Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

The man credited with the design of the AK-47, Michail Kalashnokov, is dead at 94.  The boys at reddit/guns are in mourning and shock.  But it’s Soviet propaganda that makes him the sole designer of the weapon.

Exactly how the winning design was created remains murky, but contrary to Soviet propaganda, it is clear that Kalashnikov got plenty of help — not only from other Russian konstruktors but (more embarrassing) from a captured German arms designer, Hugo Schmeisser, who during World War II had created an early assault rifle (the Sturmgewehr) that bore an uncanny resemblance to what became the AK-47. But even though the AK-47 was the product of considerable collaboration, it was Kalashnikov who got the glory. He was twice named a Hero of Socialist Labor and acquired sufficient riches to buy a refrigerator, vacuum cleaner and automobile — all scarce commodities in postwar Russia. Eventually he would become a lieutenant general and a world-famous symbol of the Soviet arms industry.

I will always be a fan and advocate of the Stoner design, and as an engineer I like and appreciate the tight tolerances on my AR-15.  It’s a precise and well functioning weapon, and I don’t like the feel of the clanking and rattling of the AK-47.

Around my house we speak the name of Eugene Stoner with hushed reverence.  However, there is no questioning the fact that the name Kalashnikov is significant around the world, and the weapon named after him has been an important feature of modern world history – just as has the Stoner design.

Reno-Gazzete-Journal:

If we have learned anything in the year that has passed since 20 young children and six adults were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (also dead were the shooter, Adam Lanza, and his mother, Nancy), it’s that Americans are incapable of having a rational discussion of the role of guns in our lives no matter how many tragedies they have endured.On the first anniversary of the shooting, President Barack Obama called for new gun-control measures, but there will be none. There won’t even be a serious discussion of the possibility of trying to stanch the flood of guns in this nation. Congress and most states gave short shrift to gun-control measures in the past year, and, in Colorado, one state that approved minor changes in the law, lawmakers found themselves the target of a well-financed recall campaign. Already, two have lost their posts.

Oh, we’re quite able to talk about guns.  We have non-stop for more than one year now, and before then always when the collectivists are in office.  It’s just that the country has listened and replied a resounding no.  The collectivists don’t like the answer, and thus the charge that “we can’t talk about it,” or in other words, we can’t talk you into our plans for national disarmament and reservation of the use of force to government forces of occupation no matter what falsehood we purvey.

Joe Manchin knows the same to be true.

Sen. Joe Manchin says rounding up the votes to pass a bill creating background checks for gun purchases next year is going to be “difficult.”

While saying he’s “hopeful” that some would change their minds, the West Virginia Democrat acknowledged there are Democrats who opposed the bill creating background checks for gun purchases.

“Hopefully, they would maybe reconsider,” Manchin said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “It’s going to be difficult to get the extra votes that we need. I’m going to be honest with you.”

Manchin, a gun owner who had a top rating from the National Rifle Association, negotiated a background check bill with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut. But the measure stalled in the Senate in April when it failed to get the needed 60 votes to advance.

Manchin said gun owners didn’t oppose background checks in theory but were concerned that government wouldn’t stop with checks.

Note that Joe still has hopes of disarmament of the American people, he just thinks it won’t work.  He hasn’t lost his progressive, collectivist credentials.  Once a totalitarian, always a totalitarian – a lesson we hope that America has learned well when it comes time to cast a vote for gun grabber Chris Christie.

And as for universal background checks, we all know that it wouldn’t stop there.  But that doesn’t mean that we don’t oppose universal background checks on principle.  I oppose it whether it leads anywhere else or not.  It has nothing to do with crime.  That’s just a lie told by the hive.

David Codrea:

Against armed sociopaths, unarmed protection is severely limited, and New Jersey gun laws ensure the advantage goes to the predators.

Like I discussed here, you can contrast that with shall issue states.  The picture is stark and self explanatory.  Gun control laws are unsafe.  They prevent people from doing their duty of defending themselves and their loved ones.  Thus they are all evil.

