Archive for the 'Guns' Category

According to Newsweek:

The shooting attack on May 3 at an anti-Muslim art show in Garland, Texas, sparked debates about freedom of speech versus hate speech, the rise of lone wolf terrorists and the ability of the terrorist group ISIS to strike at the U.S. homeland.

But there is another aspect of this attack that has gone largely unaddressed: the increasing use of guns by domestic terrorists and the loopholes that allow known terror suspects to legally buy them.

Researchers at Indiana State University examining incidents of lone wolf terrorism in the U.S. found that prior to the Al-Qaeda attacks on America on September 11, 2001, domestic terrorists more often used bombs to perpetuate their attacks. However, in the last 14 years, they have increasingly turned to guns as their primary weapon of choice.

Recent domestic terror attacks bear this out: the shooting at Fort Hood in November 2009 perpetrated by Major Nidal Hasan, the 2012 shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin that killed six, and the KKK leader who shot and killed three people at a Jewish community center in 2014.

Data gathered by the Government Accountability Office also supports this trend. 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 2,233 times between February 2004 and December 2014. In nearly 10 percent of these cases, the FBI was able to find something else in their criminal history to block the sale.

But the FBI lacked the authority to block sales in 2,043 cases because of gaps in current law.

Poor play at gun control with exaggerated rhetoric.  Or outright false rhetoric.  I had to do a double-take and triple-take when I read that.  It doesn’t say that henchmen of Ayman al-Zawahiri attempted to purchase guns from American FFLs, or that on orders from Ayman al-Zawahiri, would-be American Islamists attempted to purchase guns from American FFLs.  The article specifically says “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 2,233 times between February 2004 and December 2014.”

That’s right.  According to Newsweek, the bearded, robed leader of AQ himself, hopped on an airplane in Pakistan, flew to the U.S., appeared before some worker at a gun shop somewhere in the states, and attempted to go through the NICS.  There are a lot of things about which I’m not sure, but I am certain of one thing.  Ayman al-Zawahiri has never stood over the counter in an American gun shop and waited for the pronouncements of an FFL running his name through the NICS.

It never happened.  Where do they get this crap?  Do they yank it straight our of their ass?

David Codrea:

Standing against politicians bought by a billionaire obsessed with controlling others are defiant gun owners, who will not comply and who will not back down.

“We will form up on the capitol steps in Salem to make sure [Gov. Brown] knows just how many people she made into criminals in one stroke of a pen,” rally organizers tell their Facebook followers. “There will be speakers there for your education and entertainment while we show our noncompliance!”

It’s the new paradigm.  And we won’t back down, we won’t forget, we won’t be persuaded differently.

David Codrea:

Per my report published Friday at The Shooter’s Log, actors were used to portray customers in a fake gun shop “public service announcement” produced by States United Against Gun Violence. That information comes from the New York City Mayor’s Office of Media in its response to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request submitted in March. Additionally, all replica firearms used were evidently “authorized” without official documentation to ensure legality and inventory accountability.

It’s Potemkin villages all the way down.  Is there anything about which progressives are honest?

Kurt Hofmann:

The requirement for a “good reason” to carry a firearm would not be so utterly evil, except for one appalling thing: defense of one’s life and loved ones isn’t a sufficiently “good reason” to these ghouls … This reflects a sick, twisted, and depraved set of values. The gun ban zealots claim to value each and every human life above all other things, but this policy, and others like it elsewhere, show the real truth.

They may lie, but their works bear out the truth.  And they are works of evil indeed.

Concerning the USMC:

A United States Marine was convicted at a court-martial for refusing to remove a Bible verse on her computer – a verse of Scripture the military determined “could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”

The plight of Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling seems unbelievable – a member of the Armed Forces criminally prosecuted for displaying a slightly altered passage of Scripture from the Old Testament: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.”

So is there any reason to be a part of the USMC any more?  Any reason at all?

Mike Vanderboegh sums up why we don’t want the duties of the ATF being moved to the FBI.  Speaking of Mike, he is on the road.  Pray for his success and safety.

The Texas Tribune:

After more than six hours — and a testy debate that escalated dramatically when unusual alliances formed between a few Democrats and a group of Tea Party-backed Republicans — the Texas Senate approved a measure loosening state restrictions on handguns Friday.

