Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Harvard Business Review has a hypothetical case they have posed to readers.  It begins this way.

As the founder and president of a new ethical bank focused on environmental sustainability, Jay McGuane realized that he and his board needed to set guidelines about which loans to approve and which to reject on “values” grounds. In his eagerness to start running the business, he’d put the issue off, but the bank was already confronting two problematic requests, one involving fracking and another concerning guns.

Without clear ethics rules, Jay worried that his already divided directors would fall into bitter squabbling, which could lead to resignations, negative media attention, and a flight of investors.

Take not of the silly way in which this supposed business case has been framed.  Investors are scrambling.  There is a veritable “flight” of investors, an analogue to the way investors are fleeing Cerberus-Freedom Group over the poor performance of gun investments over the past couple of years, I suppose.

It ends much the same way it began.

“Sure, they sell to the military,” Neitha said. “But you can buy the FF286 at gun shows. That’s what makes it one of Field Force’s most profitable products. Our bank’s mission is sustainability. How can we have a sustainable society where military-grade guns are being used to kill children? How can we, in good conscience, do business with that company?”

“It’s a no-brainer,” Clyde said. “Jay was talking about establishing guidelines for decisions. I’m all in favor of weighing the pros and cons—let’s do that when we discuss the shale gas loan. But when it comes to guns, there’s only one guideline we should follow.” He turned to Fred Keeler. “It’s like the Hippocratic Oath, right? First, do no harm. Or how about this: Do no evil.”

It was Fred who had advocated saying no to a loan if there was mere indication of harm, but now he looked confused. He loved his gun collection, from the flintlocks to the Uzis, as Jay well knew. Fred asked, of no one and everyone, “But what is ‘harm’? What is ‘evil’?”

I once worked for a manager whom I liked very much, and he worked extremely hard until his retirement, upon which he had planned to do what he had trained himself to do for years – sail.  He and his wife, together, enjoying their golden years on the sea.  Then a drunk teenage driver killed his wife just after his retirement.  I was heartbroken for him, but of course not as heartbroken as he was.

Notice that the Harvard Business Review didn’t pose the “problem” of loans to purchase automobiles as the dilemma.  Because apparently Harvard School of Business no longer teaches business.  They teach goofy, worthless courses in political correctness and effete, urbanized progressivism.

By now it has become common knowledge that Smith & Wesson has rejected microstamping and will revise they way they distribute in California.  The author of the bill has called their position baloney.

Feuer is the one whose position is baloney.  It would be a profoundly bad idea for any gun maker to engage in such a practice.  First of all, if a manufacturer ever crafts guns that are microstamped, the entire gun community would know within a day what firearm it is, and would never expend the effort necessary to ascertain whether the specific gun they want to purchase has been microstamped.  Sales of used firearms of that make would plummet and the value of the gun would go to about zero.  Second, the gun community would within short order let that manufacturer know exactly where we stand.  Smith & Wesson has been there and done that.  They won’t be going back.

But it isn’t that simple.  Read some of Smith & Wesson’s statement.

Smith & Wesson Corp. announced today that although it continually seeks ways to refine and improve its firearms so that consumers have access to the best possible products, the State of California is making that impossible when it comes to California residents.

Under California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” any new semi-automatic pistol introduced into that state must comply with microstamping laws. In addition, California asserts that anything other than a cosmetic change to a handgun already on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, including performance enhancements and other improvements, requires it to be removed from the roster and retested. For semi-automatic pistols, this means it must comply with the microstamping requirements, as well.

Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms. A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes. The microstamping mandate and the company’s unwillingness to adopt this so-called technology will result in a diminishing number of Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistols available for purchase by California residents.

This is not a problem unique to Smith & Wesson. The microstamping legislation and California’s position regarding performance enhancements and other improvements creates the same challenge for all firearm manufacturers, since presumably all of them refine and improve their products over time.