David  Codrea:

What is immediately noticeable is a total absence of anyone even remotely sympathetic to an individual and uninfringed right to keep and bear arms having a position of influence in the seminar. While some with an eye toward safeguarding America’s unique intended protections may attend to keep apprised of the latest developments, others with a less tolerant and patent view of meddling internationalists plotting to undermine their rights …

I’ve covered their meddling here.  To me this is simple.  If I won’t allow the U.S. federal government to steal my firearms, I certainly won’t allow foreign bodies – armed or not – to do the same.  Case closed.  If you want conflict, bring it.  ‘Nuff said.

Kurt Hofmann:

Comparing gun control to the Holocaust is one of a number of faulty and offensive analogies the gun rights movement has used to illegitimize [sic] gun reform measures.

Kurt is covering the progressive Jewish reaction to the use of the holocaust to assess gun control measures.  I saw this too and hadn’t commented on it, and Mr. Abraham Foxman says to us, “No matter how strong one’s objections are to a policy or how committed an organization is to its mission, invoking the Holocaust to score political points is offensive and has no place in civil discourse.”  Well, let me respond by saying that a hit dog always yelps, and if the comparison is valid, I’ll make it any time I want.  Oh, and don’t tell me what to do, Mr. Foxman.

Uncle notes that Mayors against guns merges with Moms Demand Action.  I see this as a sign of weakness rather than strength.  Sort of like when Ansar al Sunna merged with al Qaeda in Iraq when both began to lose to the U.S. Marines deployed in the Anbar Province.  Did I just really make that comparison?  I guess I did.  So be it.

David Codrea:

“He has given his life to the community,” Owens said in court. “I’m not sure how much more punishment is actually appropriate.” [More]Maybe you could find instances where someone without a badge has “accidentally” shot a cop and that would give you a pretty good benchmark…

Gave his life to the community?  You mean to tell me that he didn’t get paid for his work all of those years?  He did it all for free?

Star Tribune:

A northeast Minneapolis man interrupted an armed and bloody robbery at a corner market in his neighborhood, saying he sent the two suspects fleeing when he drew his handgun from his holster and had it “at the ready.”

Store owner Mohamed S. Ahmed, 41, had the “back of his skull split open pretty good” from being pistol-whipped by one of the suspects, said Matt Dosser, who came upon the unfolding crime scene and cared for Ahmed until police arrived.

Police said Wednesday that the armed citizen, who said he has a so-called “permit to carry,”  acted with honor and probably saved Ahmed’s life. But, they added, holding such a permit does not mean having the same law-enforcing rights as a police officer.

[ … ]

Dosser said he was out for a walk and the two people, possibly in their late teens, “were pounding on the window of the store. … They seemed really agitated, super agitated.”

At first, “nothing made sense, then I saw the gun” that one of the two had, Dosser continued.

The gunman “turned around and looked at me,” Dosser said. “He stared at me. I had my weapon up. I didn’t point the gun at the person. I had it at the ready, out of the holster.

In 2003, Minnesota’s so-called “shall issue” permit law took effect, making it easier for residents to carry loaded weapons in public.

Police spokesman John Elder said that what Dosser did “was a noble thing. He acted honorably. Did this person possibly save [Ahmed’s] life? Absolutely.”

However, Elder continued, “The permit system is different, obviously, than having a police officer’s license. … When people get a permit to carry, they are instructed not to intercede into a crime that is occurring. It’s solely for personal protection.”

Leave it to the police to throw a wet blanket on the honorable act by setting themselves apart from citizens, just so that you know.  It’s important to them that you know they are special.

He’s lying anyway (see Castle Rock v. Gonzales).  Regarding the incident above, the man’s life was probably saved, and even if not, he got medical assistance sooner than would otherwise be the case.

In contrast, folks in Newark, New Jersey are facing an epidemic of crime.

Short Hills, New Jersey (My9NJ) – The two suspects wanted for the recent shooting of a young lawyer in front of his wife during a carjacking gone terribly wrong at Short Hills Mall, are still at large.

