Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Via WRSA, Max Velocity has an interesting article up on the inability to obtain fire superiority.  The whole article is worth reading, but this part struck me.

So back to the bolt action rifles in the original question: there is no reason why such weapons cannot be used to suppress the enemy, particularly if their very nature means you have to be more accurate with them. This exposes the weakness of automatic weapons: if you face someone with uncontrolled automatic weapons, they could be hosing down your general area but not effectively, while you can put one through their eye with your bolt action rifle. That does not mean all automatic weapons are bad, it depends on the operator: a good operator with a SAW firing short controlled burst will kill/suppress well.

Similarly with semi-automatic weapons with thirty round magazines, like AK or ARs, these can be devastatingly effective but in the wrong untrained hands can be next to useless. So a lot of this comes back to quality of the individual and the level of training and experience they have. Once the adrenalin stacks up in a contact situation it is very easy to look over your sights and fire into or towards the enemy, rapidly pumping rounds downrange in the excitement of the contact. You have to mentally get a grip of yourself, re-focus to get a sight picture and get more accurate.

So far I have basically said that you can use a lot of different types of rifles to be effective so long as you are trained to do so, and conversely even if you have the best equipment none of that will help you if you are just a tacticool goon. Yes, a well-trained team will be more effective if they have better equipment, but I am telling you not to give up hope if you have just bolt action hunting rifles. The advancing German Army at the beginning of the First World War thought they were up against machine gun battalions as they pushed the British Expeditionary Force back to the English Channel. No, it was the fire power generated by the British infantryman with his bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle.

Shotguns are a different matter in my opinion, (mentioned in the original question). At least with bolt action rifles you can try and adapt your tactics to take advantage of range and accuracy if terrain allows, but with shotguns you lose range, volume of fire and also accuracy. Useful for close range contacts in close country, historically carried by point men in the Jungle; I’d prefer an AR.

In many of the scenarios we have discussed here I would never even think to equate having a bolt action rifle as being inferior to having an AR, except for CQB.  Recall also what Travis Haley accomplished with the use of an AR at long distances.

So even using an AR, a scope, deliberate, methodical fire, and a trained shooter is superior to “tacticool” operators.  Furthermore, it seems to me that if concealment didn’t work and you find yourself potentially facing CQB, my 3-e’s are always important if you want to stay alive: egress, evasion and escape.  In any of the scenarios we have discussed over the pages of this web site, a bolt action rifle and a good revolver might be more valuable than any other commodity.

David Codrea:

Daniele Perazzi, president of the Italian Perazzi Shotguns firm, was taken into custody yesterday by Adams County Deputies [see update, below] along with several prototype shotguns. The executive was picked up in the parking lot of the Denver Merchandise Mart, hosting the high-end Colorado Gun Collectors show this weekend, after a taxi driver, likely reacting to a suspicious activity reporting outreach program conducted by law enforcement, told authorities he thought he could be transporting an armed “foreign speaking” terror suspect.

Continue reading to find out why the Sheriff asked him to leave town despite the fact that he had done nothing wrong.

Kurt Hofmann:

… the Personalized Handgun Safety Act of 2013, mandates within two years that newly manufactured handguns be equipped with the technology that allows the guns to only work in the hands of their owners or other authorized users. Manufacturers that do not meet the standards could be held liable. And individuals or businesses selling older handguns must have them retrofitted with personalization technology within three years after the bill is enacted, at the expense of the federal government.

This bill has little chance of passing, but even if it did, the author isn’t even smart enough to exempt LEOs, who won’t endorse it without that exemption.  Kurt discusses the law enforcement take on such laws.

Both of these issues fall into the category where I advocate letting the market decide who wins.  Colorado has made their bed and must now lie in it.  They will eventually repudiate their onerous laws when enough industry leaves, enough industry won’t consider coming, and enough gangs begin to terrorize the state, but the rich part is that they will learn by doing rather than by being told what to do.  If I was Mr. Perazzi I wouldn’t waste one more dime or second on Colorado.  I’d never return, and I’d do my best to ensure that my wares were never sold in that state.  We need not fill in the gap for the intentional failures of others.  It interferes with the learning process.

As for smart guns, as I said before, I advocate at least one manufacturer investing significant resources to develop the technology and see how the market treats their brainchild.  Will it be alive and kicking, or stillborn?  Perhaps the Obama administration should spend a billion dollars on such technology.  Will we be able to track another Solyndra in the making?