The legislation allowing Texans with licenses to carry handguns openly eventually passed on a final 20 to 11 vote.

But before it did, the chamber plunged into rare unscripted territory, as Democrats and Republicans battled members of their own parties over an amendment from state Sen. Don Huffines, R-Dallas, that would prohibit police officers from stopping someone solely because they are visibly carrying a handgun.

The provision, which eventually passed, attracted support from Democrats who said it would help prevent racial profiling and conservatives who said it was necessary to protect the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure of handgun license holders.

“This should not be complicated; it should not be controversial. This is a bipartisan issue,” Huffines said.

Opponents of the provision called it nothing more than an effort to sneak in a repeal of licensing requirements altogether.

“This is just a back door to constitutional carry because really any person could just carry a gun without a license because they know the police can’t inquire of them if they have a license,” said state Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, who unsuccessfully attempted to heighten penalties for carrying handguns without a license during the debate.

The amendment, approved overwhelmingly when the House passed the open carry bill, was taken out in committee when the legislation reached the Senate.

Recall that I had said before, “licensed open carry in a state with no stop and identify statute for enforcement is a shooting-by-cop waiting to happen.  And I certainly don’t support empowering the police state any more by giving them a stop and identify statute.  That would be making something bad even worse.”

Nefarious things can happen in committee when differences in bills between the House and Senate are ironed out, but this provision appears to be part of both versions of the bill.  It should stay in.  We’ll see if the Governor keeps his word now.  As for the provision that LEOs cannot stop someone because they witness him carrying a gun, this is a very strong statement and I’m impressed that this finally passed the legislative process in Texas (after much pain and gnashing of teeth).

Someone must be reading TCJ.

After ISIS’ slaughter of Christians everywhere they go, the sufferings of the Coptic Christians in Egypt under the Muslim brotherhood, and the kidnapping of young Christian girls by Boko Haram for the purposes of sexual slavery, it may be tempting to ask yourselves, “What kind of an idiot would continue to press the notion that Christ demanded that we disarm in the face of danger?”

The answer is that those idiots are everywhere.  I confess that I have not read Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.  I have tended to stick more with Charles Hodge, R. L. Dabney, W.G.T. Shedd and the classics.  But my son Joseph has read Grudem, and highly recommends his book to me.  It really isn’t necessary to study Grudem’s details in order to do a takedown of the critique of Grudem (who is pro-self defense and in favor of gun rights) offered by Krish Kandiah at Christianity Today, entitled Should Christians Own Guns: A British Theologian’s Views.

Krish says:

Grudem argues that the reason the Second Amendment was added to the constitution was “to provide another protection against tyranny – to make it harder for any potential dictator or would-be king to take control of the entire nation against the will of the people.” This concern is probably not at the heart of the individual gun control debate at the moment as the right to bear arms against a tyrannical dictatorship is a different question as to whether Christians need to own guns now in a stable democratic environment.

He isn’t very well connected to the current American political scene, is he?  And if a stable environment is all he’s after, Adolf Hitler provided that while be deported the Jews for execution.  As writer Kurt Hofmann and I have both noted, the notion of self defense should include both individual self defense and defense against tyranny.  Only when understood in that light can the current debate in American be enveloped.  It may seem petty to focus on his misunderstanding of the American scene, but when writers show a fundamental misunderstanding of their subject it casts doubt on the value of the work.

Krish continues:

Even if we accept the premise that the there is a right to self-defence this does not necessarily mean the right to own a gun. There will always be limit to the expression of this right that would include a whole range of military hardware; even Grudem recognises that the private ownership of a “machine gun or anti-tank rocket launcher or an anti-aircraft missile launcher” are unnecessary. But still he argues that private hand gun ownership reduces crime as an attacker cannot be sure that their potential victim is unarmed. The counter argument of course is that it could make gun violence more likely as attackers could increasingly assume their victims are armed …

This is as amazing a quote as you will ever see in the gun control debate.  Seriously, read it again and let the bad logic of it wash over you.  He is proffering the argument that ownership of guns makes more likely that attackers will become violent because they will assume their victims are armed.  Thus, according to him, the best way to turn back the “gain” setting on violence is to allow attackers to attack you unmolested so that perhaps things won’t go as badly as they could if you were armed!  You simply can’t make this stuff up, you would have to read it from collectivists in order to believe that someone could actually say or think something like that.