The couples’ stolen SUV was found the following day abandoned in Newark and New Jersey’s largest city ranks among the top in the nation for vehicle thefts.

There are about 400 carjackings a year in Essex County alone. While Los Angeles and New York rank high in carjackings, Newark takes the cake.

In fact, people in Newark are known for posting videos of stolen cars doing drag races, donuts and drifting in the streets. Often times, in the videos, you can see cop cars chasing the reckless divers on the city’s main streets.

Perhaps the motorists need guns for protection, and I’m willing to lay good money on the notion that the carjackings would stop if several of these criminals got shot during the act.

Er … oh yea.  New Jersey isn’t a shall issue state.  And Chris Christie – presumed candidate for the highest office in the land in several years and who made his fame pushing gun control – was unavailable for comment.

NYT:

A gun is a tool, and we choose tools based on their function. The primary function of a gun is to kill or injure people or animals. In the case of people, the only reason I might have to shoot them — or threaten to do so — is that they are immediately threatening serious harm. So a first question about owning a gun is whether I’m likely to be in a position to need one to protect human life. A closely related question is whether, if I were in such a position, the gun would be available and I would be able to use it effectively.

Unless you live in (or frequent) dangerous neighborhoods or have family or friends likely to threaten you, it’s very unlikely that you’ll need a gun for self-defense. Further, counterbalancing any such need is the fact that guns are dangerous. If I have one loaded and readily accessible in an emergency (and what good is it if I don’t?), then there’s a non-negligible chance that it will lead to great harm. A gun at hand can easily push a family quarrel, a wave of depression or a child’s curiosity in a fatal direction.

Even when a gun makes sense in principle as a means of self-defense, it may do more harm than good if I’m not trained to use it well. I may panic and shoot a family member coming home late, fumble around and allow an unarmed burglar to take my gun, have a cleaning or loading accident. The N.R.A. rightly sets high standards for gun safety. If those unable or unwilling to meet these standards gave up their guns, there might well be a lot fewer gun owners.

Guns do have uses other than defense against attackers. There may, for example, still be a few people who actually need to hunt to feed their families. But most hunting now is recreational and does not require keeping weapons at home. Hunters and their families would be much safer if the guns and ammunition were securely stored away from their homes and available only to those with licenses during the appropriate season. Target shooting, likewise, does not require keeping guns at home.

Finally, there’s the idea that citizens need guns so they can, if need be, oppose the force of a repressive government. Those who think there are current (or likely future) government actions in this country that would require armed resistance are living a paranoid fantasy. The idea that armed American citizens could stand up to our military is beyond fantasy.

These objections are a red herring.  Guns can be owned and handled safely and the shooters can learn to shoot and observe the rules of gun safety.  It’s done every day all over the world by millions of safe gun owners.  This is written by someone who has never owned a gun – which speaks poorly of the NYT that they would approve opinion pieces on issues of which the author has no knowledge whatsoever.

But notice how quickly he turns the conversation on the notion that we need to check our firearms in to a state-approved armory, even as Mr. Gutting drives his automobile down the road and risks far greater and more frequent injury to innocent people than me with my guns.  This is called hypocrisy.

Finally, take note of his position on the idea that we need to own firearms in order to ameliorate tyranny.  Without so much as blinking, he assumes like the good collectivist that he is that the armed forces would put down citizens in armed revolt over gun confiscation orders.  Posse Comitatus being the law of the land means absolutely nothing to Mr. Gutting.

Furthermore, Mr. Gutting is apparently not the scholar he is made out to be, and knows nothing of the history of insurgencies.  Easy, it will be for the army – or so he thinks.  Oh, they may be outnumbered a thousand to one with every insurgent melting away into the woods after shooting.  But surely the army would “win,” whatever win means.

In spite of the difficulty of Iraq and impossibility of Afghanistan, Mr. Gutting is sure of the simplistic, bloodless nature of an American insurgency.  But he feels that he will never be in a position to need a weapon for self defense (perhaps he would stand around and watch if his wife was being raped by gangsters?).  It is Mr. Gutting who is firmly ensconced in fantasy land.

