Archive for the ‘gun responsibilities’ Category

America’s Gun

There isn’t a consensus on what exactly that firearm would be. I’ve learned more than I have ever cared to know about the AR-15 in the past month or so. The AR15 definitely qualifies since it was designed by an American, Eugene Stoner. Enough of them are out there in the US that any chance of an “assault rifle ban” would be really difficult. And that’s even with a buyback.

I feel the same way I do about the AR15 that I do about Margaret Thatcher: I don’t like either of them, but I respect what they are in relation to their respective country’s culture. The AR15 is probably more symbolic toward US culture than Margaret Thatcher will ever be to Britain’s.

It is a symbol of militarism since it was designed over 60 years ago for the US military, with variants  used by military forces worldwide. Part of its attraction is that it is the civilian version of the US military’s weapon. And its deadliness is one of its attractive features. It is proven in combat and mass shootings.

The AR15 platform allows for it to be built in a myriad of different ways. It is also fairly easy to build with various kits being sold; from complete upper and lower receiver assemblies to the parts for making a ghost gun. Although, ghost gun means a firearm made “80%” lower receiver and parts. It is the AR15’s ability to be built by anyone which should cause people to pause.

I personally would not want to invest the time and effort into making an actual ghost gun. Complete stripped lower receivers are also available, which is the lower receiver block without the parts. That allows someone to create their custom gun. It’s easy to customise a completed lower receiver as well. Just look up a video on how to do that mod to your gun.

And there are the AR15 pistols as well, which I am mentioning since there is the debate as to how often these weapons are used in crime:

Mass shootings involving rifles like the AR-15 can produce dozens of victims at one time, and combined with extensive media coverage of these events, many people have been led to believe that such rifles pose a significant threat to public safety.

However, such shootings are extremely rare, and a look at the FBI data informs us that homicide with these types of rifles represents an extremely small fraction of overall homicide violence. Banning or confiscating such firearms from the civilian population would likely produce little to no reduction in violent crime rates in America.

Given the amount of variations on the AR15, there are a fair amount of pistol versions. One manufacturer lists barrel lengths from 8 inches to 20 inches for their upper receiver assembly. An interesting riff on all this since Orlando, Florida, authorities revised their initial description of one of the weapons used in the June 2016 attack at Pulse nightclub. After initially describing it as an “AR-15-type assault rifle,” police said it was a different type of firearm, the Sig Sauer MCX.

One the the variants of the MCX is the Rattler SBR (short barrelled rifle)[1]. While SBRs are NFA weapons, it’s pretty easy to bang one up using the AR15 platform. I would also toss in that semi-auto pistols that accept high capacity magazines are banned in some places. Additionally, a submachinegun is a machinegun that fires pistol calibre ammunition. That means that submachineguns are basically pistols that can have a very high rate of fire.

But the main reason I would say that the AR15 is America’s gun is that it will probably never be regulated despite the carnage it is capable of causing. Despite the deadly shooting in Las Vegas to the 20 toddlers killed at Sandy Hook, these weapons are more than freely available to anyone who wants one. You can buy an 80% receiver with no background check to build whatever version of an AR15 you want.

That means that anyone who is adept with metalworking tools, or just adept with tools if it’s a polymer 80, can crank out a weapon intended for the battlefield.

That should cause you to pause and think no matter what your opinion of these weapons happens to be.

[1] Short barrelled rifles are another topic which I am not going to get into.

Go ahead, scumbag, make my day.

I’ve found that lower receiver assemblies can be bought in all sorts of interesting designs. Or if you get a blank, you can have it custom engraved.

The reason I titled this what I did is that some non-full auto receivers are marked with an, inactive, full-auto choice.

Not sure I want to have that if I get stopped by the cops. Sure, it can be disproven, but still why risk it?

Gun Control Irony

Yeah, yeah. I try not to post this stuff on my blog, but this one is pretty important.  It was posted on Penigma, but I want my other post to get a few more views before this shows up again on that blog.

On the other hand, this needs to get out there.  That said:

It would be really ironic if instead of all the mass shootings the US has suffered (my condolences to the victims and their families of those), that the incident that caused people to realise the US needs gun control is an out of control suburban mother fighting over a notebook in a suburban Wal-Mart.

No, pulling a gun in this situation is not self-defence by any stretch of the imagination.  No one was fearing death or serious bodily injury which would justify even the threat of deadly force.

The woman pulling the gun is committing Felony Assault under Michigan law, Section 750.82.

The offense of Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW), is also known as Felonious Assault in Michigan. ADW is felony which is punishable by up to 4 years in prison. ADW is a crime which involves an assault with a deadly weapon (such as a gun or knife) or any other instrumentality which is fashioned or used as a weapon (car, club, bottle) which is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death. A criminal charge or conviction does not require actual physical contact or an injury. The offense is considered complete upon placing another in fear of an assault by a person who possesses a deadly weapon

Michigan law requires that the defendant “must have honestly and reasonably believed that he or she was in danger of being killed, seriously injured or sexually assaulted” in order to use deadly force.  Additionally, the defendant “may only use as much force as he or she thinks is necessary at the time to protect himself or herself.”