Finally, note that Krish says:

Grudem argues that carrying weapons would help prevent “tragic mass murders in which a lone gunman can hold at bay an entire restaurant or church full of people… are much less likely to happen in states where a large number of people carry concealed weapons.”

But the counter arguments are, firstly, that if guns were more highly regulated then it would be a lot harder for potential mass murderers to get hold of guns in the first place. Secondly, Ellen Painter Dollar argues: “Police officers go through hours of specialized training to help them discern when the use of deadly force is justified. As we know from not a few front-page tragedies involving police shootings, despite such rigorous training, even the best-trained officers don’t always get it right.

Right.  The “best trained” officers.  Like the NYC LEOs who shoot blindly into the darkness, or the South Carolina cop who shot a man in the back, or the police in Buffalo who currently rule the world in dog shootings, or the wild gun play of the Cleveland Police.  The “best trained” officers, he opines.  And here you see irrational faith in LEOs and irrational fear of personal use of weapons.  Always look for the most irrational among us to claim that we are the irrational ones, projecting their fears on the rest of us.

But there is one theme that keeps coming up, and this theme recurs in another critique of Grudem’s work by someone from the Church in Toronto, Nigel Tomes.

David eluded King Saul’s spear; Paul evaded his pursuers by escaping Damascus in a basket; Jesus escaped hostile crowds (Luke 4:29-30; John 8:59). But these are examples of self-preservation, not of self-defense.

And there you have it.  A distinction without a difference – self preservation versus self defense.  Nigel wants men to be unarmed with the best of weapons, just as does Krish, so that they stand the maximum chance of being harmed or killed.  Nigel and Krish don’t care about the children.  They would rather see men, women and children suffer and perish at the hands of evil men, criminals after money, sex or something else, or criminals in the hire of the government, than to acquiesce to the notion that men are made in God’s image and thus life should be preserved.

But the willingness of professors and church leaders to beclown themselves in the name of pacifism goes on to ridiculous proportions with a professor of religion at the University of Texas, John Traphagan.

There are many law-abiding American gun owners who do not go out and kill people and who keep their guns stored safely. But as a whole, Americans do not seem to be able to handle gun ownership in a way that permits maintenance of a civil society. The reality is that the significant numbers of bad apples have spoiled it for those law-abiding gun owners, and it’s time that gun rights organizations such as the National Rifle Association recognize this and begin working with those who want realistic gun control laws, in part as a way of building trust with those who do not own gun.

As if we would pay heed to the NRA in any attempt to increase gun control laws!  No, here is what I think professor Traphagan is talking about.  Crime is highly concentrated among minorities.  Recent riots have been concentrated in minority communities and cities such as Ferguson or Baltimore.  Professor Traphagan knows this.  He is in effect saying that the black community cannot handle the responsibility of gun ownership.  I think professor Traphagan is a racist but doesn’t have the guts to admit his views.  Whites must be disarmed (as if that would be possible without a bloody civil war) in order to bring peace to the black communities.

These things are all pointers, milestones, and signals of a decaying and rotting church, both British and American (although the British church is all but dead, leading the American churches in total irrelevance to anything).  The Episcopal church that has been famously losing people for decades, decided to focus even more on progressive social programs and gun control, and is now losing even more people.  That has happened to the Presbyterian Church in the USA, and between the Presbyterian Church in America, the ARP and other smaller denominations, it cannot be said any more that the PSUSA is the “mainline” Presbyterian denomination.

Except for orthodox, conservative American churches, most American churches today are open sepulchers (and even some orthodox and conservative evangelical churches teach pacifism).

Jesus was a Bohemian, peacenik hippie to the modern American churches.  This is a testimony to how irrelevant, comfortable, self-absorbed and lard-ass the American church is, as also is the fact that hundreds of thousands of Christians can be slaughtered, sent into sexual slavery and driven out of Mesopotamia without so much as an imprecatory prayer by Christians in the West.  Shameful, disgusting, and sickening.  It causes me to turn away in revulsion from the organized American church in disrespect for most of what I see passing for orthodox Christianity today.

