Archive for the 'Guns' Category

The State:

That confounded Union general whose name still draws hisses in South Carolina 150 years after he laid waste to the Capital City is causing yet another ruckus in Columbia.

On their way out of town, Union troops led by William T. Sherman dumped loads of captured Confederate ordnance – from cannonballs to ball cartridges, rammers, sabers, bayonet scabbards and knapsacks – into the Congaree River.

The artifacts have long been part of local lore, and the few pieces retrieved over the years indicated there might be more.

Now, through the science of sonar and metal detection, historians and researchers have better evidence of precisely where the munitions were dumped near the Gervais Street bridge in downtown Columbia. Excavators are planning how best to retrieve the artifacts.

“It’s really going to help us interpret what was a defining point for Columbia’s history, and, really, South Carolina’s history,” Joe Long, curator of the S.C. Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum, said of the impending finds.

In 1865, Sherman’s troops kept what they wanted of confiscated rebel ordnance, then threw the rest into the river to keep it away from the Confederates. Better armed, Sherman then headed for North Carolina on his destructive march.

[ … ]

A formal archeological study of the site has not been done, so precisely what will be uncovered during dredging remains a mystery.

But a Feb. 17, 1865, inventory of the ordnance and ordnance stores captured in Columbia lists 1.2 million ball cartridges, 100,000 percussion caps, 26,150 pounds of gun powder, 4,000 bayonet scabbards, 3,100 sabers, 1,100 knapsacks, 58 tents and 20 blacksmith vices, among much more equipment.

As Sherman’s army roared in from the west, three divisions and a Union cavalry unit camped Feb. 16, 1865, on the west bank of the Congaree directly across from the Capital City.

After a short battle at Congaree Creek near what is now Cayce, one of three corps of Sherman’s army spread out and began shelling Columbia, from among other places, the West Columbia shoreline.

Rebel troops burned the then-wooden Gervais Street bridge to slow Sherman’s advance, the Tidewater report states.

“Columbia citizens were trying to evacuate the city, and bales of cotton were dragged into the street to be carried off and burned to keep them from falling into enemy hands,” wrote the consultants, who studied the area’s history dating to the Paleoindian period between 10,000 to 12,500 years ago.

“Wade Hampton, hastily promoted to lieutenant general, was left to defend the city with General Joseph Wheeler’s cavalry,” the historical account continues. “Sensing the futility of the defense, Wheeler’s men began looting the city, ostensibly to prevent capture by the Union army.

“On the night of the 16th, Hampton announced that he planned to evacuate on the following morning, leaving behind the cotton which he was unable to transport. That evening, fueled by spirits dispensed without restriction, Union troops created more mischief through the city. When the cotton in the streets caught fire, they were unable or unwilling to contain the blazes.

“The result was the near complete destruction of Columbia,” the consultants’ report states. “Having the run of the countryside for several days, Union troops burned many homes and farms in the region.”

So let’s get this straight.  The union troops Dipp’d their bill, got hammered, and went on a wild rampage through Columbia burning and destroying things, and all of it allowed by leaders who didn’t care.  They confiscated weapons, took what they wanted, and dumped the rest in the river.

Okay.  Got it.  We won’t forget.

Todd Frankel blogging at The Washington Post:

So what does the study say?

It’s hefty, running 121 pages. The title is “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.” The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council published it in 2013.

And the study clearly makes the case for why more gun-violence research is needed.

The CDC requested the study to identify research goals after Obama issued his January 2012 executive order. The National Academies’s study authors clearly see gun violence as a problem worth examining:  “By their sheer magnitude, injuries and deaths involving firearms constitute a pressing public health problem.”

The authors suggested focusing on five areas: the characteristics of firearm violence, risk and protective factors, interventions and strategies, gun safety technology and the influence of video games and other media. The document is peppered with examples of how little we know about the causes and consequences of gun violence — no doubt the result of an 18-year-old CDC research ban.

But gun-rights supporters zeroed on in a few statements to make their case. One related to the defensive use of guns. The New American Magazine article noted that “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

So it would appear the “good use” of guns outweighs the “bad use.” That may be true, except the study says all of those statistics are in dispute — creating, in the study authors’ eyes, a research imperative.