I’ve already inveighed against smart guns, saying that I’ll buy one when hell freezes over.  Are there enough people out there to make this a worthwhile investment?  In particular, I strongly recommend that H&K be the first one out of the gate.

Prior:

Manufacturers Dabble In Smart Guns

More On Smart Guns

Pushing Smart Guns

I predicted it.  Now, the L.A. Police have found a sniper rifle in the city.

Thanks to a push from local faith-based organizations and an assist from the Pasadena Police Department, 135 guns were taken off the streets Saturday at the Pasadena Area Gun Buyback and Peace-source Fair.

Likely it was a bolt action rifle with a nice scope, 5.56 mm, or .243, or .270, or .308, or .338.  And rather than it being considered a hunting rifle, or a target shooting rifle, it was a “sniper rifle.”

Make no mistake about it.  The press doesn’t know the difference between a magnifying glass and a rifle scope, or a detachable magazine and a flash suppressor.  They got this stuff from the LAPD, who “repurposed” the weapon to something they wanted.  The LAPD told the press that they bought a “sniper rifle” in the buyback.  Unfortunately, the police are still controlling the narrative.

I had previously asked the question of a purchase at Walmart, “If someone had purchased a really nice bolt action .308 with expensive glass, what would the press have done if this had gotten into criminal hands?  Perhaps call it a “sniper rifle?”

No.  It doesn’t have to be in criminal hands at all.  It just has to be a bolt action rifle with a scope.  But make no mistake.  The only time it will really be a sniper rifle to most civilians is if the police ever try to confiscate such firearms.  If they do that, millions of people will “repurpose” their guns just like the police did.

Real Clear Politics:

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) on states nullifying federal gun laws: I mean, let’s look at the context of nullification. Nullification was last used by Southern states to try to eviscerate Civil Rights legislation, to try to prevent states from basically enforcing desegregation and frankly, I think history will look back on this round of nullification as kindly as it did on the last round.

It is laughable also because it is a total bastardization of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not an absolute right, not a God given right, always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has. The idea that the Second Amendment was put in there in order to allow citizens to fight their government is insane.

Now, let’s quote Dr. Douglas F. Kelly in The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World concerning Huguenot religious revolutionary texts.

As far as the development of political thought is concerned, the most important thing to come out of these struggles was a group of Protestant tracts justifying revolution on an old yet new basis.  They taught concepts of religious liberty flowing from a divinely ordained covenant structure of society, as well as a concept of popular sovereignty, giving the people of the nation power to make and depose kings.  Although the Protestants lost the struggle militarily, these concepts became internationally influential long after the fight for freedom was lost in the French nation.

As far as the use of nullification to eviscerate civil rights, Murphy has it exactly backwards (and read here and here).  But it stands to reason.  If you get idiot senators on idiot talk shows being led by idiot talk show hosts, both of whom are ignorant of history, you’ll come away with idiotic conclusions.

There is an increasing number of charges that the recent gun control legislation was rejected because of slippery slope arguments.  One such charge was leveled by the loser himself, Joe Manchin.

Think gun control failed in the Senate because of gun-clutching extremists? Or because of fanatical radicals who want to abolish the Second Amendment? Senator Joe Manchin, who’s been at the heart of the effort, says it’s nothing of the sort. In fact, the central problem really has nothing to do with firearms at all — it’s about trust.

When he speaks to gun owners, “they’re scared this is the first step” in a massive government overreach, said Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat. He made the remarks during an interview with Margaret Carlson at the New York Ideas Festival, a daylong conference sponsored by The Atlantic and the Aspen Institute.

“When you say universal background check, the first thing that comes in the mind of a gun owner is that means registration, and registration means confiscation. ‘I haven’t broken the laws, why do you want to know everything?’” he said. According to Manchin, even in gun-loving West Virginia, constituents he spoke with repeatedly told him that if the bill did only what it said it does, they would wholeheartedly support it. (“There’s a lot the NRA likes in this bill,” he added.) The problem is, they’re skeptical that the bill will in fact go farther than it claims. That means the effort to pass it on a second try will require emphasizing, for example, the harsh penalties associated with keeping records past a certain period.

He portrays gun owners as pitiful sheep, “scared” of anything and everything.  The reality is much different.  But then there is Cass Sunstein, who thinks he is much smarter than we are.  You can read his entire piece, but this is the money quote.

Illuminating though it is, Hirschman’s account misses an especially pernicious example of the rhetoric of reaction: the slippery-slope argument. According to that argument, we should reject Reform A, which is admittedly not so terrible, because it would inevitably put us on a slippery slope to Reform B, which is really bad.