Christianity Today is as irrelevant as the American church, as irrelevant as a professor of religion at the University of Texas who wants to disarm law-abiding folks because of a few bad apples, and as irrelevant as the Church in Toronto.  Not a single one of them can manage to construct even a very basic analysis of Christians and self defense.  For the record, I don’t need Wayne Grudem to do that for me.  I have supplied adequate analysis of this issue.  As I’ve summarized before:

I am afraid there have been too many centuries of bad teaching endured by the church, but it makes sense to keep trying.  As I’ve explained before, the simplest and most compelling case for self defense lies in the decalogue.  Thou shall not murder means thou shall protect life.

God’s law requires [us] to be able to defend the children and helpless.  “Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.”  I’ve tried to put this in the most visceral terms I can find.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

This same sort of thinking can be applied on a larger scale to states and nations as so expertly done by professor Darrell Cole in Good Wars (First Things), relying on the theology of both Calvin and Aquinas.  But this is a bridge too far for some Christians who are just now dealing with the notion that they might be in danger.

Now a word of advice for pastor[s] and “theologians” who proffer these laughable interpretations.  It’s things like this that cause congregants to lose respect for the pulpit, and nothing screams the irrelevance of the sermon more than the Biblical impossibility of the pronouncements of the pastor (or in other words, the inconsistency of what he says with the balance of Scripture).  It’s just best to leave your own political aberrations out of the pulpit and teach the Bible.

Or as I’ve repeated elsewhere, John Calvin, commenting on commandment and prohibition, observes:

We do not need to prove that when a good thing is commanded, the evil thing that conflicts with it is forbidden.  There is no one who doesn’t concede this.  That the opposite duties are enjoined when evil things are forbidden will also be willingly admitted in common judgment.  Indeed, it is commonplace that when virtues are commended, their opposing vices are condemned.  But we demand something more than what these phrases commonly signify.  For by the virtue of contrary to the vice, men usually mean abstinence from that vice.  We say that the virtue goes beyond this to contrary duties and deeds.  Therefore in this commandment, “You shall not kill,” men’s common sense will see only that we must abstain from wronging anyone or desiring to do so.  Besides this, it contains, I say, the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can … the purpose of the commandment always discloses to us whatever it there enjoins or forbids us to do” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter viii, Part 9).

Consistency isn’t the Hobgoblin of small minds.  It’s the stuff of life, and even the most dense commentator knows that the Decalogue isn’t subject to the whims of dispensation.  It is a reflection of the very character of God, and thus universally and in all times and epochs, man is made in God’s image and life is to be protected rather than stoically given away to those who would usurp what must fall under the purview of the only potentate, God Himself.  He grants it, and only He can take it or tell others how and when to take it.  When stolid commentators and professors disconnect Christ from the very law He came to fulfill, it’s easy to ascertain that something is very wrong.

Man is made in God’s image.  Careless disregard for life means disregard for God’s law and hypocrisy towards the creator and His words.  Hand-wringing over guns versus knives or clubs or pepper spray or locked doors just means that you’re straining at a gnat in order to swallow a camel.  You (Krish, Nigel and John) don’t care about the women or children.  You’re a self-absorbed, self righteous, pampered product of the effete chattering class, unnecessary to and a bad fit for the very people to whom you are speaking.  No one is listening any more.

Prior:

The Second Amendment Creates A God-Given Right To Bear Arms?

No Guns In Church In Alabama?

Christian Leaders Say No To Christian Militia

Gentlemen, Prepare To Defend Yourselves!

A Desperate Cry From Iraq’s Christians

The PCUSA On Guns

Dear Christians With Guns

Concerning The Nigerian Christian Girls

Guns: Think Of The Children

Does Jesus Shoot An AR-15?

Baptist Forum Does Gun Control

Who Would Jesus Shoot?

The Golden Calf Of Gun Control

Faith And Firearms

Guns And Religion

When Christians Discuss Guns

Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense

Okay, so The Washington Post stole a story from David Codrea.  It wasn’t the first time, it won’t be the last, but I know it’s frustrating for David.  When I was commenting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I saw entire paragraphs from my posts lifted out and published by former Army general and colonel “expert commentators” on television.

Trump problems:

Potential GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and his daughter have donated “at least $105,000 to the Clinton Foundation,” The Hill reported Thursday. Contributions, per the Foundation website, “advance the work of any part of the Clinton Foundation, including the Clinton Global Initiative.”