You can read the whole post for yourself.  I’ve lifted the money quotes out (and hopefully not out of context).  Mr. Frankel charges gun-rights activists with an error in interpretation of data and statistics, and whether Mr. Frankel is correct in his own interpretation or not is irrelevant.  The Germane point is that gun rights activists – if they are indeed using such data and statistics to demonstrate a point – are in error for simply using the data, not for misinterpreting it.

We’ve discussed this before.  I’ve made the point that “what happens to society at the macroscopic level is immaterial.  My rights involve me and my family, and don’t depend on being able to demonstrate that the general health effects in society are not a corollary to or adversely affected by the free exercise of them.  It’s insidious and even dangerous to argue gun rights as a part of crime prevention based on statistics because it presupposes what the social planners do, i.e., that I’m part of the collective.”  I object to John Lott’s procedure, and have stated frequently that I do not believe in the second amendment.  I believe in God.  The Almighty grants me the rights to be armed, and when the Almighty has spoken, it is eternal law for all men everywhere and in all ages and epochs.  See also Holding Human Rights Hostage To Favorable Statistical Outcomes, and Kurt Hoffman on the same subject.

There is probably little constitutional basis for such a thing as the Centers for Disease Control at the expense of our tax dollars even when studying diseases.  But there is certainly none whatsoever for its existence when it pens studies for the express intent of infringing on God-given rights.  If gun rights activists are arguing statistics with the collectivists, that’s the mistake right there.  Full stop.  Don’t do that.  Ever.  You presuppose their world view when you do that.

Vice News:

As US lawmakers are proposing nixing gun-free zones and arming teachers and guards with firearms to halt potential school massacres, one pro-gun group has unwittingly provided a case in point against fighting guns with more guns.

The Truth About Guns, a weapons rights group based in Texas, recently recreated a set mirroring the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, where masked gunmen last week killed 12 people. The group then reenacted the massacre with paintball rounds to determine whether throwing an “armed defender” into the mix could have saved lives.

In nearly every single setup, the armed civilian — portrayed by 12 different local volunteers — died. The only exception was in the scenario where the team member with the gun immediately fled the scene.

The group ran the exercise in Plano, Texas and posted footage from a camera mounted to one of the attacker’s rifles to YouTube on Thursday. The Truth About Guns did not immediately respond to VICE News’ request for comment on the experiment Friday.

Sigh.  I’m not even going to link the video.  It’s meaningless.  Here’s Uncle’s take on it.

So, if one were to recreate what happened, they’d probably do something based on what happened. Or, instead, you could get some firearms trainers who know how to handle simunitions, let them strap on their gear and tell them to go practice a room-clearing exercise on random people you got to volunteer off the street to play CCW holder. Surprisingly, the firearms trainers manage to outperform the random people from the street.

Then, you could compound the error by inviting local media. Then, you get picked up by all the shitty, sensationalized listicle sites and are all over social media. And, boom, you got self-promotion.

Leave it to the occasional jackass to conclude that gun control helps the situation.

France’s ban on guns isn’t actually a gun ban of any sort. In fact, most French citizens share the same rights to firearm ownership as Americans.

The difference, however, is that French leaders haven’t sold out to the deep pockets of gun manufacturers and their lobbying group and removed important regulations that dramatically alter the mindset of citizens about those very deadly firearms.

Instead, these are the ultra-restrictive laws that some claim were responsible for the French terrorist attacks: Citizens must acquire a license to own a gun, including handguns. A requirement to obtain and keep that license is that the holder show proof of being an active shooting club member with at least three trips to the range each year and certification from a physician of the holder’s physical and mental capabilities.

Once that license is acquired, the only “gun ban,” is on fully automatic weapons, just like the one in the U.S.

Aside from that, the French can own pretty much any gun that an American can own.

But usually, they don’t own them. They don’t carry them around on their hips like this is some old West movie.

But it’s more invasive than that.  This point of view was written by a Frenchman right after Newtown.

