, much less registering individual gun owners.    In it’s own words the CPCA references the fact that criminals can easily find a way to evade detection via a firearm registration scheme as one of it’s reasons for opposition to the bill.

“Criminals can remove the markings easily in mere seconds.”

The antis can’t manage to come up with even a remotely plausible scenario in which this stuff would solve many crimes, even if they got everything they wanted. But they want it anyway.

To many who don’t know or care much about guns, gun registration doesn’t sound like a big deal. And if you don’t know anything about microstamping, and much more importantly the assumptions that its supposed efectiveness rests upon, it might not sound like a bad thing. I mean, it’s supposed to help the cops solve crimes right?

The only problem is that this simply isn’t the case.

Microstamping guns and registering individual gun owners depends on a large number of things for them to make more than the very slightest difference in catching bad guys. And trust me, I was a crime reporter for years in an area with high gang violence and lots of shootings. I know whereof I speak.

First, and most easily shown to be false, is the required assumption that guns used by criminals are legally owned and obtained by said criminals. Otherwise having the murder weapon (or shell casing in the case of microstamping is useless.- There’s no connection to the shooter. Microstamping, or even posession of the weapon used will only provide a connection to the gun shop that originally sold the gun or if there is registration of guns as well, a connection in some cases to a previous owner of the firearm.

That won’t help.

We have actual numbers on this stuff. They are released by the FBI and most states every single year, and wide-ranging reports, even those submitted by Clinton Administration appointees and staff in the justice department have concluded that the vast majority of crimes are committed by people with previously existing criminal records, which bars any legal purchase of a firearm, people under age to posesss a firearm legally, and in a staggeringly large percentage of cases, where the gun is stolen or obtained from an illegal black market, so far removed from the original source that tracing is virtually impossible.

Essentially, their excuse for logic is that the thing they want to use for crime solving is the one thing they are absolutely certain to not have, even with the most stringent of registration/microstamping provisions.

First, there are a grand total of about 500-600 unsolved homicides in California each year. About 2/3 of those (following national statistics) are committed with a firearm. Many of these are caught the following year, so the real number of cases where absent more information on the gun could possibly help solve otherwise unsolved cases is already very small. Knowing who used to have the gun legally is of very little help in most cases.

Microstamping, even if it were trivial to do and worked every time rests upon the idea that there are lots of cases where:

  1. A registered gun is used in a crime by a legal gun owner or someone to whom he knowingly gave the gun
  2. Which isn’t a revolver
  3. The perpetrator doesn’t pick up his brass
  4. The perpetrator keeps the gun after committing a crime with it instead of reporting it lost/stolen
  5. The perpetrator is not otherwise tied to the crime
  6. The perpetrator hasn’t altered the gun to defeat registration/microstamping requirements

Is this true for more than a handful of cases? For this they want to spend millions, make ammunition AND firearms prohibitively expensive for all but the well-to-do and cost the state yet more jobs as anyone who is in the firearms business or cares about their human right of self defense, rapidly flees the Golden State.  Like the famous “assault weapon” ban, where the Justice department noted that fewer than .75% of gun crimes were committed by “assault weapons” and that hi-capacity magazines seemed to make no difference in terms of numbers of people injured or in rounds fired, this is another solution to a problem that doesn’t exist outside Sarah Brady’s fantasies.

I gave up on Democrat politicians showing any common sense on gun control a long time ago, but this is enough to make my jaded opinions sit back in awe.  This is beyond stupid. As a matter of fact:

Posted in Crime, firearms, gun control, Guns Dammit!, hoplophobia, Left-Wing Nut-Jobery, Politics, Prison and Justice, Stupid Idea Watch | Tagged: , , , , , | 12 Comments »

Gun Pr0n and Range Report: Winchester 1300 Shotgun

Posted by Bill Nance on July 13, 2009

I finally had a chance to get our new shotgun to the range this weekend. After literally an entire month of rain, we finally had a sunny day yesterday.

The gun itself is a Winchester 1300. It’s a pump-action 12-gauge, which, without a dowel, holds 4 shells in the tube and one in the pipe. Winchester also makes an 8-shot version called the Defender. Barrels change out easily. A few quick twists of the magazine plug and you can swap barrels in about 15 seconds.