That would be the same group behind the Clinton Global Citizen Award, presented to anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg by Vice President Joe Biden for being the “most fierce and most effective advocate that we have on the matter of gun sanity.”

[ … ]

As this column observed in 2012, Trump could be a great friend if his seeming enthusiasm for the Second Amendment is real. How we could go about determining that, aside from doing things backwards — trusting him and then seeing if he ends up earning it — is unclear.

Let’s clear this up.  Trump cannot be trusted.  He comes from the Northeast where the collectivist spirit runs deep and the totalitarian tendencies are strong.  He cannot be trusted any more than Chris Christie can be trusted.

David Codrea:

Far be it from me to resort to quacking noises at this point, or to discourage anyone who believes in what “Dr.” Lei Milliere preaches from following his “Emergency/Crisis” prescription to the letter, but one can’t visit his website without noting the prominent assurance that “Medicare and Medicaid is accepted!” How he is not only able to “practice” any form of medicine seems questionable enough — that what he does is considered eligible for government redistribution of wealth seems unfathomable. It would appear that his consultations and how he bills for them both present legitimate areas of professional and legal inquiry, with appropriate cautions taken should he follow the advice he dispenses to others and try to kill any investigating “snakes” as an act of “self-defense.”

Quack.  Fruitcake.  Crank.  Dingbat.  Crackpot.  See, I don’t mind at all resorting to name calling.

Kurt Hofmann:

One concern that can be dismissed immediately is that the government will succeed in suppressing this information. Regardless of what ridiculous extremes it can twist current laws into, or even what new ones it inflicts on this once free nation, the information will not be stopped, or even seriously slowed down.

Governments can never stop the flow of information, any more than they can control guns if the people want them.

If you haven’t seen all of Mike Vanderboegh’s speeches, the videos are linked here.

Bob Owens has written a piece for the LA Times on why LEOs shouldn’t use Glocks.  Something about light trigger pulls.  Go read it for yourself.  Mike McDaniel writing at TTAG has written a response.  Go read it for yourself.  To me, if cops shouldn’t be shooting Glocks because of light trigger pull, they shouldn’t be carrying a weapon at all.  But frankly, I couldn’t care less what happens to Glocks or whether LEOs carry them.  The pistol is ugly and boxy, and I don’t like the sharper frame angle.  I would rather shoot a 1911 or Springfield Armory XDm.  But this might be a flaw that I cared about if I carried a Glock.

BARDSTOWN, Ky. (WDRB) — Dangerous defects were found on the guns that Bardstown Police Officers carry with them on a daily basis.

Hairline fractures appeared on 12 guns, which were immediately taken out of commission. That’s nearly half of the weapons of the 27-man department and Captain Tom Roby says it’s a serious concern.

“At one point the gun would actually fall apart,” said Cpt. Roby.

The issue was discovered on the Glock model 23s during recent training practices. Those guns were purchased back in 2000.

“It’s a hairline crack, Roby said. “But with a little pressure you could spread it open. And .40 caliber is a high pressure handgun.”

Cpt. Roby said, over the years that pressure adds up. He said officers continually train with their weapons. Many even practice shooting on their off days.

“What people don’t understand is police weapons take a lot of abuse,” said Cpt. Roby.

After about 15 years of wear and tear, the police department will receive $12,000 from the city. That money will be used to purchase new guns after the severity of the cracks was demonstrated to council members.

If the flaw is real.  It sounds more likely that this “flaw” is a fabricated problem to convince the politicians to spend more money.  Besides, the chamber pressure of a 9 mm and .40 is about the same, and 9 mm has been in service a very long time.  On the other hand, if the weapons have been in service too long to be reliable, they should be replaced without having to demonstrate “flaws” to the politicians.

What do readers think?

David Codrea:

A balance sheet appearing on a German government website for Armatix GmbH, the German company behind the controversial iP1 “smart” handgun, shows significant financial losses. Further, a German journalist has provided Gun Rights Examiner with documents purporting to show gun developer and Managing Director Ernst Mauch is not only no longer with the company, but that he has been banned from its facilities under threat of a criminal complaint.

