Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Or Slide Fire stock.  Hey, the dude can hardly hold onto that M203.  Hey, I suddenly want a slide fire stock if it comes with a free grenade launcher.

NYT:

The National Rifle Association on Thursday endorsed tighter restrictions on devices that allow a rifle to fire bullets as fast as a machine gun — a rare, if small, step for a group that for years has vehemently opposed any new gun controls.

Twelve of the rifles the Las Vegas gunman, Stephen Paddock, had in a high-rise hotel suite when he opened fire on a crowd on Sunday were outfitted with “bump stocks,” devices that allow a semiautomatic rifle to fire hundreds of rounds per minute, which may explain how he was able to shoot so quickly, killing 58 people and wounding hundreds of others. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has ruled that bump stocks do not violate laws that tightly limit ownership of machine guns, and some lawmakers have called for them to be banned.

The bureau should revisit the issue and “immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law,” the N.R.A. said in a statement released Thursday. “The N.R.A. believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

Ignoring the small issues of “shall not be infringed,” the NRA caves on bump fire stocks, as surely as most of the senators and congresscritters will cave, many of whom will have high marks from the NRA.

The NRA is still conflicted as to whether it wants to be a hunter and sportsman organization of a second amendment and gun rights organization.  As I mentioned, I don’t have one, and consider them to be mostly a novelty and range toy.  I would never put one on a personal defense weapon, accuracy and control being too important for such things for me to consider a high rate of fire as more important, especially near or around other people.

That said, I cannot be convinced that the shooter who landed all of this crap in our lap would have been less effective if he had aimed and fired in a controlled manner than with the bump fire stock, if in fact such a device was used.

The point to be taken here is not that of the bump fire stocks (the senate and congress is always looking for ways to further regulate your rights, even if not constitutionally allowed).  Bump fire stocks are merely the latest incarnation of the boogeyman.  Tomorrow it will be something else.  The point is that there is a world of difference between knowing that you’ll lose a fight, and actually going on record stating that you agree with your enemy.

The NRA.  Always squishy, never completely fulfilling their stated purpose, and always disappointing.

Daily Gun Story:

An elderly Delaware man stopped a home invasion when he wrestled with four burglars and ultimately grabbed his rifle and fired a single shot.

Tyson B. Beckett, 26, Anthony Long, 18, Brandon D. Satchell, 25, and Joshua T. Walker, 29, have all been arrested after they were confronted by an elderly man as they attempted to enter his home, according to the Milford Beacon.

The elderly man fought off one of the home invaders, but eventually found his rifle and fired a round into the floor, which was just enough to scare off the four alleged burglars.

They were eventually caught.  I’m no fan of shooting warning shots, and it would have been tactically better for him had he discharged the firearm at them.

Either way, it’s always nice to see reports of guns being used for their intended purpose.

Daily Caller:

Former FBI agent Manny Gomez claimed on MSNBC on Monday that hunters use suppressors so that deer cannot hear the gunshots.

Firearm owners actually use suppressors to prevent hearing loss, and even with a suppressor, a firearm would still be loud enough to spook a deer or other wild game.

“Sportsmen, hunters would make an argument that they need that so that their target, whether it’s a deer, etc. don’t hear the shot,” Gomez claimed, “but numerous other sportsmen have shot from muskets–when the founding fathers started the Second Amendment–up until now successfully killed game animals without the use of a silencer.”

So here’s a news flash for “Agent” Gomez and MSNBC.  The rounds most hunters use for deer are supersonic (I can conceive of the use of a subsonic round like a suppressed .300 Blackout, but most hunters would consider than an unethical kill).

That means … hold on to your breeches … the round gets there before the sound does.  I know physics is hard to the uninitiated, but please do try to keep up.

NRA-ILA:

At 3 a.m. on September 14, David Dunstan was alerted to a suspicious noise on his Bungowannah, NSW farm where he lives with his wife and three children. When he went outside his house to investigate the disturbance, Dunston came upon a man armed with a piece of wood and a knife.

Concerned for his family’s safety, Dunstan, a licensed gun owner, retrieved a .22-caliber rifle from a locked gun cabinet, and without loading it, confronted the trespasser. Describing his mindset to the Herald Sun, Dunstan said, “I went into protection mode … I yelled out to Andrea (his wife) to get the key to the gun cupboard.” Dunstan then used the unloaded rifle to detain the knife-wielding man until police could arrive. Police later determined that the trespasser had attempted to enter a child’s bedroom at another home before going to the Dunstan property.

[ … ]

When law enforcement came to Dunstan’s farm to investigate the incident, police confiscated the rifle he used to defend his family, along with two others. Upset, Dunstan told the Herald Sun, “What are you supposed to do if someone was breaking into your house… I don’t know what, as a law-abiding citizen of Australia, we’re supposed to do?” Dunston went on to say, “The police have handled this the wrong way (and) I can’t get an answer out of them.” 

