Archive for the 'Guns' Category

That’s just about all of us if you believe the press, except that according to Politicus USA, that’s only if you have a lot of guns.

This week an article was circulating around social media with a headline that would draw cheers from many, though by no means all, progressives: “Bombshell: Gun Owners Tend to Be Angry, Unstable, Impulsive.” If one clicks on the article, there is indeed some bombshell research contained within it. However, the headline does not accurately reflect the research study’s findings and misses the chance to inform, as well as advance, a policy argument. It is unfortunate because it doesn’t do progressives any favors to circulate headlines that are erroneous. It ends up putting us on the defensive as we have to defend why statements are being made that don’t reflect reality.

Researchers at Duke and Harvard conducted research with results that can help form social policy, indicate to family and friends when a loved one may be dangerous, and destigmatize a group that has long been maligned as unsafe. The social scientists who completed this research used the National Comorbidity Study to get their findings. The National Comorbidity Study has been conducted since the 1990s as a study of mental health and substance abuse in the community, most recently using a nationally representative sample of 5,563 people with the purpose of determining the percentages of mental illness and substance abuse in the population. The calculation of whether randomly selected research participants have either problem was done through an extensive, standardized, face-to-face interview. There are also questions about the use of professional services, etc. The most recent iterations have included questions related to gun ownership. This is where the “bombshell” research results come from.

The researchers found that 8.9% of those who reported being impulsively angry also reported gun ownership. This is not a small percentage if we, as Americans, are trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who could easily be at sudden risk of shooting any number of people. On the other hand, it also means that over 90% of the people who get impulsively anger did not have a gun. Because of the way the study is structured, the converse—over 90% of gun owners were not impulsively angry—is also true. Oops, there goes the bombshell idea that “gun owners tend to be angry, unstable, impulsive.”

What made this study so useful is that they were able to pinpoint who is at risk for violent behavior. It comes as absolutely no surprise that people who owned six or more guns or who had a history of violent behavior were those who reported the riskiest behaviors of “outbursts of anger,” “getting into fights,” or “smashing or breaking things.”  These are the people who are at risk for killing someone. The vast majority of these people don’t have a diagnosable mental illness, and reported never having been committed, so the study’s authors point out that the focus on keeping guns away from people with serious mental illness who have been committed is misplaced. It ends up stigmatizing a group further that already struggles heavily with stigma.

So if you own six or more guns, you are at risk for killing someone.  Six is the magic cutoff – not five, and not seven.  It’s six.  So the “researchers” and “social scientists” say.

Actually, her data proves nothing of the sort.  There isn’t any cutoff, there isn’t any proof.  This is nothing.  In order to have a meaningful analysis, an individual would have to have (a) a number of very large sample populations, (b) assurance that the sample population wasn’t biased, (c) a reliable means of extracting true information (torture is illegal and unreliable and gun owners are known to give false or incomplete information concerning their ownership of guns due to [justifiable] mistrust of the government), (d) repeatability and verifiability (in other words, is there fully independent means of verifying that when they said they got violent they actually did so, were charged with it, and found guilty of a crime), and finally (and this may be the most important), (e) enough studies over a large enough set of sample populations that they could meet the central limit theorem and create a standard distribution in results, with a fractional standard deviation of, say, around 0.05 or less.

None of these things obtain, and they will never do so.  And if you believe that there is such a thing as social “science,” then you may as well believe in witch doctors and voodoo.  If you want to do science, then study the Navier-Stokes equations or the Boltzmann transport equation.  Then maybe I’ll have some respect for you.  Until then, you’re all just witch doctors to me.

In followup to my post on the negligent discharge at Gold’s Gym in Clemson, S.C., Marissa McFarland writes:

Mr. Smith,

I came across your article about the shooting at the Gold’s Gym in Clemson. I noticed your thoughts on the “accident” after the article. I, along with several other members of the gym, are angered by what has happened and the lackadaisical response the gym has had over this. I am planning to contact local media sources to try to get publicity, and hopefully force the gym’s hand on doing something about this. Is there anything you can do to assist us with this matter? Thank you in advance for your time.  This is a petition that was created to ban concealed weapons at all Gold’s Gym locations that have child care present.