From the French point of view, this shooting is just another example of the United States’ gun addiction …

France, however, underwent a major shift in its regulation of weapons in 1939. The French government worried that tough living conditions during the upcoming war with Germany could lead to revolts and unrest similar to those experienced by Germany and Russia during World War I. The government thus passed a law that would ban most guns. Moreover, when the Germans invaded France in 1940, another decree required every Frenchman to hand over his weapons.

This ban, justified by historical reasons, remained enforced after the war and has been the backbone of French firearm regulation ever since. In today’s legislation, the only weapons easy to purchase are hunting rifles, which has remained a French pastime.

The purchase of any type of military and civil firearm is only permitted in shooting sports for which a license is required. To obtain the licence, a year long process is required, including  a 6 month membership at a shooting club and background check by the police. This license needs to be renewed every three years.  Thus, for the last 73 years, weapons, except hunting rifles, have been ban for most Frenchmen. Promoting a gun-free environment has become the country’s answer to preventing mass shootings.

But it didn’t prevent a mass shooting, and I wonder if this Frenchman would care to revisit his position since the recent shooting in Paris?

See this analysis and this analysis for a discussion of category A, B, C and D in French gun control law, and if you wish to carry a handgun for personal defense, that isn’t viable.  It won’t happen in France.

Simply put, any attempted analysis, including that at TTAG, that focuses on what happens when shooters who plan their attack go to work on unsuspecting victims who have handguns (or nothing) proves only that when defending against attackers with foreknowledge and rifles, you would rather have foreknowledge and rifles yourself.

There are other variables that such a test doesn’t measure, such as could a potential victim in another room, hearing the commotion or seeing the attack, prepare in such a way as to save his life and the lives of others?  Philosophers call it “possible worlds,” and reenacting events like this one doesn’t even come close to exploring what might have, what could have, what may have happened.

Ignore all such “tests” and “reenactments.”  Arm yourselves to have a better chance to live in such an attack.  That’s the simplest and best advice anyone can give you.  The rest is just self promotion.

Kurt Hofmann:

… much of the Mexican drug cartel violence uses weapons–like those so infamously used in France recently–far more powerful than those legally available to most U.S. citizens–machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. If some handguns and “assault weapons” can so easily cross the U.S./Mexico border going south, heavier weapons can do so coming north, along with all the drugs (and illegal aliens/future Democrat voters).

Perhaps the gun ban zealots should re-think their love of open borders.

Yes, but I don’t think they will.  The collectivist mindset will always reflexively revert to more and more government control, including control over weapons.  The collectivists won’t see the problem as open borders.  They will see the problem as the availability of weapons at all among non-state actors.  Thus, they will push for tighter and tighter control over guns, regardless of the fact that this control has absolutely no effect on criminals.

Mike Vanderboegh sends an open letter to Alan Gottlieb.  Mike has more patience than do I.  I consider Alan to be a lost cause, an irrelevant fixture on the gun control scene, a tool for the collectivist media to exploit.  I’m not depressed, and I am not encouraging you to be a defeatist.  I just don’t think Alan will play a role in the coming festivities.

David Codrea:

The role of citizen disarmament in assuring the killers would succeed was expanded on by Kurt Hofmann in his latest JPFO Alert   …

“Let there be no doubt, we are asking that all weapons will be issued for self-protection only, and to designated personnel that will undergo thorough investigation and training by local authorities,” Margolin continued, essentially revealing he never learned the lesson of Alfred Flatow on the dangers of letting “authorities” determine who they will allow to have guns – and who they will not.  While Margolin is on the right track, he’s on the wrong understanding of what a right is. Certainly European Jews have a right to keep and bear arms, and not just sanctioned designees – it’s a human right, one that’s recognized in the Second Amendment, but not dependent on the Constitution, and not limited to Americans. Likewise, it is not limited to European Jews, and any who presume to withhold or dispense it, that is, to “grant” it, assume the roles of usurpers and tyrants, the very people we’re supposed to have guns to guard against and repel.

I’m sorry to lift so much prose out of the article, but it is involved while still worth the time to read it.  David is emphasizing a theme I’ve pressed before.  I don’t believe in the second amendment.  I believe in God.  The almighty gives me the right to bear arms, and no man can legitimately take it away.  What God has spoken is law for all men, everywhere and in all ages and epochs.