I was able to get hold of a virtually unfired gun. The original owner said he’d put less than a single box of ammo through it and true enough, the gun was spotless. Along with the gun came two barrels; one, an 18-inch barrel suitable for home defense and the other a 28-inch ventilated rib barrel, along with a full and a modified choke.

Winchester 1300 w/18" bbl (28" bbl also shown)

Winchester 1300 w/18" bbl (28" bbl also shown)

As I got it it had a folding stock and pistol grip, which I’ve removed.

Some of my readers may ask why I got rid of the tacticool setup. The answer is two-fold: First, this is likely to be the first gun I pick up in the middle of the night when the dogs are going berserk and the bad guys are coming. If, (God forbid) I actually have to shoot someone, the last thing on earth I want to do is give some hoplophobic district attorney something to show a jury that’s been “modified” to look scary. If you think this is paranoid, you aren’t paying attention to the news. It happens a lot, even in supposedly “gun-friendly” states, much less here in Mass. It’s one of the reasons I would never EVER carry reloads in a defensive gun. I can already hear the DA telling a jury: “He specially made these bullets to be extra-special deadly!”  A pistol grip isn’t especially useful for me. If you’re practiced and confident with a shotgun you don’t really need one, and unless I had no other choice I would never shoot a 12-gauge shotgun using just a pistol grip. Try doing that once (not recommended) and you’ll see what I mean -it hurts!

The other reason I changed back to the standard stock is that as a teaching aid I usually try to refrain from scary-looking guns for some audiences. My wife and I are especially trying to reach out to the urban, non-gun culture crowd. It’s hard enough to get these people to come to a class without having the first guns they’ve held in their hands looking like something they’ve seen Rambo using.

I got this gun primarily as a teaching aid. I’ve gone bird hunting twice and after finding out just how much I detest plucking birds I haven’t been out since. Still, when we teach home firearms safety a pump-action shotgun is a necessity because they are so very common as well as being my top recommendation for home defense.

The gun is a truly excellent piece of design. The slide is smooth and incredibly fast. You can rack a new shell into the chamber while the gun is still shouldered easily and as fast as any gun I’ve handled. Loading is simple and fast and unloading the gun is quickly accomplished with a slide release at the left-rear of the trigger housing.

I took a couple of shots with the 18-inch barrel with a target #8 load and at 21 feet it left a satisfying large large hole in the target. But the real fun was taking it out to the trap range to see if I was still as good as I used to be at shooting clays. (It’s been a long time since I did it last). Yes, I can still shoot them as well as ever and I had a ball until my wife insisted she was bored pulling the rope for me and we moved on to shoot some of our other guns. I will definitely be back though. I’ve never been a member of a gun-club before (out west your “range” is walking out your back door or taking a 5-minute drive up to the hills) and Harvard Sportsmen’s Club has a fine trap range.

I paid $300 for the whole setup and I’m very happy with it.  I would highly reccomend this gun to anyone. They can be had for about $250 used in reasonable condition and additional barrels run about $120 new.

Posted in firearms, Guns Dammit! | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Gun Grabbers At It Again

Posted by Bill Nance on April 8, 2009

Well, sure enough, a few high-profile shootings have occurred and the gun-grabbers are out for new gun control, even though the “assault weapons ban” didn’t cover and won’t cover the pistols used by the shooter in Binghamton, even though the shooting in Oakland was committed by a felon, who was already prohibited from possessing a firearm of any type, and in spite of clear statistics from the U.S. Justice Department  which said in 2004:

Should it [The Assault Weapons Ban] be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs [Assault Weapons defined by the AWB]were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs [Large Capacity Magazines] are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

Gun control laws are are based on the logically fallacious idea that if you make it more difficult or impossible for law abiding citizens to buy new arms of a certain description (usually based on how “scary” the gun looks) that you will deter criminals already bound and determined to break the law. –Say what?

A simple statistic just to put everything in perspective.  Mass shootings are rare.  They get lots of press coverage, whereas guns being used in self defense are very rarely reported in the media at all.  So as much as deaths from mass shootings shock and sadden all of us, they remain, in terms of the numbers, rare events.