Sorry Marissa, but I cannot condone rules against the carry of weapons, not anywhere or any time.  I preach the rules of gun safety to myself and anyone who’ll listen.  The boys who perpetrated the negligent discharge were goobers.  The Sheriff (and prosecutor) are also probably goobers for not charging them with reckless endangerment.

And you are correct to take your business elsewhere.  The market should determine the outcome of the situation.  But I will never favor regulations or rules that prohibit the carry of weapons.  That’s the wrong approach.  It’s like saying that since people have wrecks in cars, automobiles should be illegal.  See how stupid that sounds?

Greenville News:

A member of Gold’s Gym in Clemson accidentally fired a gun that the manager was showing him inside an office at the gym, according to the manager.

The bullet went through the manager’s desktop and lodged in a plastic dolly on the floor below, manager Rob Harrell said.

No one was hurt, but some members are upset about it.

Clemson Police Chief Jimmy Dixon said he didn’t know details about the incident but that no charges would be filed if it was an accident.

“All I can tell you is nobody was hurt, and that’s all I care about,” he said.

Harrell said he brought two handguns to work to show a member who, like him, was a gun enthusiast.

“I told him both firearms had full magazines but neither firearm had one in the chamber,” Harrell said.

The member pulled the trigger a few times on one of the guns that Harrell had removed the magazine from and then picked up a Glock that Harrell hadn’t taken the magazine out of.

“Before I could even say anything, he had picked it up and fired it,” Harrell said. “It went through my desk and straight into the floor.

“It was a horrible mistake, but nothing major happened.”

Oh dear.  How many rules were broken, how many times?  Something major did indeed happen.  People broke the sacred rules of gun safety, and lives could have been lost.  I guess a round was indeed chambered unlike what he said, and I guess he shouldn’t have pointed the gun anywhere, and I guess he shouldn’t have been pulling the trigger, and I guess the idiot who laid the guns out shouldn’t have.

These goobers are fortunate they aren’t being charged with reckless endangerment.

Houston.com:

The man whose gun accidentally went off inside Bush Intercontinental Airport Monday made his first court appearance.

Investigators said Joseph Austin was at the Delta Airlines ticket counter in Terminal A when he noticed his pistol was still loaded. Austin, 45, was trying to unload the gun when it fired.

Police said the fragment nicked a man’s leg but did not break the skin. The man was able to continue on his flight.

Austin, who was traveling back to Kansas after visiting friends in Houston, was immediately taken into custody and charged with misdemeanor deadly conduct.

Austin posted a $1,000 bond.

The Transportation and Safety Authority requires a gun and ammunition to be separated, and the gun in a locked case, before they allow the weapon to be checked in with luggage and loaded on a plane.

Actually, he put his finger on the trigger of the weapon where it didn’t belong, and he pulled it.  There.  Fixed it.  Actually, the whole problem began when … ahem … he “noticed” that his pistol was still loaded.  I’ve said it before.  If you cannot have someone blindfold you at the door of your home, and follow you as you locate every weapon in your home and state from memory whether it is loaded and a round is chambered, you should sell your guns.

Be a mature and responsible gun owner and things will go better for you.  That’s just my personal view, not legal advice.

Lancaster Online:

A 25 year old man accidentally shot himself in the groin at his Lancaster Township home Sunday, police said.

He picked up his .40-caliber pistol to put it away when the weapon accidentally discharged the bullet into his groin area, Sgt. Timothy Ponessa said Monday.

The man was taken to Lancaster General Hospital with an injury that was not life-threatening, police said.

Gosh, I hate it when that happens.  I remember the last time I shot myself in the groin.  From the comments, the negligent discharges might just be beginning for him.