David Codrea:

Proving once more that unintended consequences of “gun control” actually increase dangerous crime, The Detroit News reported Thursday that “Guns are being stolen from vehicles downtown, in part because nightclubs and the NFL ban firearms.”

Unable to bring their firearms into venues that ban them, many gun owners are nonetheless unwilling to travel to and from such locations without the means of defense, and are opting to have their firearms with them as long as they legally can, then storing them in their cars.

So instead of allowing gun owners to bring them into the stadium to keep them safe, they’re requiring that gun owners turn them over to criminals.  They’re doing this for the children.  Consider the children …

Kurt Hofmann:

Apparently believing that the American public had not yet been subjected to enough ridiculous fearmongering over the supposed “undetectability” of firearms printed from plastic, ABC’s Katie Couric ran a short segment on her show, “Katie,” last week, titled, perhaps not surprisingly, “The Dark Side of 3D Printers.”

Who is Katie Couric?

Here is the NSSF on smart gun technology.  I said before that Daily Caller annoys me, and increasingly so.  Notice that NSSF doesn’t have any prima facie objections to smart guns, but they point out that they might be unreliable.

Pfft!  I object to smart guns because they’re unreliable too.  But I also prima facie object to smart guns because of government interference and potential usage in gun confiscation or registration shenanigans.

Uncle links this post on revolver science, entitled why heavy, slow bullets hit higher than light, fast bullets.  Okay, since the original author starts the science lesson, I’ll finish it.  He’s dealing with the gun and bullet as a system rather than individually, considering the affects of recoil on the trajectory.

But rather than titling the post about heavy bullets, he should have stayed on point about the overall system.  It isn’t an enigma why heavy bullets and light bullets have the same drop given the same velocity, or another way of saying it is that he should have left out the discussion of heavy and light altogether and stuck with velocity and the affects of recoil on the pivot point of the firearm.

If you take a bullet of 180 grains and one of 230 grains, and hold them the same height and drop them, they will land at the same time due to the acceleration of gravity, which is the same and constant regardless of mass.  Alternatively, drop a marble and bowling ball from the third floor of the stairwell of your college physics building, and they’ll land at the same time (remove people from the stairwell before attempting this experiment).

Of course, I’m leaving out a complex discussion of aerodynamic drag, from which I could explain why it’s better for folks with trucks like my F150 to leave the tail gate up instead of down, but I’ll save this for another lesson.

This is why BDC is a function of muzzle velocity (and aerodynamics for such rounds as hollow points), but not bullet mass.  Okay, is that clear to everyone?  This is basic physics, and everyone should understand this, especially shooters.  If you have to adjust BDC for your rounds given different bullet masses, it’s because of different muzzle velocity due to mass (and because lower velocity rounds won’t go as far), not because heavy objects drop faster than light objects.  Heavy bullets do not drop faster than light bullets.  Finally, in order to get an idea how quickly your bullet is hitting the ground, hold it at the height of the gun you’re shooting, drop it, and time it.  When it hits the ground, it would have hit the ground if you had shot the bullet out of the barrel of your gun, just some hundreds of yards away.

J. D, Tuccille with Reason:

According to Hugh McQuaid at CT News Junkie:

As of mid-November, the state had received about 4,100 applications for assault weapon certificates and about 2,900 declarations of large-capacity magazines.

Michael Lawlor, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s criminal justice advisor, said that so far fewer people than expected have registered weapons under the new law. However, he said gun owners should take seriously the consequences of ignoring the law. Disregarding the registration requirements can carry felony charges in some cases, which can make Connecticut residents ineligible to own guns.

First-time offenders who can prove they owned the weapon before the law passed, and have otherwise followed the law, may be charged with a class A misdemeanor. In other cases, possessing one of the newly-banned guns will be considered a felony that carries with it a sentence of at least a year in prison.