But the problem is that this criticism neglects to consider – or maybe intentionally ignores – the real presence of intentionality.  I have never made the case that the proposed gun control law should have been rejected because it is a slippery slope and could lead to more pernicious or onerous things.  I don’t know another gun rights blogger who has made that case.

The case that I have made, and repeatedly so, is that a system of universal background checks is a precursor and necessary prerequisite to a national gun registry.  I have never charged that it would be some accidental feature of overbearing governance.  I have charged that it would be intentional, and that universal background checks would have no effect on gun crime.

Furthermore, I have pointed to progressive arguments for that very system, showing that this is the real goal of every progressive.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

In the end, Manchin’s proposals were rejected because the people didn’t like his ideas, and Cass Sunstein isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.  Gun control laws such as universal background checks may in fact end up a slippery slope because the federal government is a micromanager and even if there is opposition to a national gun registry one may develop anyway.  But the reason to oppose them has more to do with intentionality, not accident.

Finally, there is another reason to have opposed Manchin’s proposals.  We simply didn’t like what he proposed.  Or in other words, we like the idea that we can buy and sell guns to each other without having to go through a federal firearms license and pay a transfer fee, and we like the idea of gifting guns to each other without telling the federal government about it.

David Codrea discusses the opposition to the opening of a gun shop in Twinsburg, Ohio.

That none of the complainers need prove they know the first thing about guns, gun shops, gun shop clientele and the statistical significance of nearby hoagie shops, bars, day care centers, school drop-offs and houses to create any kind of public safety concern, other than what their own prejudices conjure up, has not been questioned. Their unprovoked anger is entirely self-created, and to imply their peaceable neighbors will lawfully patronize a gun store and then do something evil because a tavern or a day care are nearby is, frankly, insulting, and not worthy of a response except to return such disrespect in kind. If they don’t like what a store has to offer, they don’t have to patronize it.

They may not like what the store has to offer, but in the end it doesn’t matter.  They are swimming against the current.  We will win, battle after battle after battle.

Notice that David also discusses second amendment purists who don’t believe that the second amendment has anything to do with duck hunting.  I think my readers place me in that category.  But recall sporting purposes?

While ATF lawyers might disagree, for something to have a “sporting purpose” means nothing more than it can be taken to the range and operated by the owner to his or her entertainment or training.  The shooting skills – whether for official competitions such as IDPA or 3-Gun, or for unofficial activities such as regular range visits for the purpose of betterment at the science of firearms operation – are sports.  All of them.  Period.  This is non-negotiable.  If it is a firearm, it has a sporting purpose.

So if they take my definition of sporting purposes, the issue solves itself because every gun has a sporting purpose.  If they don’t, they’re in denial of the real reasons for the second amendment.  Either way, we win based on logic, just the way it should be.

Read it all at Examiner.

Someone who calls himself The Reverend:

Fewer Americans own guns, yet more and more guns are being purchased by fewer and fewer Americans. 44% of Republicans feel that armed revolution against government will be necessary in the near future. So, my question today is this: Are Republicans and conservatives in America stockpiling guns to prepare to fight their own government in some armed revolution they believe is coming in the near future?

Oh, it would be possible to wax on about hundreds of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, or the cost of $6.3 trillion to U.S. taxpayers for amnesty, the coming attempt to avoid collapse of the Keynesian economic system by forcible confiscation of our 401K and retirement, or any of the other tyrannies and moral maladies with which our government and the elite are afflicted.

But rather than wax on about this, I’ll tailor my answer for him by focusing on brevity.

Yes.

I’m glad I could be of assistance.

On patrol through the neighborhood, that is:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (WTVR) — In the wake of the attacks the country has dealt with over the past year many people are thinking of taking their safety into their own hands.

In fact, 19-year-old John Schultz has been spending his days patrolling his Charlotte, North Carolina neighborhood with a WWII rifle strapped to his back.

Schultz said his grandfather used the gun in the war and that he is ready to keep his neighborhood safe.

However, the 19-year-old patrolling the subdivision does not sit well with everyone.

Neighbor Vanessa Aidara said the rifle frightens she and her children. She also said the it is a bad image for Walnut Creek.

“He could be good without the rifle,” Aidara said. “I think the rifle is what scares everybody because why do you need a rifle to pick up trash. Get a trash bag. “

On the other hand, Schultz said many other folks in the neighborhood thank him for his service.