But just to correct the report, he picked up the weapon, put his finger on the trigger where it didn’t belong, and pointed the weapon in an unsafe direction.

There.  Fixed.

She’s addressed as “commander” in the video, which comes from Rio de Janeiro.

She’s holding the gun limp-wristed, apparently has two fingers on the trigger, and presumably has never shot a gun in her life.  Here is a picture of me shooting my XDm .45 in Pickens, S.C.  Notice the stiff arms, forward stance, and position of my two hands.

Or if you wish, Jerry Miculek or Rob Leatham can teach you better than can I.  Just seek someone out who knows more than you do before you ever attempt to discharge a firearm the way she did.

Via Mike Vanderboegh, Bob Owens:

As a direct result of Cooley’s stunt, Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson has now proposed a federal law to ban both open and concealed carry in airports … Thankfully, is is very unlikely that Johnson will amass enough support to make this bill viable.

Sadly, we’re now having to devote energies on defense to explain why Johnson’s proposed bill really isn’t “common sense.” It’s a prospect made all the more difficult because your average citizen isn’t going to be able to grasp why a mentally healthy person might want or need to walk into an airport with AR-15 with a drum magazine inserted to see someone off at the airport, unless that airport is in Afghanistan.

When gun rights activists and pro-gun lawmakers have to deal with distracting, grandstanding behavior like Cooley’s, it takes away time we could better spend attempting to pass other pro-gun laws, or dismantle gun control laws already on the books.

Jim Cooley’s fifteen-minute stunt did nothing to help the gun rights movement, and gave gun control supporters ammunition that they will reuse again and again for years to come to portray gun owners as extreme, paranoid, and out of touch with the American mainstream.

That’s not helping us, and never will.

I’m not even close … no, let me find a better way to say this … I am literally light years from understanding Bob’s argument.  If I were to lay it out syllogistically, it may look something like this.

• We currently have rights understood to be so by the authorities and people, one of which is open carry of both long guns and handguns.
• Exercising that right may invoke the disapprobation of the lawmakers.
• The lawmakers may remove their written approval.
• If they remove their written approval, we can’t exercise that right.

But of course the problem is that if we could never exercise the right without recognition of it being removed, recognition of it was a phantom to begin with.  It doesn’t work for me to say that perhaps he should have carried a handgun openly, because the same person could have gotten offended at the handgun, which the media surely would have called a “high caliber high magazine clip assault handgun.”  It would effect the same end for the collectivists.  If they are offended at long guns, they will be offended at handguns.

Now, if Bob’s real concern is that he believes we are ostracizing ourselves, then he is lobbying for the wrong thing.  He should be lobbying for a new law prohibiting open carry.

So completely aside from the issue of whether you concur with what this person did (i.e., carry of an AR-15 in an airport) or even agree with open carry, Bob’s argument makes absolutely no sense to me.  I don’t understand why he is in a fit and why he presented the argument the way he did.  Again, if he believes there is no reason to open carry and he wants folks behave differently, he can lobby for a law and we can evaluate his argument on its merits.

LA Times:

One sheriff’s deputy shot himself in the leg while pulling out his gun to confront a suspect.

Another accidentally fired a bullet in a restroom stall. A third deputy stumbled over a stroller in a closet as he was searching for a suspect, squeezing off a round that went through a wall and lodged in a piece of furniture in the next room.

Accidental gunshots by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies have more than doubled in two years, endangering bystanders and occasionally injuring deputies. The jump coincides with the department’s move to a new handgun that lacks a safety lever and requires less pressure to pull the trigger.

Sheriff’s officials say that the increase in accidental discharges — from 12 in 2012 to 30 last year — occurred because deputies were adjusting to the new gun. They expect the numbers to fall in the years ahead. So far this year, the department has recorded seven accidental discharges, five of which involved the new weapon.

But the problems may not be over, as more deputies switch to the Smith & Wesson M&P9. In response, department officials have imposed extra training requirements.