Lamenting the lack of respect for armed self-defense in Australia, Dunstan told Yahoo7 News, “You go and break into someone’s house you can be expected to either get arrested, shot or you could be maybe killed… And until that happens this sort of stuff keeps going on.”

Gun rights advocate and Liberal Democratic Senator for New South Wales David Leyonhjelm has come to Dunstan’s defense. In an interview with Yahoo7 News, Sen. Leyonhjelm said, “Dave was defending his family against a threat. He did what any normal father would do.”

Speaking with the Border Mail, Dunstan remarked, “I just don’t know what I should have done, what would have been the right way to do it.” Sadly, in the Land Down Under there doesn’t seem to be a “right way” for the law-abiding to fight back against criminal violence.

Thanks to the NRA writers for bringing this to our attention.  This is what it looks like with state monopoly on violence at the worst inflection point, the extremum.

A man must allow a criminal to violate his home and property, harm his children, and potentially rape his wife of even kill his family members because only law enforcement is allowed to have firearms.

A government that abuses its people and violates or gives up that “mandate of heaven,” as Mike Vanderboegh used to call it, must confiscate weapons because of that fear.  Confiscation of weapons cannot admit to any stipulation or suffer any exception.  Weapons means all weapons, for any purpose at all.

Having no weapons means that a man cannot perform his God-given duty of defense of family.  Thus, you cannot allow the state to confiscate weapons, no matter how much they fear you and want you disarmed.

I see this issue of American Rifleman has an article on the Ruger American Ranch Rifle in .450 Bushmaster.

I also see that American Rifleman already tested it.  I confess to intense interest in this rifle.  I had not studied the .450 Bushmaster before, but to get such a big thumper and wallop in such a small package as this rifle is appealing to say the least.  And it’s an aesthetically pleasing gun too.

Do any readers have experience with the .450 Bushmaster for hog hunting, or just range shooting or carry as a bush gun?

Reddit/r/firearms.

Let me first start by saying that the clearing procedure I followed would have been correct for almost every firearm you encounter on a regular basis, and due to following the four basic rules of range safety, no one was injured. In fact, I was the only person to even notice the discharge. I was still at fault, I should’ve handled it differently, but I was with a large group of people on a deadline, and went into autopilot.

My range has a collection of post dealer sample machine guns. From Kriss Vectors to FALs to AKs to Uzis. This particular incident was with a mini-uzi with a suppressor. For those of you who aren’t aware, the full size and mini uzis fire from an open bolt. The round fires as soon as the bolt chambers a round, as opposed to more common closed bolt systems where the firing pin is actuated separately from the bolt.

So, in the process of a machine gun shoot with tourists, one experienced a failure to feed. A round partially made it out of the magazine but not to the bolt. The next round had tilted and blocked the bolt from moving forward. Usual procedure is to remove the mag, rack the action and remove the round. However, in an open bolt system, you are supposed to rack the bolt back first. This is where I messed up. Upon me removing the magazine, the bolt slammed home with the hung round and fired.

The weapon was pointed downrange, as always. No other safety rules were violated aside from my mental lapse of the particular operation of the gun. In fact, I was the only one that noticed. Between it being suppressed, and multiple other people shooting, it was lost in the background noise. I did however take it as an opportunity to point out my mistake and teach the customers why the four cardinal rules are important, no matter how experienced you may be.

Well, you won’t see me laughing, poking fun, or criticizing him.  He knows what he did, he used it as a learning opportunity, and he followed the rules of gun safety.  Good for him.

But there is this comment.

The Swiss Cheese model of accident causation is a model used in risk analysis and risk management, including aviation safety, engineering, healthcare, emergency service organizations, and as the principle behind layered security, as used in computer security and defense in depth. It likens human systems to multiple slices of swiss cheese, stacked side by side, in which the risk of a threat becoming a reality is mitigated by the differing layers and types of defenses which are “layered” behind each other. Therefore, in theory, lapses and weaknesses in one defense do not allow a risk to materialize, since other defenses also exist, to prevent a single point of weakness. The model was originally formally propounded by Dante Orlandella and James T. Reason of the University of Manchester, and has since gained widespread acceptance.

He can call it whatever he wants, but in legal parlance (e.g., with various government entities like the NRC) it’s called “defense in depth.”  Don’t use the phrase “Swiss cheese model” of safety.  Call it what it is – defense in depth.  We’ve discussed it many times here on the pages of TCJ.

I’ll also take a moment and repeat what we all know and what I’ve said many times.  When a LEO points his weapon at someone, he is violating the most important rule of gun safety and using the most important margin in the concept of defense in depth.  But it’s okay because he is a LEO, and God knows, they all need to go home safely at the end of their shift.  There’s nothing more important than that.

It was Austin, and now in Denver.

CBS4 has learned that an employee at Denver International Airport has been fired and charged with rifling through passengers’ checked bags on three occasions, and stealing guns out of their luggage.