Mike Vanderboegh links a piece where a number of armed women drive off a recent Boko Haram attack.  Well, I guess they aren’t such bad asses after all when facing gun fire, are they?  Pussies, they are?

We’ve covered the AR-15 and its adherents and detractors in The Reliability Of The Eugene Stoner Design and Blaming The Gun For The Battle Losses concerning the battle of Wanat.  In the test shown below, this AR-15 endures a test of greater than 800 rounds in a short duration of time.

David Codrea:

Allowing a citizen’s fundamental rights to be stripped without his having been found guilty of a crime, especially on the say-so of an ex-partner with strong motives, flies in the face not only of due process, but also in terms of the nature of rights, and the powers of government supposedly bound by delegated authority. “Do you know of any other right that that requires a citizen to undergo a compelled interrogation under penalty of perjury as a precondition to receiving (or being denied) permission to exercise it?” writer Don Cline asks … For her part, Giffords has not explained …

Anything.  She hasn’t explained anything at all, except by her actions that she is still a meddling collectivist control freak who is butting into the business of other people.  I am reminded of the comments by reader menckenlite concerning mandatory state review.

Control freaks love psychiatry, a means of social control with no Due Process protections. It is a system of personal opinion masquerading as science. See, e.g., Boston University Psychology Professor Margaret Hagan’s book, Whores of the Court, to see how arbitrary psychiatric illnesses are. Peter Breggin, Fred Baughman and Thomas Szasz wrote extensively about abuses of psychiatry. Liberals blame guns for violence. Conservatives blame mental illness. Neither have any causal connection to violence.

Take a look at what this Ukrainian granny can do.

The government is still trying to financially choke the firearms industry.  You do realize that this administration is full of pathological liars who will say one thing and do another, don’t you?

Chris Murphy on Islamic militants in Paris.  Because he’s a pathetic rube and a tool.

Via Mike Vanderboegh, White House still focusing on domestic “extremists” (because Obama hates America).

The following may (or may not) represent what I carry, depending upon circumstances.

Blackhawk rigger’s belt, Springfield Armory XDm, .45 ACP in UTG soft holster with additional magazine (because I don’t like Kydex), .38 Spl S&W Air Weight revolver with wrap-around ankle holster, Ka-Bar folder with sheath, SOG Flash II folder, old standby Surefire 6P (it has been with me a long time), Streamlight ProTac HL3 (1100 lumen), Oakley sports glasses, prescription.

Not shown, Gerber multi-tool – occasional carry, OC spray (occasional carry), and 550 cord (also occasional carry).  The guns may change depending upon circumstances, but I always try to carry a tactical light on every trip, even to the movie theater as I did not too long ago (especially to the movie theater where it is otherwise dark and high lumen means control of the environment).

The small gun is perfect for the movie theater and grocery store since it is ankle carry, the larger gun (whichever one I carry) is more likely to go outside the waist band (not very often concealed IWB), with the belt.  The 1911 has a more slender profile than the XDm being single stack, and I’ve carried it before, as well as other pistols (I prefer to shoot the 1911 to anything else due to balance and profile).  Sometimes it (the larger handgun) will stay in the car, meaning that I have only a single gun, with a tactical folder as backup.

Given the state of affairs today, everyone ought to think hard about what they carry for self defense and protection of their family.  I consider this battle rattle to be very soft and luxurious.  When conditions become steadily worse as the economy collapses, this will necessarily change with the times.

David Codrea:

With body numbers described as “too many to count,” but with estimates ranging from “hundreds” to “2,000,” mass murders in Nigeria are being described by Amnesty International as “the deadliest massacre” in the history of the Boko Haram terror group.

“Most victims are children, women and elderly people who could not run fast enough when insurgents drove into Baga, firing rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles on town residents,” the Associated Press reported a government official claiming.

David then goes on to describe the gun control in Nigeria, and states “Nigeria appears to be a land where the results of such “progressive” policies should be evident for all to see and emulate.”  Read all of David’s article.

And gun control has indeed been one of the catalysts for the rise of Islamic extremism.  I have long lamented the failure of men and women to arm themselves against Islamists, Christians in particular who falsely believe that Biblical theology requires pacifism, noting that it is a moral failure to ignore the protection of family and self.