The worst mass shooting recently is the one which occurred in Binghamton, New York just a few days ago.  In an exceptionally rare event, it appears someone technically able to own a firearm went on a spree. (The vast majority of these shooters are people already prohibited from owning firearms).  The death toll: 13.

On that same day, approximately 44 people died as a result of alcohol-related traffic accidents, about 11 people were murdered by knife, bludgeoning or other non-firearms methods and 1787 people died from eating too many Big Macs (heart disease).

What happened in Binhamton last week was a tragedy. But please folks, these events are rare.  And based on the numbers I mentioned above, even if this happened every single day, your chances of being involved in a massacre are 13 out of about 300,000,000.  Hardly a cause for a nation-wide assault on civil liberties.

Update: Another excellent article on this subject:

Money quote: (non-bolded fr0m Snowflakes in Hell

“Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That’s a civil rights issue,” she said, pledging to find “middle ground” on the issue. “And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don’t — I don’t think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House.” -House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

The gun issue is a civil rights issue too, Madam Speaker, no matter how much you wish it weren’t so.  If you wish to remain Speaker, you’ll learn to accept that.  Your predecessor, Tom Foley, didn’t think it was a civil rights issue either, and I doubt very much he expected to pass the gavel to Newt Gingrich in short order.  Don’t make the same mistake he did.

Heh.

Posted in Crime, firearms, Guns Dammit!, Left-Wing Nut-Jobery | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Gun-Toting …Liberal? -Nah!

Posted by Bill Nance on April 2, 2009

I had a conversation a while back with an acquaintance who was going on and on about the “right” to torture, the virtues of the Iraq invasion and the evils of “liberals,” who was appalled when I took him to task on all of the above.

The reason I’m keeping the guy completely anonymous is that frankly, he’s one of the more typical right-wing gun nuts I run across (there are plenty of left-wing gun-nuts out there too)! and like so many of those on the ask-no-questions, salute the flag, God is on our side Far-Right, he was woefully misinformed about everything except guns.

When I finished bashing Bush’s statism, constitution bashing and inept handling of Iraq, my acquaintance informed me that I was a “liberal.” (I think as an insult).  But when we decided to change the subject to guns he was amazed to find I not only owned several, shot them regularly and had a concealed weapons permit for many years but was adamant about the importance of the Second Amendment to the U.S.  Constitution.

What’s sad about the gun community is that it’s become a pawn of the extreme right. They’ve taken advantage of the idiocy of the Democratic party over guns and made it a signature issue, all the while manipulating the hell out of gun-nuts (which I proudly admit to being).

One of the things I’ll never forgive the Clintons for is the stupid “assault weapons” ban.  This idiotic piece of legislation handed the GOP and the extreme right a wedge issue on a silver platter which they’ve been milking ever since. And only recently has there been any pushback from the Dems on this (small though it’s been).

In America, gun control does not equate to less crime. I realize that among many doctrinaire “liberals” (whatever the Hell that means anymore) this is heresy, but facts are facts. Statistics have shown conclusively that the AWB did nothing to substantively reduce gun violence.  According to the Justice Department:

Should it [The Assault Weapons Ban] be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs [Assault Weapons defined by the AWB]were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs [Large Capacity Magazines] are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

The Democrats were saddled with the label of gun-grabbers before 1993, but after the passage of the AWB that label had more meaning than ever before, because it outlawed many firearms commonly in use by enthusiasts, replacement magazines for hundreds of firearms and was (rightly) seen as the first step in a move towards a complete ban of privately owned firearms.  And not people to lose an opportunity, the extreme right-wing lost no time at all in grabbing these disenfranchised voters, filling them with conspiracy theories and paranoia and setting them loose on the polls.  A giant proprtion of the anti-Obama vote this last election came from gun-owners who took one look at Obama’s dismal record on the issue and voted the other way.  If the Dems continue battering this issue at all, they will push yet more people away, and it seems as though at least a few people in the party are taking notice of this.