While a person may believe he or she had acted in self-defense, the police, prosecutor, judge and jury may disagree.

No shots need to be fired for her to be found guilty.

I’m not sure how the “pro-gun” crowd can defend this action.  I know responsible gun owners don’t, but it’s time they stepped up to the plate and admitted this shit happens too often with the relaxing of concealed carry law for it to be condoned.

It’s time to give Presser v Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886) yet another plug.

One of the many failings of the Heller-McDonald bullshit is that those cases were not cases of first impression, but that post is coming in the future.

See also:

What Does Brandishing Mean? And Why You Should Never Do It…

The Last Hand Gun On Earth

Take an old movie serial, add a new voice over by the Firesign Theatre and you have some very funny stuff.  In this case, the gun loon’s nightmare: Big Brother’s henchmen come for the last handgun on earth.

“To think people used to sleep with these things under their pillows.”

Please sign this petition–thank you.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-mandatory-liability-insurance-be-carried-every-gun-owner-every-firearm-they-own-lease-or-use/8BghF8j2?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

require mandatory liability insurance be carried by every gun owner for every firearm they own, lease, or use. Once the cost of the liability gets involved, change will happen. Require gun insurance just like car insurance!

More on hoplophobia

It was made up by Jeff Cooper who gave us the four rules of gun safety and the combat mindset. So, is he saying that we shouldn’t be concerned if we see someone carrying a firearm? I think this goes to point of VPC’s study Unintended Consequences where Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-defence. In other words, the candid voices of pro-handgun experts and exposes through expert opinion the gun industry’s lies about the illusory benefits of handguns for self-defence.

First off, this “condition is not recognised in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (AKA DSM). It is probably unlikely to be recognised as a condition as well, despite the efforts of the people who like to use this terms efforts to get it in there. This would be due to the fact that most of the medical community is aware that the risk of harm from pistols and revolvers that is demonstrated year after year in America’s unparalleled handgun death and injury rates.

Irrational Fear? This term came from Jeff Cooper the person who gave us the four rules of gun safety and the colour coded combat mindset. The first two rules of gun safety are:

  1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
  2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)

Rule number 2 is the most important for this critique since it concedes that guns are destructive devices. Unfortunately, the fact that guns when used properly can cause serious injury or death is one of the things the folk who tend to use this term would prefer to neglect—in particular, the person who created the term.

Is he saying that we see someone we don’t know carrying a firearm and not see the possibility of a threat? Is he saying that guns don’t deserve at least a shred of respect for their capacity to cause injury or death?

Spot the inconsistency!

Before I leave this, I should say that no one has addressed Cooper’s inconsistencies in that he has his little colour coded combat mindset and points out that guns are indeed lethal, or at least destructive with his four rules of gun safety.

YET…

He would call people who are concerned about those who would carry firearm in a civilian setting hoplophobes.

Instead he wants people to walk around in condition white about someone who is carrying a deadly weapon:

 “Unaware and unprepared. If attacked in Condition White, the only thing that may save you is the inadequacy or ineptitude of your attacker. When confronted by something nasty, your reaction will probably be “Oh my God! This can’t be happening to me.”

But the ultimate absurdity is that Cooper taught COMBAT firearms use.  In fact, the colour coded mindset was expounded upon in a book called Principles of Personal Defense and refers to the states of awareness in combat, or the combat mindset

People who have served in the military, especially in combat arms and are quite used to the presence of weapons know the difference between war zones and civilian life. Being in the military is different from being in a civilian population. And that is a rational consideration, not mental illness. The civilian environment does not have life threatening danger around every corner. It is not a combat zone.

Civilian life is not combat. You would have thought a battle hardened marine like Cooper would have caught on to that fact. One usually does not encounter weapons in a Civil Society which is at peace.

So,which is it, are you tryiing to create a society where it is considered normal to be in a combat state of awareness?

Or do you live in a society where there is peace and laws?

Are you a hoplophobe?

I have to admit this is one of the most idiotic terms I have ever heard, yet it is repeatedly used to castigate those who support gun control.  I have devised this simple test to determine if you are a hoplophobe or not:

A madman is pointing a large firearm at you (e.g., 12 Bore riot-shotgun with 00 buckshot, Desert eagle .44 with hollow points and laser sighting device, or something else of your choice which would most likely seriously harm, if not kill,  you).  He is far enough away that any attempt to disarm this person would be futile.  Likewise, any attempt to pull a weapon would be met with his (or her) getting in at least a shot that would probably result in your being hurt, if not killed.

Are you:

  1. Afraid
  2. Not at all scared since you know full well that guns are not harmful in anyway, especially not in the hands of the insane or criminals, and you could not be hurt no matter how lethal the weapon or good the person’s holding its aim.

I am sure those gunloons out there will say that they have no fear and fit squarely into category 2.

Whereas anyone with a shred of sense would be afraid and say 1.