The sweet smell of success.  It’s all I ever wanted with “smart guns” – i.e., for the engineering value (or lack thereof) to govern the process of growing or killing the technology in the free market rather than forcing such a monstrosity on the public by edict.

David Codrea:

“Let’s take all the guns away,” he proposes.

Think about that for a moment.

“Let’s…” he advocates. That would be he and those who believe like him, albeit odds are he’ll send a paid proxy in lieu of trying to disarm anyone himself — no matter how truly entertaining it would be to see him attempt it.

Like most advocates of confiscations, he’d never be on the deadly SWAT raids to effect such draconian measures.  Which reminds me to remind you again in case you’ve forgotten.  To all the LEOs who would actually do such things, you understand that the elitists don’t want any part of it, don’t you?  They consider you to be knuckle-draggers and bad people and thugs.  You’re just their thugs, and that makes it okay with them.  Do you like being thought of that way?

Kurt Hofmann:

The Constitution of the United States, as brilliant a document as it is, does not, cannot defend the rights it guarantees all by itself. The pen may indeed be mightier than the sword, but the sword is a great deal more effective for hacking people to death. One retains only the rights one can defend.

Yes, it’s like when folks have told me “they can’t do that, it’s a violation of the constitution.”  I always respond that they (whomever they is) can do what they want until they are stopped with guns.  And what if those trying to squelch free speech weren’t the bad guys affiliated with the Islamists?  What if they were the guys affiliated with the government?  Do you see the value in guns now?

Marine Corps Times:

Marines in Hawaii are using rubberized shooting mats on the rifle range, a comfort upgrade officials credit with dramatically reducing failures during annual marksmanship qualifications.

The Puuloa Range at Marine Corps Base Hawaii was notorious for its unpleasant, uneven surface, lack of grass and blood-red dirt that threw shots and stained Marines’ uniforms. Marines who trained there were at a “clear disadvantage,” said Chief Warrant Officer 2 Jordan Kramp, the range officer in charge.

“The condition of firing lines prohibited their ability to acquire foundational shooting positions,” Kramp said. “Hardened, overly matted-down surfaces prevented Marines from acquiring proper positions for firing, [resulting in] both firing and support elbows sliding out during specific stages of fire.”

The new mats were installed in January at the Puuloa Range’s 200-, 300- and 500-yard firing lines. Early results suggest there could be about a 90 percent reduction in the number of Marines who fail their first qualification.

“They were so comfortable especially in the prone,” said Cpl. Brittney Vella, a combat correspondent assigned to the base’s Headquarters Battalion. “If you had rocks on your elbows it was difficult to have a stable base, so the mats helped us be stable and you felt like you connected with the ground a lot better.”

Uh huh.  “Connected with the ground a lot better.”  Right.  I’m sure the enemy will pause and let you put soft mats under your body so that you won’t have appendages and body parts slipping out from under you when you try to kill them.  And don’t worry about all that mud in the jungles or dirt in the “sand box.”  I’m sure all that is just exaggerated bravado.

CNBC:

The Montana man whose nearly 15-year search for answers about the death of his son paved the way for a nationwide class action settlement with the Remington Arms Co. says the gun maker still is not coming clean. So now, Richard Barber says he is launching a new push to “inform and educate the public” about one of the most popular firearms in the world, and his claim that the guns can fire without the trigger being pulled.

Barber’s 9-year-old son Gus was killed during a family hunting trip in 2000 when a Remington Model 700 rifle went off as the boy’s mother was unloading it. At the worst possible moment, Gus had run behind a horse trailer and into the path of the bullet. Barbara Barber has consistently maintained that her hand was nowhere near the trigger.

Richard Barber says he eventually found thousands of customer complaints and internal documents that suggest Remington had known for decades about an alleged design flaw in the gun’s firing mechanism but did nothing about it despite dozens of deaths and injuries. Allegations of the defect and a cover up—both of which Remington has steadfastly denied—were the subject of the 2010 documentary “Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation.”

“The Model 700, including its trigger mechanism, has been free of any defect since it was first produced,” Remington told CNBC in 2010. “And, despite any careless reporting to the contrary, the gun’s use by millions of Americans has proven it to be a safe, trusted and reliable rifle.”