But back to the subject at hand, to wit: how can someone not buying into Guns, God and Flag uber alles be a gun nut?  How about because I simply enjoy the shooting sports? Or because I like to collect firearms? Or more importantly because I realize that an armed person never need be a helpless victim to criminals or our own government –Which has always seemed to me the best reason for the right to keep and bear arms being enshrined in our constitution.

The Wingnut-right may have taken over much of the gun rights argument, but not all of it.

As I said to my shocked acquaintance: Gun control isn’t about liberalism, it’s about totalitarianism.  The first among all human rights is the right of self defense. Once this right is gone, all the rest are soon to follow.  Am I a “Liberal?” Nah!  Because once again….Labels are a poor substitute for thinking.

Posted in Crime, firearms, Guns Dammit! | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Rambo Complex

Posted by Bill Nance on December 8, 2008

Yet another post on a gun blog is suggesting that CCW holders in India would have prevented the tragedy in India.

Folks, this is getting silly.

Of course I’m in unqualified support of people’s right to carry weapons wherever they may be. God knows, if there’s one universal right every human being is entitled to, it’s that of self defense. A firearm is, plain and simple, an equalizer. Against a larger, tougher or armed opponent, a firearm gives you a chance when otherwise you’d have no option but to beg for mercy.

But the idea that a bunch of CCW holders would have made anything more than a momentary distraction for the gunmen in Mumbai is stretching all credibility.

First, we know the attackers were extremely well trained. They gave Indian counter-terrorist specialists one Hell of a fight before they went down.

Second, they were extremely well armed, including fully automatic weapons and grenades.

Years back, I was on a competitive defensive pistol tactics team. I went through several hundred rounds of ammunition in training every week. I practiced weak hand, defensive taking cover, kneeling, laying down, one-handed, the works. I was much much better than any police officer I’ve ever competed against, with one exception (another blog post in there somewhere).

If I had been in this situation back then, at my very best, you know what I would have done?

HIDE.

Sure I would have drawn my weapon. Sure, if one of them came up to execute me, I’d shoot his ass. If I had a clear and easy shot, I might have taken it. Then again, I might not take that shot if I thought they were leaving. Carrying a concealed pistol does not make you Rambo. In the situation in Mumbai, civilians pulling out their concealed pistols might, might have dropped one of the terrorists. It also would have without a shadow of a doubt in my mind resulted in a number of them getting blown away in short order. In fact in the crowded train station, one of the places attacked, it might have caused more casualties as the terrorists returned fire, laid down suppressing fire and started tossing more grenades.

This situation would have been a nightmare for the best trained SAS commando or U.S. Navy Seal. John Q. CCW Holder would have been fodder for a burst of 7.62x54r.

Seriously folks, CCWs do a lot to prevent crime. They may give you a chance to save your life or your family’s they might at the very least, give you the chance to take someone with you to Hell if that’s all that’s left to you. (I’d rather bring a body-guard of fallen enemies to Hades than go alone, thank you).

But they do not make you James Bond, or bullet proof. Nor are they always a good idea to use, even when it’s lawful to do so.

Judgement folks. That’s the name of the game. And if you don’t have it, then leave your piece at home.

Posted in Crime, firearms, International, National Security | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

You know you’ve been re-loading too much when…

Posted by Bill Nance on December 8, 2008

You see this headline:

Making the Military Brass Lean Left

And you automatically click on it to see why someone is doing that to 5.56×45 NATO cartridges.

That is all

Posted in firearms, Guns Dammit!, humor | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Gotta love being married to a gun-loving girl

Posted by Bill Nance on November 27, 2008

My wife just looked at a web-site about “assault weapons.” Her comment?

“It’s not gonna go ‘splodie killing spree all by itself!”

Posted in firearms, Guns Dammit!, Miscellaneous | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Open-carry a thorny issue for gun owners

Posted by Bill Nance on November 25, 2008

My friend Jay G posted a link to an article on WBZ‘s (a Boston TV station) website about a woman who had her license to carry revoked by the local police after she legally open-carried her firearm to her son’s soccer game. (more on the incident and lawsuit here).

The license was reinstated, because it is perfectly legal to open-carry in Pennsylvania. (I’m not going to go into the damage claims for the lawsuit).

So the question is this: Even when it’s legal to open-carry, is it wise?