The worker, Melvin Deandre Lewis, 24, worked for Air Serv, a vendor that handles bags and other services for airlines. According to court documents and interviews, Denver police believe Lewis opened United Airlines passengers checked bags and stole firearms in April and on two occasions in May.

But he looks like such a nice young man, full of promise for the future, just like Ja’Quan Johnson.

I guess they’re underprivileged and need more assistance.

Miguel Faria, writing at The Telegraph:

In 2005, at the time of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans police used the excuse of enforcing compliance with the mandatory evacuation order to confiscate firearms. They went door-to-door seizing guns from the people who stayed behind hoping to ride out the storm. These were the same firearms the citizens expected to have available to protect their lives and property in the aftermath of the disaster.

In fact history has repeatedly shown that firearms, including assault weapons, can be very useful and life-saving tools following natural disasters, such as Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and during times of civil unrest, as during the Rodney King L.A. riots of 1992.

In New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Mayor Ray Nagin’s police superintendent said that the only guns allowed would be “in the hands of law enforcement.” Moreover, Stacy Washington, a decorated Air Force veteran, writing for the NRA Americas’ 1st Freedom, pointed out: “Guns were confiscated with disastrous results: Utter lawlessness ensued, and the police were spread too thin to respond to all the mayhem. Before total gun removal was completed, the NRA stepped in — first gaining a preliminary injunction and then an order putting a stop to the ill-conceived plan. The sheriff had to return more than 1,000 firearms to their respective owners.”

Gun-grabbing superintendent should have known that confiscation of firearms from persons, who have not committed a crime, is a violation of the Second Amendment — and under the dire circumstances of a natural catastrophe, an inexcusable and unforgivable misjudgment, as well as an affront to the people of New Orleans.

Gun confiscation at the time of the Katrina disaster—when they are most needed by citizens to protect their families and property—was such an outrage that several states and the federal government passed laws to prevent that egregious constitutional infringement from ever taking place again during natural disasters.

In 2006 Congress passed the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act that became incorporated as an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007. It was signed into law on October 4, 2006. This federal legislation prevents the government from confiscating legally-owned firearms during times of major disasters or state of emergency. Following the example of the federal government, most state legislatures adopted similar versions of this law.

But be that as it may, on Sept 5, 2017, in preparation for contending with Hurricane Irma, the governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Kenneth Mapp, contrary to U.S. law, ordered the National Guard to confiscate firearms and ammunition from the people of the islands. Confiscation was supposedly necessary so the authorities “could carry out their mission.” Whatever that may be, we are left to wonder. Nevertheless, the islands are ruled by federal law approved by Congress in 1954, “Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands” and subject to U.S laws. Fortunately, the government of the Islands’ plans for gun confiscation seem to have been put on hold after the NRA threatened to file a lawsuit.

Washington further wrote: “Time after time during natural disasters, reports of looting and increased armed criminal action have been reported. The primary reason for firearms purchases is to protect self and loved ones, and this is especially important at times when the police are overtaxed and crimes of opportunity are more likely to occur. Natural disasters offer criminals an opening too sweet to resist — and once an individual or group of marauders is at your door, it’s too late to ask the National Guard for your guns back.” Exactly.

Well, this may answer my question.  According to the writer, gun confiscations never actually occurred in the US Virgin Islands, and I’ll say it again.  I suspect that it’s irrelevant anyway.  When the gun control laws are so onerous that no one owns a weapon, there is no need for confiscations.  In effect, guns have already been confiscated.  Take note.  If you allow these gun control laws, you are acquiescing to gun confiscations, albeit slowly, like a frog in boiling water.

The author does a nice job of outlining why you need firearms in times of emergency.  The problem as you know is that you don’t know when an emergency will present itself.  A home invasion is just as much of an emergency as a hurricane.  A church shooting is just as much of an emergency as an earthquake or any other natural disaster.  So you need your firearms all of the time.  All of the time.

ABC News:

Police say a man charged in a mass shooting at a Tennessee church was armed with two semi-automatic handguns and had two more firearms in his car.

Emanuel Kidega Samson is charged with the fatal shooting of one woman and is expected to face several more charges following the rampage at the Burnett Chapel Church of Christ in Nashville that left six others wounded.

Police spokesman Don Aaron said Monday that Samson fired 12 rounds from a .40-caliber handgun and had another clip attached to a tactical vest. He was also allegedly carrying a loaded 9 mm in the church and had a .22 caliber pistol and military-style AR-15 in the car he had left running outside the church.

But Aaron says police found no AR-15 ammunition on the scene.

This church is very blessed that the shooting wasn’t much, much worse than it was.  My counsel stands.  Keep your head on a swivel, and your hand ready to present.

And is it too much to ask that folks be as armed as their possible assailants could be?  Is it too much to ask that church security teams all around the country think through this issue, and that they demand that the men of the church be ready to defend themselves, their families and other congregants?