Last month, a federal judge in Missouri tentatively approved a nationwide settlement in which Remington agreed to replace the triggers on more than 7 million rifles equipped with what has become known as the Walker Fire Control—the same mechanism that was in the Barbers’ rifle. But the company still maintains the guns are safe, and has said it is settling the case to put an end to lengthy litigation. Barber says that stance is part of the reason he feels the need to speak out again.

“I wholeheartedly support the provisions in the class settlement in replacing the triggers,” Barber told CNBC in an interview Monday. As a result, he said, he will not formally object to the tentative settlement. Nonetheless, he said, “Remington’s statements (following the CNBC program in 2010) potentially constitute a fraud that not only endangered the public, but resulted in loss of life.”

Barber said he is concerned that Remington’s continued defense of the gun, as well as the company’s decision at the same time to launch a recall of a much smaller group of Model 700 rifles with a different firing mechanism, could either confuse customers or lull them into complacency.

“No deal is perfect,” he said, acknowledging that the company will likely never agree there is a problem.

“Nothing can force them to do that,” he said.

Remington is still denying any culpability, and Barber isn’t happy.  I told you so, and I told you so.  The most enlightening thing from the article is the comments.  This one is rich.

Once again if the gun wasn’t pointed horizontally this wouldn’t have happened. I can picture it completely. The mom like most women aren’t strong enough to hold the gun up or down while reloading it so she probably had it propped up on her leg with the gun pointing sideways and it went off.

And this one:

Basically comes down to the fact that the parents screwed up, they know it, and they are trying to blame someone else so they can sleep at night. I completely understand with such a tragic accident, but this is all this is about. They want to blame someone for their tragic mistake so they can feel better.

And finally, this:

Once somebody could repeat the condition of auto discharge of Model 700 that will proved the mechanism have a design flaw. But probably will be a lot of work to make it happen. Maybe a robot that will try all kind of positions for hours and hours will do it!

We’ve rehearsed the failures of the Walker fire control system before.  The reports are found here.  In this document, FSR and FOS is “fires when the safety is released,” and “fires on safe,” respectively.  The 700 does both.  There is no excuse for a single instance, ever.  EVER.  Not if the engineer is responsible and ethical and the management has moral fiber.

Is it the fault of the parents?  Yes.  Is it the fault of Remington?  Yes.  It isn’t either-or.  It is both-and.  It’s called defense in depth in firearms design and operation, and if you’re too stupid to understand this, you shouldn’t be posting comments to the internet.

The U.S. Marine Corps led the way.  At the time I said this:

Recall that I told you “that Rock River Arms, Knights Armament, LaRue Tactical and Daniel Defense isn’t the Colt produced under milspec for the Army and Marine Corps (these are all superior to the Colt M-16 and M-4)?”  And recall that John Jay and I have both discussed Milspec and what it does (and doesn’t) mean?

It should also be pointed out that there are many things that can be tweaked on the Stoner platform (Milspec design) that can make it much more reliable than the Colt.

Fouling in the M4 is not the problem. The problem is weak springs (buffer and extractor), as well as light buffer weights (H vs. H2 or H3). With the abovementioned drop-in parts, the M4 is as reliable as any weapon I have ever fired, and I have fired probably every military-issue assault rifle fielded worldwide in the last 60 years as a Special Forces Weapons Sergeant (18B). An additional benefit of the heavier spring/weight combo is that it transmits the energy impulse of the firing cycle to the shoulder over a longer duration, lowering the amount of foot pounds per second and dramatically reducing the perceived recoil. Follow-on shots are easier to make effectively, and much faster, especially at 50 meters and beyond.

I reliably fired 2400 rounds (80 magazines) on a bone dry gun, and I would bet that is a lot more than any soldier or other armed professional will ever come close to firing without any lubrication whatsoever. So, disregard the fouling myth and install a better buffer spring, H2 buffer, enhanced extractor spring and a Crane O-ring (all end user drop-in parts). With normal (read “not excessive”) lubrication and maintenance, properly-built AR-15/M4 type rifles with carbine gas systems will astound you with their reliability and shootability.

The high quality AR-15 manufacturers know all of this and generally make their parts better than Milspec.  But now the Army wants in on the game.

The Army is asking the gun industry to build new components for its soldiers’ primary weapon — the M4 carbine — a move that experts say is a tacit admission that the service has been supplying a flawed rifle that lacks the precision of commercially available guns.