But make no mistake about it, these are heavier weapons, perhaps some ever crew serve weapons, and arming with rifles and pistols wouldn’t have stopped the assault on the city.  But what being armed would do is stop them before they become strong enough to perpetrate such a ghastly attack.

An example of such aggressive use of force can be seen in the history of the Ethiopian Army in Somalia, where they have had measurable success against the Islamists.  The “Christian” army of Ethiopia has no intention of allowing Muslims to savage their people, and they are willing to take action before it is too late to secure those ends.

Individual and segregated actions cannot achieve security against an organized enemy using heavy weapons.  This requires family, tribe and militia, all of which are armed and willing to take the hard measures necessary to kill a determined enemy.

That there are men who allow women, children and the elderly to perish while they run away scared doesn’t bode well for the future of Nigeria.  For men who believe there is nothing after death – that a body cools to ambient temperature and there is nothing more – running away scared may make sense.  For Christians, there are more important things that staying alive because death is just the beginning of our life in eternity.

And finally, don’t be fooled by the recent Islamic violence in France.  The Islamists don’t really care about cartoons in the face of more important things.  They just can’t find anyone left in France who believes anything to attack.  Now, if they hear Christians with one voice, saying something like this:

I believe in God,

the Father almighty,

Creator of heaven and earth,

and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died and was buried;

he descended into hell;

on the third day he rose again from the dead;

he ascended into heaven,

and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;

from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy christian Church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and life everlasting. Amen.

Then the real enemy of Islam has spoken.  Islam is darkness, and it cannot abide the light.  Since it cannot abide the light, it won’t allow a marketplace of ideas where truth can be discerned from falsehood.  Arm yourselves.  Prepare to do battle.  It’s coming whether you know it or not.

The Gazette:

There’s a mantra quickly repeating in my head: “Please have a badge. Please have a badge. Please have a badge.” It’s a steady heartbeat as I begin a conversation with a shop clerk and reposition myself so I can peer over her shoulder.

I’ve already seen the bulge in his jacket, and it’s clear from the size and shape that he has a holstered gun. Now my eyes are quickly scanning, hoping to find a law enforcement badge clipped to his belt.

I’m in a local bookstore and there’s a sticker near the door asking patrons not to carry weapons on the premises. My two children scurried off the moment we entered, each in search of their own treasures.

The man with the weapon is as interested with the bookstore patrons as he is with the books on display. I’ve watched him watch others. The way he tracks them is unnerving.

I do not know this man, have no knowledge of his profession, personality or character. I am unaware of his mental state, of why he feels the need to carry a weapon into a bookstore. Frankly, I’m not that interested in his reasons right now. My mind is too busy filtering through the various scenarios that could be taking place. They flick before me like movie trailers, and I watch, casting some aside and mentally marking others for further consideration.

There’s no badge — at least not one I can see. And my inspection of him has not gone unnoticed. I rotate my handbag so that more of it rests toward the front of my body and gently pat it. It’s a tell by women who are packing heat in their purse. Many do it without thinking, a subtle check of hard steel through the leather. My touch is greeted by the bristles on my hairbrush, but no one else knows that.

The man recognizes the gesture, his eyes briefly flicking to my own before he moves past us in the aisle.

Poor Lynda.  I think she needs to purchase and learn to use a gun.  That way she won’t be bothered by bristles on hair brush when she is reaching for means of self defense.

In other news, a Deputy Sheriff’s gun just “went off” in Walmart recently.

In still other news, a police chief shot his wife.

A police chief in Georgia told a 911 dispatcher he accidentally shot his sleeping wife while moving a handgun that was in their bed, according to a recording released Friday.

Peachtree City police Chief William McCollom called for help at 4:17 a.m. New Year’s Day and reported accidentally shooting his 58-year-old wife, Margaret, while they both slept. The Associated Press obtained a recording of the call Friday through an open records request. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is looking into the shooting.

You know it’s “funny.”  I’ve never lost a rifle, had a gun “accidentally go off,” shot anyone in the back, wanted to shoot dogs, or been tempted to shoot my wife or anyone else.