The M&P has obvious benefits. It is easier to shoot accurately, can be fired more reliably under stress and is a better fit for people with small hands. The switch was prompted in part by the threat of a lawsuit by women who had failed the Sheriff’s Academy. More recruits — including more women — are now passing the firearms test, and veteran deputies are also logging better scores at the firing range.

But the sharp increase in accidental discharges has prompted an investigation by the Sheriff’s Department’s new inspector general. Critics say this type of semiautomatic, which is widespread in law enforcement and includes the Glock used by many agencies, is too easy to misfire.

Bob Owens, editor of BearingArms.com, says the design of the Glock and the M&P makes such tragedies more likely. “I don’t think, with the amount of training most agencies have, that a gun that has so few tolerances for mistakes is the best choice,” he said.

For two decades, L.A. County sheriff’s deputies carried the Beretta 92F, a heavy metal gun with a large grip.

People with small hands often have trouble flipping up the Beretta’s safety as they prepare to fire. The first shot requires 12 to 15 pounds of pressure on the trigger, forcing some to use two fingers and reducing shooting accuracy for many. Subsequent shots take about 4 pounds of pressure.

The M&P is made of lightweight polymer, with a hand grip that comes in three sizes. Firing a round is as simple as pulling the trigger with a consistent 6 to 8 pounds of pressure.

Sheriff’s deputies have the option of sticking with the Beretta, and some have, saying they are used to it. But many who have switched to the M&P say their shooting has improved.

“At first, I thought, ‘No way, I’m keeping my Beretta forever,'” said Sgt. Mike Rafter, a firearms instructor. “Then I started shooting, and it’s a lot nicer. I can shoot better, and I’m more confident.”

Academy trainees began receiving M&Ps in 2011 and the rest of the department began gradually switching to the new gun soon after. About half of sworn personnel are now using the M&P and more are changing over. As more deputies converted to the M&P, accidental discharges rose.

This is rich.  In spite of the silly article that Bob Owens wrote on the Glock and the silly accusations in this article, the truth does come out.

They are blaming it on a SA/DA pistol because of the heavy trigger pull for the first round (although I have to say that 6-8 pounds isn’t exactly a light trigger pull for the M&P).  Thus they have trained officers to keep their fingers on the trigger of their handguns when they deploy their firearms.  They say so.

Think about that and let it wash over you again.  When a cop pulls his handgun and points it your direction, according to the training he has received, he most likely has his finger on the trigger of the weapon.  And thus do we reach the root cause of the problems – not Glocks, or M&Ps, or any other ridiculous culprits.  It’s a shame that Bob couldn’t have pointed out the truth rather than blame the gun.  Blaming the gun is what gun controllers do, and why the collectivists wanted the so-called smart gun.

So other than reminding you that this violates two of the sacred rules of gun safety (muzzle discipline and trigger discipline), let’s rehearse sympathetic muscle reflexes again, and I’ll remind you of what I said about how the Marine Corps trained my son Daniel as a SAW gunner.  First concerning sympathetic muscle reflexes.

The term sympathetic contraction refers to the fact that an involuntary contraction may occur in the muscles of one limb when the same muscles in the other limb are performing an intended forceful action. In physiology literature this effect is known as a mirror movement, with the intensity of the sympathetic contraction depending on the amount of force exerted during the intended action. In policing, a common situation that may evoke such a sympathetic contraction would be, for example, a law enforcement officer attempting to restrain a struggling suspect with one hand while holding a handgun in the other.

The second scenario described by Enoka involves loss of balance. When balance is disturbed the human body evokes rapid involuntary contractions to return itself to a position of equilibrium. Thereby the involuntary contractions used to prevent a fall depend on the options available to counteract the disturbance of balance. Usually, compensatory movements following gait perturbations primarily involve correcting movements of the lower limbs to keep the body in balance, whereas movements of the arms are restricted to their extension forwards as a safeguard to counter an eventual fall. When an individual is holding a handle for support, there is, however, a tendency to use the arm muscles to maintain balance rather than the leg muscles. Under such circumstances the focal point of automatic postural activity is any contact point an individual has with his or her surroundings. In other words, if an individual’s posture is disturbed while grasping an object, for instance a handgun, he or she is likely to grasp it more forcefully.