At a recent Capitol Hill hearing, an Army general acknowledged that the M4’s magazine has been responsible for the gun jamming during firefights.

On the federal government’s FedBizOpps.gov website, the Army announced a “market survey” for gunmakers to produce a set of enhancements to essentially create a new model — the “M4A1+.” It would include a modular trigger, a new type of rail fitted around a “free floating” barrel and other parts. The upgrade is supposed to improve the rifle’s accuracy and reliability.

The Army last year took the significant step of beginning to convert the basic M4 into the special operations version, the M4A1, with a heavier barrel designed to better withstand the heat of rapid fire.

The Washington Times reported in 2014 on confidential prewar tests that showed the barrel was prone to overheating. The Times also quoted active-duty soldiers who said the M4 is inferior based on their experience in battle. A Green Beret said he takes the extraordinary step of rebuilding his M4A1 on the battlefield by using components from other gunmakers — technically a violation of Army regulations.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, an artillery officer and decorated Vietnam combatant, is one of the M4’s most vocal critics. He also believes the 5.56 mm M855A1 ammunition — an environmentally sensitive, or “green,” round — is wrong for the gun.

Gen. Scales said the Army’s new solicitation is further proof of the carbine’s shortfalls.

“It’s another attempt by the Army to make the M4 look good,” he said. “If the Army wants to improve the M4, fine. But it’s not a weapon suitable for high-intensity, close combat in extremes against an enemy who is basically matching us in weapons performance in a close fight. Everybody knows the weapon has flaws.”

Mr. Scales said the M4’s basic shortfall is that it uses gas, or direct, impingement to extract and expel its shells as opposed to a piston system. A piston firing mechanism is in the prolific AK-47, which runs cleaner and cooler but is considered slightly less accurate.

This article is a complete mess.  It goes from things that we’ve discussed before that should be obvious (such as a floated barrel to avoid interference with [natural frequency] barrel harmonics by fixed points), to old battle philosophy (such as the notion that Solders and Marines today shoot Carbines fully automatic as if they are some sort of area suppression weapon like a SAW – seriously, this is thirty or forty year old battle tactics, the stuff of Vietnam rather than the professionally trained fighters of the twenty first century).

It ends (for me, simply because I couldn’t bring myself to read any more) when that loud mouth, washed up old coot General Scales started begging for the piston system again.  Good grief.  He weighs in against the Eugene Stoner platform for CQB, which is ironically the situation in which it is the best weapon on earth by far.  My message is clear.  Just stop.  The main stream media needs to stop being a day late to the story.  We’ve already worked this one over until it’s bloody.  General Scales needs to go home and stop advocating for whatever armament company he’s working for today.  The Marine Corps and Army need to stop telling the world what they are going to do about non-existent problems with their weapons.  They have diarrhea of the mouth.  Wanat and Kamdesh were not caused by weapons problems.  They were caused by the idiot general who deployed Platoon-size U.S. forces to ensconce themselves in valleys to fight off Battalion-size Taliban forces who had the high ground.

But what does need to happen is with the Marine Corps and Army.  The procedures need to change to allow the armorers the freedom and latitude to arm the men with the weapons they need.  If they want Magpul magazines (with the no-tilt follower), then they should get them instead of the ridiculous Milspec magazines with the follower that binds and sticks (yea, it’s happened to me too).  If a free floated barrel is better (and it is), then change the Military specifications to allow a free floated barrel and replace them all.  If stronger buffer springs are better, then replace them all.  Just go do it.  Adapt, improvise and overcome.  Don’t be bureaucratic pointy-heads.

And something needs to happen with Patriots too.  We should all learn from the intransigence of the Army and Marine Corps.  If there is a better part, buy it.  Test it.  Work your weapons systems.  Learn them.  Practice with them.  Procedures are good insofar as they help you.  If they become a hindrance, defenestrate them.  You control them – they do not control you.

And by the way, around these parts we speak the name of Eugene Stoner with hushed reverence.  Do otherwise at your peril.

Prior:

Army And Marine Corps On M855 Ammunition

Marines To Get Rifle Makeovers

Blaming The Gun For The Battle Losses

The Reliability Of The Eugene Stoner Design