“If you haven’t declared it or registered it and you get caught . . . you’ll be a felon. People who disregard the law are, among other things, jeopardizing their right to own firearms. If you’re not a law-abiding citizen, you’re not a law-abiding citizen,” Lawlor said.

Mr. Lawlor, like most government officials, seems to think he and his buddies have invented policy out of whole cloth, and that the population has no choice but to shuffle along and obey. But weapons registration laws have a history—a consistent history, as I’ve written, of noncompliance and defiance.

State officials could have taken a moment to glance across the state line to New York City, where a few tens of thousands of firearms are owned legally, and an estimated two million are held illegally, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. That is not uncommon. In my piece on the history of gun control’s failure, I wrote:

The high water mark of American compliance with gun control laws may have come with Illinois’s handgun registration law in the 1970s. About 25 percent of handgun owners actually complied, according to Don B. Kates, a criminologist and civil liberties attorney, writing in the December 1977 issue of Inquiry. After that, about 10 percent of “assault weapon” owners obeyed California’s registration law, says David B. Kopel …

Connecticut may want to look close to home for even lower compliance figures. In New Jersey, reported The New York Times in 1991, after the legislature passed a law banning “assault weapons,” 947 people registered their rifles as sporting guns for target shooting, 888 rendered them inoperable, and four surrendered them to the police. That’s out of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 firearms affected by the law.

Noncompliance means they’re not giving up their weapons regardless of what the law says.  And that means that if the statists really want them, they’ll have to send in armed teams to invade the homes of gun owners (if they can find them) and confiscate them while they also shoot anyone who gets in their way.

And that means that gun owners who decide to keep their weapons have nothing left to lose when those armed teams come calling.  The collectivists want it to be ever so easy, with fawning, stupid, television-watching imbeciles who listen and obey their edicts as long as they get free bread and circuses.

But are they okay with bloodshed as a result of their edicts?  Perhaps yes, perhaps not.  Perhaps with some, perhaps not so much with others.  But collectivists nationwide should consider the ramifications of their laws.  Gun owners won’t surrender firearms peaceably.  You can take that to the bank.

World Policy Blog:

The U.S.’s lax gun laws are fueling a massive business of illegal arms trade through its southern border into Mexico. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), two out of every three illegal firearms found in Mexico originate in the U.S. In other words, each year, over 253,000 guns purchased in the U.S. are smuggled south of the border.

Why should we be concerned? For one, there is a direct correlation between gun ownership in cities and gun violence – as one increases, so does the other. But that’s true regardless of location. A paramount issue, specific to the U.S.-Mexico border, is the link between illegal guns and the drug trade. Outside of the one firearm store in Mexico City, there are no other stores to purchase guns in Mexico. And yet, the drug wars have claimed the lives of thousands.

Without firearms, the ability of gangs to acquire and smuggle drugs would be greatly weakened. And given the fact that the U.S. spends $51 billion a year on the war on drugs, reducing the proliferation of illegal guns flowing across our border is a security issue Capitol Hill cannot ignore.

Nonetheless, there is not one federal gun trafficking law in the U.S. …

Not one federal gun trafficking law.  Not a single one.  Except of course, for this:

The GCA does not require export licenses. However, most firearms and ammunition must be exported in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976. Regulations implementing this Act generally require a license to be obtained from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State, PM/DDTC, SA-1, Room 1200, 2401 E St., N.W., Washington, DC 20037; (202) 663-1282.

The export of sporting shotguns and ammunition for sporting shotguns is regulated by the U.S. Department of Commerce rather than the State Department. An export license is generally needed to export these shotguns and ammunition. For further information, contact them at their nearest district office or the Bureau of Industry and Security, Outreach and Educational Services Division, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-4811.

When exporting NFA firearms, ATF Form 9 must be completed and approved by ATF prior to export.

Who do they write for, imbeciles?  It’s like the gun controllers don’t even try to hide the lies any more.

Continuing the rumor mill, Uncle reports that Remington may move operations to Tennessee.  We’ve discussed a potential Remington move several times, but I’m not so sure it’s Tennessee.