“I won’t brandish a firearm or anything, I won’t chase somebody around,” he promised. “I will ask them to stop.”

So far he says he has spotted peeping toms and potential burglars, who he said ran off after seeing him. But for the most part, he’s just been picking up litter.

Police said Schultz is not breaking any laws since he’s not pointing the gun at anyone or threatening anyone with it.

I’ll let you reach your own conclusions about this specific instance.  What interests me is that North Carolina is an open carry state, and as I’ve made clear before, I openly carry at certain times.  I don’t do it to make a point.  If I am openly carryng it is usually because I am doing something where I don’t want the weapon to interfere with my movements, get in the way or get lathered up with sweat (such as IWB carry while walking my dog in the middle of the summer).  And as I’ve note before, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police wave and smile as they drive by when they observe me openly carrying a weapon.  No problems, no stops, and no women or children running or screaming in fear.  In fact, this has led to more amicable discussions with neighbors than I can count.

It isn’t always this way.  Sean Sorrentino notes an instance where the 4th Circuit had to reprimand the Charlotte Police for using openly carrying a weapon as a reason to stop an individual, even someone who later turned out to have been guilty of a crime.  Even worse, I know individuals who live around the Lake Norman / Huntersville area (North of Charlotte) who openly carry, and one particular individual has been stopped by both local and state police.  Both times the law enforcement officer unholstered his weapon and pointed at my friend for doing nothing more than walking on the sidewalk.

Note to law enforcement in North Carolina.  The answer above by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police (“not breaking any laws …”) is the right one.  You cannot lawfully detain or arrest someone for openly carrying a weapon.  It is legal in North Carolina, as North Carolina is a traditional open carry state.  LEOs need to know and understand the law.  If you continue to unholster and point your weapons at someone who is behaving legally, an innocent person will eventually be harmed or killed and you will be responsible for it.  Don’t be ignorant.  Be thinking men and women.

University of Georgia:

A University of Georgia student used a rifle to chase away a burglar who kicked in his door while the student was napping Monday evening, according to a Athens-Clarke County police incident report.

The 25-year-old student told police he heard the door bell ring once, then four to five more times at his residence on Old Winterville Road at 7:50 p.m. He thought his roommate locked himself out or a neighbor needed him, so he started going downstairs when he “heard a loud bang.” He called downstairs and only heard a mumbled voice in return. The student grabbed his Marlin .270 rifle and called 911, according to the report.

When police arrived, they found the door frame torn off in the doorway.

A neighbor told police she saw a black male running from the victim’s residence to East Broad Street. She described him as wearing a white long sleeved shirt and a navy striped shirt on top. He was also wearing white pants and a white do-rag on his head. Other police units were notified, and they concluded the description matched that of a man who was suspected of other property crimes.

Later, Tolbert Lee Stanley, 44, of North Peter Street, was caught and charged with burglary. He was booked into the ACC jail Monday at 10:45 p.m. Stanley was named as a suspect on the incident report.

See the wonderful things that can be accomplished with a rifle?  It may be an AR-15, but it doesn’t have to be.  You use the tool you’ve got, and you fight government attempts to limit the tools at your disposal.  It can just as well be a bolt action .270 if this is the tool of choice for you.

The .270 is a sweet round.  You don’t want to be on the receiving end.  The point is to make your choice and then make sure that your tool is ready for your use.

See also Another Example Of AR-15s Benefiting Mankind

From Shingleton, Michigan:

Police say an Iraq War veteran thwarted two would-be burglars at his northern Michigan gas station by kicking one of them and ordering them away with an AR-15 rifle.

State police said Shawn Schank was inside the gas station about 4:10 a.m. Sunday in Shingleton, an Upper Peninsula community in Alger County, when two people wearing ski masks forced their way into the building and approached the cash register.

Police say Schank kicked one of them, retrieved the AR-15 from his office and ordered the burglars to leave.

Police say one of the burglars took off his mask and pleaded with Schank not to shoot him before both suspects fled on foot.

Police say they arrested a 17-year-old from Shingleton and an 18-year-old from Munising. They’re jailed pending charges.

“Pleaded with Schank not to shoot him.”  “Jailed pending charges.”  Could this report get any better?  It’s yet another example of AR-15s benefiting mankind.  It makes me all warm inside.  How about you?

Prior:

No One Needs ARs for Self Defense Or Hunting

Save The Planet – Buy An AR!

AR Category