Smith & Wesson currently produces a California-compliant version of its M&P® Shield and SDVE™ pistols. Both of these new products were launched last week at SHOT Show® in Las Vegas and are expected to begin shipping within 90 days. They are expected to more than offset the impact of those M&P pistol models that will not remain on the Roster. Both the M&P Shield and the SDVE pistols are expected to remain on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale as long as no changes are made to those models and the company does not plan to make changes to them for this reason. All other Smith & Wesson handguns are at risk of eventually falling off the roster over time. The company expects that any current production revolvers that fall off will be re-tested and returned to the roster, since microstamping does not apply to revolvers. Without some change in position by California, however, any semi-automatic pistols (other than the California-compliant models referenced above) that are removed from the roster will not be returned and law-abiding citizens will not be permitted to buy them from a licensed dealer in California.

Absent in this statement is what Smith & Wesson will do about sales to law enforcement of M&P models and any other model that interests LEOs.  Law enforcement is specifically exempted from any microstamping requirements.  It would be an abominble and obscene position to sell to law enforcement what the common citizens cannot legally have.

I have sent a note to Matt Rice for clarification.  I’ll keep readers informed on what Smith & Wesson says about this issue.

David Codrea:

As is typical with such publications, it only looks at (less than) half of the equation, disregarding the substantial number of defensive gun uses that occur each year …

David is on the case of that presumed “study” that concluded you are at risk for suicide if you own weapons, with no increase in personal security.  I’m glad David had the patience to undo the silliness in the report, since I usually skip past reports like this in a few seconds.  Listen folks.  I work engineering and science for a living.  When someone tells you that “science proves …,” or “science demonstratrates …,” take it with a grain of salt (and usually ignore it).  Like I have said before.  If you want me to give a report on science or engineering the time of day, get a registered professional engineer to prepare the calculations, seal the work with his PE seal, and send it to me for review.  Otherwise you’re just wasting my time.

David:

There’s another consideration, a speculation really, as information is sketchy: While ATF is prohibited by law from creating a database of gun owners, it appears federal power can trump state safeguards on medical marijuana records …

Well, you know what I have to say about that!  Federal regulation should NEVER be able to trump state laws on anything.  And oh, by the way, get cancer, and you may lose your guns.  Kurt Hofmann is also covering this issue.

Kurt Hofmann:

That last sentence is where the entire counterargument falls apart. No one seriously asserts a right to “murder, rape, and thieve out of self-defense.” Murder, rape and theft are all intrinsically evil acts, which violate the rights of others, and there is therefore no “right” to commit them–for anyone.

Kurt is dealing with one of the classical objections to our objections to more gun laws.  Kurt’s thinking is my thinking exactly.  But there are already laws against murder rape and kidnapping.  Making more doesn’t change things.

Daniel Greenfield (via WRSA):

Mayor Bloomberg flubbed the snow challenge badly. Instead of preparing road salt, he banned salt in restaurants. Instead of having a snow strategy for the winter, he had a Global Warming strategy for the next fifty years. Instead of doing his job, he kept trying to transform the people.

And his successor is no better.

Bill de Blasio’s focus after his petty and mean-spirited inauguration was a ban on carriage horses in Central Park at the behest of a real estate developer who backed his campaign and has his eye on their stables, a tussle over who will get the credit for Pre-K with Governor Cuomo and the beating of Kang Wong, an 84-year-old man, over a jaywalking ticket.

I think it’s awesome.  New Yorkers elected him.  Now.  Live with the consequences.

Daily Caller reports on Castle Rock repealing their ban on open carry.  Good for them.

Coloradoan.com:

The embattled Berthoud police department bought fully automatic military-grade machine guns, hired officers who showed “glaring” signs of illegal and inappropriate behavior, and then gave them “woefully inadequate” training, Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith says.

In a letter sent to town officials and made public Tuesday night, Smith offers a scathing critique of the department, which has come under fire for child-abuse allegations leveled against one of its officers. That officer was arrested, and Police Chief Glenn Johnson resigned amidst allegations he knew about the accusations against his officer but did nothing.

Since October, Smith’s deputies have been serving as the town’s police force at officials’ request.