Gov. Cuomo’s tough new gun law has put a target on the state’s gun makers.

Cities, counties and states from across the country have been making lucrative pitches to New York’s firearms companies, urging them to relocate. Their argument: They have a gun-friendly atmosphere, and New York does not.

“They receive solicitations . . . on almost a daily basis,” said Lawrence Kean, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group.

“CEOs have told me they could basically move their factories for free.”

Cuomo pushed his new gun law through the Legislature a month after the deadly shooting rampage in Newtown, Conn. The law broadened the definition of what is considered a banned assault weapon, and it reduced the size of permissible gun magazines to seven rounds, from 10.

Since then, the state’s remaining firearms companies, including major employers like Remington Arms in upstate Ilion and Kimber Manufacturing in Yonkers, have been wooed by officials from places including South Carolina and Texas.

Anthony Testa, general manager of Just Right Carbines in upstate Canandaigua, southeast of Rochester, said his company received at least a dozen offers from other states.

Just Right, which employs about a dozen workers and produces an assault rifle now banned under the state’s new law, has decided to stay put.

The owners, Testa said, have strong family ties to the region. “That’s the only reason they are not considering these things more seriously,” Testa said.

“You combine the high tax load along with the fairly restrictive and fairly anti-gun stance that the state has, it makes it difficult to do business selling a product that the state doesn’t like.”

Let’s be clear about this.  Cuomo is a Putz, and New York is a totalitarian state.  Furthermore, I haven’t said much about the union at Remington, but the workers simply can’t adopt collectivist practices and policies, forcing New Yorkers into collective bargaining agreements (as opposed to say, South Carolina which is a right to work state), and then gripe and complain because Cuomo institutes collectivist policies of his own.  You must be consistent.

Move South.  Ruger has already produced its first firearm at its new North Carolina plant, months ahead of schedule.  The workers are skilled and loyal, and the people appreciate firearms and their place in America.  What are you waiting for?

Prior:

Freedom Group And Remington

National Review On Remington

Should Ruger Be Planning For Expansion In North Carolina?

Maryland Set To Pass Sweeping Gun Control, Beretta Set To Move

Remington To S.C.?

It’s Time For Gun Industry To Move South

Fox News:

A pair of Democratic lawmakers are proposing steep new taxes on handguns and ammunition, and tying the revenues to programs aimed at preventing gun violence.

Called the “Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act,” the bill sponsored by William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., would nearly double the current 11 percent tax on handguns, while raising the levy on bullets and cartridges from 11 percent to 50 percent.

“This bill represents a major investment in the protection of our children and our communities, and reflects the long-term societal costs of gun and ammunition purchases in our country,” Pascrell said.

The lawmakers say the bill would generate $600 million per year, which would be used to fund law-enforcement and gun violence prevention.

Critics predicted defeat for the measure.

“What the anti-gun interests can’t ban, they want to tax it out of existence,” Alan Gottlieb, chairman for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told FoxNews.com. “It’s nothing more than confiscatory taxation.

“I doubt this bill will pass, but we will lobby against it if need be,” he added. “This is simply another shot against gun owners in this country.”

The bill would exempt all federal, state and local agencies, including police departments, from paying the tax.

The bill would also increase the transfer tax on all weapons (except antique guns) covered under the National Firearms Act (which excludes most common guns) from $200 to $500 and index to inflation and  increase the transfer tax for any other weapon from $5 to $100.

I don’t care much about the increase in fee for the tax stamp, since I will never, ever register a firearm with the ATF or pay a tax stamp.  But the philosophy is that if we cannot beat them at an outright ban, then we can tax them to the point that they cannot afford to own weapons or ammunition.

This approach is both irrational and unconstitutional, not to mention immoral.  But something must source the massive expansion of the federal Leviathan, and the Congress has figured out that we will not give up our guns or our shooting.  Feed the beast, even if it makes use of what they loath so much – our freedoms.  It sure must seem a Faustian bargain to them.