Startle reaction, the third scenario identified by Enoka, is a whole-body reflex-like response to an unexpected stimulus, possibly a loud noise. It evokes rapid involuntary contractions that begin with the blink of an eye and spread to all muscles throughout the body. The reaction of the hands occurs less than 200ms after the stimulus and leads to individuals clenching their fists. Enoka concludes: “Accordingly, an officer who is startled by a loud, unexpected noise while searching for a suspect with his weapon drawn would surely increase the grip force on the weapon, perhaps enough to cause an involuntary discharge.”

Next concerning training.

My son was a SAW gunner in the 2/6 infantry, Golf Company, 3rd Platoon, during the 2007 combat tour of Fallujah and the pre-deployment workup.  The senior Marines had experienced a tour of Iraq, and wanted their SAW gunners to have a round in the chamber, bolt open (the SAW is an open bolt weapon anyway), and finger on the trigger.  They had seen combat and they wanted their SAW gunners with zero steps to shooting.  Their lives depended on it.  They also did CQB drills with live rounds, along with squad rushes.

My son had an ID (if I’m not mistaken it was during training at Mohave Viper).  He tripped and had a sympathetic muscle reflex, squeezing the trigger of his SAW.  He spent an extended period of time in the “room of pain.”  They wanted him trained to overcome that sympathetic muscle reflex (which can be done, but it takes hundreds or thousands of hours of drills).  He spent the time learning to overcome that reflex, and performed well during his tour.  He also tried to teach his “boot” Marines the same way he was trained, but the Marines had begun to change and focus more on cultural sensitivity training and other COIN tools.  He got out of the Marine Corps.

Why am I discussing this?  Because no matter who you are, no matter how much time you spend, no matter how earnestly you wish it, no matter how many directives you write, if you are a SWAT team member, you will never be trained in such a manner.  Never.  You will never be trained like a U.S. Marine who has spent every day for a year and a half in pre-deployment workup to do a combat tour of Iraq.  Because you will never be trained in this manner, your tactics are dangerous, all of the time, and in all situations.  I don’t care how many times you have inexperienced Soldiers spend a week with you doing CQB drills.  With the standdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, they oftentimes know as little as you.  These tactics place people in danger when there are better alternatives.

In spite of all of this, officer safety is paramount, not your safety.  So things we would never do on a range, and never allow our mates to do, are done every day by cops around the country.  They keep their fingers on the triggers of their weapons when they deploy them.  They are trained to do it.  And Bob Owens, along with the LAPD, blame guns with light trigger pulls rather than the horrible safety protocols police use.  They would apparently rather continue the tradition of ignoring trigger discipline and use pistols with a heavy trigger pull to ameliorate sympathetic muscle reflexes rather than teach cops to follow the rules of gun safety.

Good grief.  Horrible.  Just horrible.

Prior: Gun-Mounted Flashlights Linked To Accidental Shootings

David Codrea:

“Individuals on the consolidated terrorist watch list — including notorious terrorists such as Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri — attempted to purchase guns from licensed dealers,” Parsons and Sofer bemoan.

Really? We should be grateful such “common sense gun safety laws” are in place to render terrorists harmless.

David tackles Newsweek.  I should also say a bit about “common sense gun laws.”  I don’t believe in AGW, and I don’t believe in a great many things, one of which is common sense.  Common sense means, at a very minimum, things commonly held.

There is no such thing.  There is only world views and the logical pronouncements and necessities of the presuppositions in those world views.  My world view is different than theirs, and so we hold nothing in common.  And there is the clash of world views, and in the clash of world views, someone wins and someone loses.

Take a guess who I think that will be?