In his letter, Smith said the department was rife with mismanagement, from poorly handled evidence, paperwork and personnel files to broken Tasers and in-car laptops. He said problems within the department risked breaking the trust between the public and law enforcement, and risked letting criminals go unprosecuted because court documents weren’t being filed on time.“Most shockingly, fully automatic machine guns (not appropriate for standard police operations) were acquired from the military and were stored in open room with minimal security,” Smith wrote. “At the Berthoud Police Department, we found that the chief has overlooked and neglected many of the things that are absolutely necessary to leading an effective and accountable police operation.”

[ … ]

“The application and hiring process for town officers allowed unqualified individuals to be hired and to maintain employment, despite glaring warning signs of inappropriate and sometimes illegal behavior,” Smith wrote to the town. “Paperwork filing appeared to be haphazard at best. The chief did not maintain appropriate personnel files on his officers, yet he had documents in town filing cabinets from his previous employment. Those files should have never left those agencies.”

[ … ]

Police officer Jeremy Yachik was fired by the town in October after he was arrested on child-abuse charges after video surfaced of Yachick allegedly beating his daughter.

Good grief.  And they say that we’re unqualified to own fully automatic firearms.  Perhaps rather than repealing the Hughes amendment (itself an obscene abomination) as I have advocated, we ought to insist that it be repealed for us and applied exclusively to law enforcement.

These guys were just a dangerous hazard top to bottom.

Communist Cuomo in his own words.

The amusing thing is that he tried to walk this back by quoting his own words which are exactly as recorded above.  I’ve said it many times before, and I’ll say it again.  I plan my gun purchases around not buying products made in New York if possible.

So Remington, Kimber, and any other gun manufacturers still in New York – I have one question.  Why?  Why haven’t you relocated to another state where I can once again consider doing business with your company?

Kurt Hofmann:

As a wheelchair-bound paraplegic (and owner of multiple so-called “assault weapons”), this correspondent is quite familiar with the issue.

Yeah, read all of Kurt’s article here.  He’s dealing with the fact that the so-called assault weapons ban is highly opposed by the disabled.  I’ll bet so.  I was entering a home just yesterday in which I didn’t know who or what (animal) was there to do me harm (I won’t go into the details of what home or why I was there). I did room clearing exercises for about ten minutes before I went to work on what I went there to do.  I moved freely and without hindrance, but as dictated by the room layout and the general rules for performing such tactical maneuvers.  I never paused to think about how something like this would be done if I was disabled.  Limiting the weaponry you allow a disabled person to use – or anyone for that matter – is morally obscene.

David Codrea:

Since this column was published, the errant link now goes to a page that states …

Read the rest.  My bet is that David’s column pressured the Illinois police into doing their jobs.  Speaking, you know, of the morally obscene as we were.

Via Uncle, Only Guns and Money reports:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has released a poll today that shows only 40% of Americans want universal background checks at gun shows. The difference in the poll results is because contextual detail was added to the question. Instead of asking do you want to close the “gun show loophole” or other such nonsense, the poll points out that most sales at gun shows are conducted with background checks and are by FFLs.

The poll goes further. Only 39% of respondents thought that requiring a background check for transferring a firearm between friends or family members would reduce violent crime. That’s a long way from 90% in my calculations.

But my readers always knew it was a lie from the beginning.

Mike Vanderboegh is pressing ahead with his “Toys for Jerks” program, which he covers here, here, here, here, here, and so on.  Go read his site for updates periodically.

The New York Times admits gun reporting screw ups here.  If you’re interested go take a look.  It goes to show that the writers for the NYT don’t know anything about guns – or even rudimentary mathematics like measurements and fractions.  But you knew that already, didn’t you?  Perhaps before landing a job reporting for the NYT, they ought to require that their reporters go get a real job for ten or fifteen years first, you know, something like pouring and finishing concrete, doing steel rigging, welding, roofing, carpentry, etc.  A real job.  Instead of what they do.

A couple of weeks ago Slate reported on mass shootings in America.  It turns out that they aren’t on the rise, and that they are not committed by mentally unstable people who suddenly snap.  They are committed by evil people bent on wicked behavior, and their numbers have been pretty stable.  But as a regular reader, you knew that already, didn’t you?  No, seriously, you already knew this.

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.