Now I have no problems at all with open-carry. Personally I’m of the mind that if we all did it, or most of us did, we’d have a lot safer world. I hasten to add that I equally support throwing the book at someone who abused their right.

But we live in the real world, not a perfect one. That world is one in which most people will freak out if they see a civilian carrying a pistol on their hip. It doesn’t matter if that fear is irrational. It exists. So they will call police, we will be hassled, and nothing will have changed. The people who call the cops will not have their opinions altered, they won’t be educated about firearms and their fears will remain.

The police will not likely start telling citizens who call them about someone carrying a gun: “That’s perfectly legal here Sir, so unless he’s brandishing it about, there’s no reason for us to investigate.” I wish they would, but you and I know they won’t.

So in places like the northeast, where gun ownership is low and people are afraid of guns, is open carry worth doing? Just because we can do a thing, doesn’t mean we should.

I’m not sure what I think at this point. I’m all in favor of the right. I’m just not sure that the benefit, if any, is worth all the down-sides.

Thoughts?

Posted in firearms, Guns Dammit! | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

New acquisitions: Making Sarah Brady cry

Posted by Bill Nance on November 22, 2008

As you may (or may not) know, this was the week our gun licenses came in from the Third Reich Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

It’s been a three-month process, gathering information on how to apply, (The Commonwealth makes it intentionally vague and difficult to navigate their complicated gun laws), the mandatory training course, (which doesn’t even require you to pass written or practical test, so what’s the point?) And then of course the Abu Ghraib-style interrogation from the Commonwealth and our local police department, plus fingerprinting and background check. Not to mention the money: $125 for the safety course and $100 for the license. Each.

But finally the licenses came in, so we can actually take advantage of our Second Amendment rights.

The day the licenses came in, we picked up two previously arranged purchases: A Springfield Arms 1911A1 pistol, and a Ruger Security Six revolver. Additionally we saw a good deal on a Beretta 92 FS, so we picked this up as well.

Now we didn’t get to this out of a vacuum. I’m a long-term firearms enthusiast, temporarily disarmed due to gun laws which have made it more trouble to be armed than it was feasible to deal with. Since I was moving between three States for a couple of years, all of which have different requirements, licensing, mandatory training, registration etc. I just sold my guns years ago. It wasn’t worth the hassle (nor could I afford all the fees).

So we knew what we wanted and had made arrangements to get it well in advance of the licenses actually arriving, though we couldn’t take possession until we had permission from the government to exercise a fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution.

Sorry for the rant, but frankly I’m so angry about being treated like a criminal by my government and having to get permission to exercise a fundamental right, I hope you’ll bear with me. If you don’t understand the frustration, imagine if you had to go through all this in order to vote. My rights under the Second Amendment are no less fundamental than my right to vote; which is why I become so incensed over having to go through all this rigmarole.

At any rate, as I have reported already, we took all three pistols out to the range, got a feel for them, and had a pretty good time.

In addition to the pistols, we had wanted to acquire a couple of rifles. One of these we planned would be of the AR family, or what you see if you look at the news and see what the guys in Iraq are carrying. (In a semi-automatic version, not the full-auto military models).

The other rifle we weren’t quite sure of. On the one hand, I really wanted a 7.62 mm rifle, preferably magazine fed and capable of handling a 20-round magazine. On the other hand, I wanted something reasonably light.

Now in Massachusetts we live under an “assault weapon” ban. Which means basically that any firearm which scares a gun-phobe is illegal unless it was manufactured and in the state prior to 1998.

This means the top contenders on my 7.62 list, the FN-FAL, HK-91/G3 are either unobtainable, or so expensive they are out of the question.

The top contender for the 7.62mm category that is available here was the Springfield M1A1, a civilian version of the M-14, which is probably among the finest battle rifles ever made. And while not exactly light, it’s not so heavy you can’t use it for stand-up shooting, or carry for hunting. Unfortunately, this excellent firearm is something I definitely plan on getting eventually. Sadly it runs about $2,000, which is honestly more than we’re able to pay at the moment.