This is why the discussion of gun violence in the United States makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  “Gun rights” advocates place themselves and others in this situation through their policies, yet want to imply those who oppose them are in some way not sensible.

Man with silly hat and gun (from Microdot)

When Mike B posted this, it didn’t have the animation. I managed to get the animated pic from the Brain Police:

Why the U.S. needs gun control.

If gun violence is senseless, it’s because there are people who won’t do anything about it.

I was at Ohh Shoot and saw the current post: Homecoming queen unintentionally shot and killed at fraternity house.

Now, the usual line is that victims of gun violence are criminal scum, but that doesn’t appear to be the case with this particular victim.

One caption about this incident read that Ashley Cowie was Standout Student at St. Johns Country Day School.

OK, I know that journalists can distort the victims of crime, but that doesn’t appear to be true in this case. Ashley was truly a good person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

“She was a young woman of great promise.”

And the gun owner was a 20 year old student who had been drinking. According to the news reports he was showing off the flashlight on his AR-15 when it went off.

He didn’t know it was loaded.

The only thing which is senseless about the gun violence problem in the US is the fact that no one is willing to address the issue.  In fact, the answer these days is to get more firearms out on the streets.

Yet another life cut short because people are willing to tolerate the relaxation of firearms laws.  They tolerate irresponsible behaviour in the name of freedom.

The problem isn’t that gun control isn’t working–there is no significant gun control in the US.  And the laws are getting weaker.

And people like Ashley are dying.

For real stupidity see: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/ashley-cowie-20-killed-in-shooting-at-fsu-frat-house

Why doesn’t this sound like a joke?

Maybe it’s because the “pro-gun” crowd really does sound like this Onion News clip.

Interesting quote

“The rule of the gun is the greatest obstacle to everlasting peace and security in our country.”

Mr. Hamid Karzai, the Head of the interim government of Afghanistan.

That about says it all…

Or the “Gun control means hitting your target”.

Gun rights and pataphysics

Pataphysics is defined as “the science of imaginary solutions, which symbolically attributes the properties of objects, described by their virtuality, to their lineaments” by its founder Alfred Jarry. It has been further ellaborated as ‘as resting “on the truth of contradictions and exceptions” by the French author Raymond Queneau. It’s relationship to the gun rights movement can best be illustrated by John Lott who has come up with the theory that more guns will result in less crime.

The fact that the United States is the only nation where one finds a concept of “gun rights”, that is the “right” to own an object which when properly used will result in death or serious bodily injury, has the highest amount of mass shootings and firearms injuries!

The answer to the gun problem is amazingly simple when one uses pataphysics: more guns!

The fact that it is admittedly easy for those who are listed as being legally disqualified to own firearms to acquire firearms leads to the truth that rather than making firearms laws more restrictive, one needs to make it easier for them to acquire firearms. We know that these people will get guns anyway, so why bother making it difficult for them to get guns?

That demonstrates the pataphysical truth of the gun rights movement. Gun control, which never has existed in any meaningful form in the US, does not work: therefore, we need to abolish gun control!

Gun rights is self evident when we realise the pataphysical truth of its propositions. That is it rests upon the truth of contradictions and exceptions. It is a science of imaginary solutions to a very real problem, but it is a solution which is not based upon proper logic.

It is based upon pataphysics and pataphysics proves gun control is nonsense! We don’t need to control guns, we need to make them even more out of control!

I’m sure that Alfred Jarry would approve!

next in this series: Pataphysics and US right wing politics

And the big Hunh? Award goes to…

The Cato Institute from coming out with this piece: Gun Control Advocates Should Applaud the Supreme Court with the words:

This ruling does not necessarily invalidate all gun control laws, but it will likely mean the demise of outright bans and restrict significantly the ability of states and cities to impose other kinds of controls.

The problem is that gun bans, especially those enacted by local legislatures, should be an option and in no way infringe upon the “Second Amendment right” which is to be free of a standing army rather than to own weapons outside the context of militia service.

Even weirder is the comment that:

The most significant negative of gun control is distracting attention from policies like drug prohibition that play a far larger role in generating crime. So long as policy generates a demand for crime, policy can do little to reduce crime.

Now how likely is it that the prohibition on drugs will ever be lifted, and even if it is lifted, that the black market in drugs will be eradicated? After all, there are still people who make moonshine liquor to avoid paying taxes. So, if we want to get into it, there will always be an economic incentive for a black market in drugs if they are regulated.

and the Cato folks look at things in terms of money (rather than how it affects people).

The real amusing point is that the people who talk about Liberty have engaged in what would be considered the ultimate act of tyranny by the founders (invalidating local Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good, by those who are neither elected nor citizens of that jurisdiction).

Anyway, the Cato Institute can act in the way that it does should show them for the disreputable weasels that they are.

And saying that “Gun Control Advocates Should Applaud the Supreme Court” is cause for those who believe that the Heller-McDonald cases vindicate their “rights” to be suspicious.

If they weren’t sheep.