Yesterday I took a trip up to State Line Gun Shop in Mason, NH (an excellent shop with terrific staff. I highly recommend them) to have a look at a very cool DPMS LR-308. It’s Massachusetts legal and not too bad a price. Unfortunately, one heft told me it would be a non-starter for my wife. Simply too heavy in the barrel. Lighter versions are available, but overall, If I’m going 7.62, and AR-style rifle isn’t too high on my list for a lot of reasons.

But, they did happen to have something else which had been on my “definite maybe” list:

Ruger Mini 14 with scope

Ruger Mini 14 with scope

First, the Mini-14 an excellent firearm with wide usage and a terrific reputation. Second, it’s in 5.56 mm, a caliber I like and finally, it’s very light. My wife can shoot this baby from a standing position all day long with no trouble. So at the excellent price State Line offered, I snapped it up and brought it home, along with a scope and a couple hundred rounds of Ammo.

But a funny thing happened about five minutes after I got home. As I was about to show my lovely bride our new rifle, she shouted for me to come quick and look at a “for sale” post on a gun forum we frequent.

I could not believe my eyes. As I said, a rifle in the AR family was definitely on the list prior to the Mini-14 acquisition.

But there’s something I wanted to have a lot more than an AR. A lot more than an AR. However these babies are extremely hard to get in Massachusetts for less than a donated body part. -As in nearly impossible. But Sweetie found one and got us a terrific deal. (Thanks Steve, you are a Gentleman, a Scholar and Judge of Good Whiskey)!

Yes, I speak of the Sig Sauer 556.

Here it is:

img_2928

An interesting side note here. Both my wife and I have traveled in Europe rather extensively and I lived in Germany for about 3 years, so we have friends all over the place. Among these are a few from Switzerland.

As you may or may not know, Switzerland has both mandatory military service, and also mandatory reserve service for all men from ages 18-50. Each of them goes home with their firearm, and reports for training every year until they retire.

My Swiss friends have been taunting me for years about what they have in their closets and frankly I was jealous. Now…not so much. While this isn’t the full-auto version they have, it’s close enough for me. (Plus mine has picatinny rails you guys)!

I’m stoked.

Tomorrow is another range day (today was one as well) and I’ll post a full range report on both new guns, as well as an update on the somewhat cranky 1911, which had been sitting in a box, new and unfired for 21 years when I got it.

But (at last) I get to the point.

Lissa has a line I quote all the time: “Every time Sarah Brady cries an angel gets its wings.” (apologies to Frank Capra).

This week, I think we went beyond making Mrs. Brady Cry. About right now my wife and I agree, she’s looking for razor blades.

-Nuff said

Posted in firearms, Guns Dammit!, Rants | Tagged: , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Police, prosecutors use gun laws on the books since 1968 to reduce murder rates by 25%

Posted by Bill Nance on November 10, 2008

From the Washington Post:

It was the picture of cooperation, an array of federal and local law enforcement officials assembled before the cameras, announcing a joint effort unprecedented in Maryland’s most violent jurisdictions. The initiative, officials said at the 2006 news conference in Greenbelt, was changing the way law enforcement attacked gun crime in Baltimore and would do the same in Prince George’s County.

Convicted felons caught carrying firearms would face the prospect of federal prosecutions and long sentences in distant federal prisons.

Police in Baltimore have poured manpower into the effort, known as Maryland Exile, because of the possibility of sentences served far away. Hundreds of Exile indictments have been returned, and the initiative is seen by many as one reason the city is on pace for its lowest homicide total in decades.

The article is a must-read for anyone interested in the issue of crime control or who claims to care about gun control.

For decades, gun-phobes have been screaming from the rooftops that posession of firearms by law abiding citizens causes crime. A claim both flatly untrue not borne out by any reputable statistical study. The studies which have been published alleging to show such a connection, always by groups opposed to legal firearms ownership,  have consistently been shown to assume causation where there is none, or used selective editing of data to skew results.

As the article in the Post shows, the real problem is people who aren’t allowed to lawfully possess firearms in the first place. They are rarely prosecuted for the very serious federal felony of being a felon in possession of a firearm. If you actually care about guns and crime, as opposed to merely hating guns, look to the Baltimore model for effective methods.

Posted in Crime, Guns Dammit!, Law & Order | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »