All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

Firearms Policy & Law Analyst at The Zelman Partisans Personal Blog: https://www.bussjaeger.us/blog/

A New Low In Surveys

May 5, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 3 Comments

David Hardy, Of Arms and the Law, linked to a bizarre pro-gun control survey conducted by ValuePenguin/Lending Tree.

Hardy noted:

Reminds me of the DMI survey, commissioned by NRA-ILA at its birth. It found that, if you took the respondents who wanted more gun control and asked them what type they wanted, most of them would name measures that were already in federal law.

He’s right. I won’t bother with a complete fisk of the survey, but I will point out this chart of restriction survey respondents allegedly support.

Yep, the top three (by far) restrictions are things currently restricted — heavily — at local, state, and federal levels. I’d like to see the actual questions. Did they ask if respondents want those, or did they ask if they want more of those? We won’t know because 1) there’s no link to the actual survey questions or raw data, and 2) the article has no contact data for the article writer or pollsters. I did find a general contact; I’ll see what response I can get out of it.

This part is interesting.

As mentioned, 75% of Americans favor requiring liability insurance for gun owners. In fact, support for liability insurance on guns is almost as high as support for liability insurance on homes (72%) or cars (84%).

Huh. 75% of Americans favor paying insurance companies more money, to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right. Kinda makes you wonder who they surveyed. I’ll “circle back” to that shortly.

You can see the “75%” (44 and 31) in this graph.

The problem is… go back to the first chart I posted and check the “Proof of gun ownership liability insurance” bar: that one says only 33% want that. Which is it, Lending Tree?

Who did they survey, and how? Since the survey data isn’t available, we’re stuck with this brief explanation of their methodology. The bold is my emphasis.

ValuePenguin commissioned Qualtrics to conduct an online survey of 1,995 U.S. consumers ages 18 to 77 from March 17 to 21, 2023. The survey was administered using a non-probability-based sample, and quotas were used to ensure the sample base represented the overall population. Researchers reviewed all responses for quality control.

Well, I’ll have to give them credit for some honesty. “Nonprobability sample”? They admit it? That’s pretty much a first for pro-gun control polling. (I mean, they do it, most just don’t admit it.)

If you’re confused, nonprobability sampling is…

Probability sampling, or random sampling, is a sampling technique in which the probability of getting any particular sample may be calculated. In cases where external validity is not of critical importance to the study’s goals or purpose, researchers might prefer to use nonprobability sampling. Nonprobability sampling does not meet this criterion. Nonprobability sampling techniques are not intended to be used to infer from the sample to the general population in statistical terms.

In layman-speak: Probabilty sampling is meant to gather — randomly — respondents that you hope will be represenative of the general population. Nonprobability sampling is for when you don’t actually care about the general population. You care about A) presenting a preconceived conclusion, B) only what certain people think, or C) both.

No wonder they didn’t care that their graphs conflict with each other. They were shooting for A) the preordained conclusion that more people want to pay more, and B) probably surveyed insurance company execs and salescritters (gotta keep those sales commissions and bonuses coming).

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)

Elsewhere, gun control, Law

That Never Happens, Redux

May 5, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger

It seems like just the other day that I noted the impossibility of a mass — school, no less — shooting in a country other than America, because Dims assure us that never happens. Only in the US, because only we have access to so many nasty guns.

Oops. Serbia seems to be on a roll.

At Least 8 Killed, 13 Wounded During Shooting In Serbia Just Two Days After Mass Killing At SchoolAt least 8 were killed and 13 were injured late Thursday during a mass shooting near Belgrade, Serbia, according to The Associated Press (AP).

The suspect, a 21-year-old who fled after the attack, allegedly used an automatic weapon in a drive-by shooting, targeting people randomly, according to The AP. Special Forces and helicopters are still searching for the suspect, according to local Serbian media.

Lessee, two days, one country-not-America: 19 (maybe 20) dead by gunfire, 9 wounded. Unpossible; it wasn’t America.

Another report, on the alleged perp’s capture, has this interesting tidbit.

Police found him eventually hiding in his grandfather’s house, where they also discovered hand grenades, an automatic rifle and ammunition.

I’d ask for a show of hands, but I don’t want idiots to self-incriminate: How many of you keep a stash of illegal automatic weapons and grenades at home? I never have.

authoritarian swine, gun control, Law

Suppressing Reality

May 4, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 5 Comments

Senator Menendez [Scumbag-NJ] has filed a bill titled “Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR) Act” (no bill number yet) to ban silencers* (except for law enforcement and military, of course). Because with a silencers, victims can’t “HEAR” perps coming. There’s a matching companion bill in the House.

It’s fairly standard “ban” language, without grandfathering. Owners would have 60 days from the bill’s enactment to get rid of their property. Grants would be made to fund “buy backs.”

To show why this idiotic ban is “needed” Menendez cites five cases, over twelve years, in which “silencers have [allegedly] been used in gun violence related incidents over the last decade.” Let’s take a look at his examples, and see why I added “allegedly.”

1. In Monterey Park, California, on January 21, 2023, an armed assailant with a semi-automatic weapon modified with a homemade suppressor killed 11 people and injured nine others.

He used an illegal, homemade suppressor on a banned “California assault weapon.” his MAC-style firearm (law enforcement have identified it as both a MAC and a Cobray) has long been banned in the state, as have silencers. No doubt another redundant ban would have persuaded him to find another way to kill his victims. Oh, yes; and he had a second non-silenced gun.

2. In Virginia Beach, Virginia, on May 31, 2019, a gunman armed with a .45-caliber handgun fitted with a suppressor killed 12 people in a government building. One individual who survived the shooting reported hearing what sounded like a nail gun.

People in the building did hear the shots. And he used two handguns; only one of which was silenced.

3. In Jacksonville, Florida, in December 2017, police arrested a man for planning to “shoot up” an Islamic Center. He was charged with possessing a silencer not registered to him that he purchased from an undercover detective.

He did not use a silencer in an act of “gun violence.” He possessed one that he bought unlawfully (from a cop)

4. In Southern California, in February 2013, a former Los Angeles police officer killed four people, and wounded three others over the course of nine days. As police investigated, they wondered why nearby residents were not reporting the shots. It turned out that, in an effort to conceal his murders, the shooter was using a silencer, which distorts the sound of gunfire and masks the muzzle flash of a gun.

Again, California; silencers were already banned, It didn’t deter him. And so long as Menendez id bringing up Christopher Dorner’s little rampage, how ’bout mentioning the civilians the police mistakenly shot up?

5. In Toledo, Ohio, in January 2011, a man fatally shot his coworker as he sat eating his breakfast in his office. No one at the office heard the gunshot and the victim’s co-workers originally assumed he had died of a heart attack. Police later surmised that the killer had used a silencer.

The description of this one was vague enough that it took me a few minutes to find the case. The authorities only speculated that he used a silencer, but were never able to establish that as a fact.

Twelve years. Five cases. Two cases where silencers were already banned, two cases where silencers apparently were used. That leaves… counting on fingers… one case where a ban theoretically might have helped, assuming the murderous perp was worried about the extra silencer charge. If laws against murder didn’t stop, why would laws against silencers do it?

I love this pair of quotes from Violence Policy Center and Newtown Action Alliance toadies in support of the bill.

“Manufacturers brag that silencers can make guns ‘whisper quiet’ while increasing shooters’ accuracy and ability to fire rounds more quickly. These characteristics only make silencers more attractive to mass shooters and terrorists.”

“Silencers are dangerous weapons that make it easier for criminals to kill innocent Americans and more difficult for our police officers to protect our children and families. It’s time for Congress to pass this lifesaving legislation.”

So silencers are only attractive to mass shooter and terrorists, to kill innocent Americans…

Then why the hell does this bill exempt law enforcement and military from the ban? Are they mass shooters and terrorists bent on murdering innocents. And do you want them to do that?

* Yes, I think “suppressor” is a more accurate term, but federal law calls them “silencers,” so I’m kind stuck with it when discussing law.

gun control, Law

But That Never Happens Anywhere Else

May 3, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger

A school shooting. A mass school shooting. The Dims like to claim that only happens in America because of our “weak” gun laws.

Serbian Seventh Grader Kills 8 Classmates And Guard In Targeted School Shooting
A 13-year-old boy opened fire at his school in Serbia on Wednesday, killing a security guard and eight classmates and wounding six other students and a teacher, officials say.

Serbia requires a license to possess a firearm. The license requires a specific purpose; criminal, medical, and other background checks; three character references; and formal training and testing. Licenses are only good for five years, after which you have to go through the entire process again to renew. You must be at least eighteen years of age.

Serbians are limited to a total of 60 boxes of ammunition per year, and only ammunition for firearms they’re licensed to possess.

Serbia even has an “assault weapon” ban. Why, that’s almost a gun control paradise. No wonder these things don’t… oops.

All that, and this isn’t even an isolated Serbian mass shooting; plenty more.

But those killers were probably Trump supporters; right, Dims?

authoritarian swine, Constitution, Courts, SCOTUS

“All that nonsense about the Second Amendment”

April 30, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

Lefty Russ Baker says it’s time to get rid of America’s guns. And that pesky Second Amendment isn’t a problem. If he’s trying to climb out of his recent obscurity, he didn’t think it through. His solution?

Just ignore it.

Why Nearly All of America’s 400 Million Guns Have Got To Go
Everyone already knows all the reasons “nothing will be done.” Congress, as currently constituted, will not pass meaningful legislation. We need a better Congress. Courts are more interested in protecting the dubiously cited Second Amendment than in protecting kids. We need better judges and better law.
[…]
So I would say that the rest of us need to stop mollifying them. Forget all that nonsense about the Second Amendment.

Just forget it. After all…

Obviously it won’t be easy, and a small number of Second Amendment hard-liners will resist violently

Only a few will resist. Of course, that’s “only a few” of more than one hundred million people. Based on surveys I’ve seen for the past few years, more like 120 million. Russ’ stormtroopers will be in trouble if even 5% of 120 million “resist violently.” Six millions HANSOBs would make quick work of them, despite Baker’s irrational belief otherwise.

None will actually defend us against our military or other militaries. Guns in the hands of untrained, unvetted, potentially irresponsible users do much more harm than good. Period.

Tell it to the Taliban. Or the four terrorists who tied up 90,000 police and troops for days.

Untrained? He might note the large number of gun-owning military veterans. Or the competetion in the field of firearms training classes. Or the millions of concealed carry licensees, which is several states requires training.

The boy is delusional.

But note his disdain for the courts upholding that stupid 2A. Where have we seen that before?

Occasionally-firing-Cortex, demanding that the Xiden administration just ignore court decisions that she’s dislikes.

The current “Campaign to Delegitimize the U.S. Supreme Court” with dubious ethics complaints, and again, calls to ignore rulings.

I do see that Baker does like one — former — Justice’s “opinion” on the 2A.

Even conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said the argument that it referred to individual gun ownership (and not the clearly stated “well-regulated militia” being necessary to “the security of a free State”) was a misrepresentation of the Constitution, law, and history.

I love how these anti-rights types trot out that Parade magazine opinion from an elderly retiree. If Burger truly thought that the 2A was being misinterpreted…

why didn’t he use his position as Chief Justice to espouse it, instead of waiting until retirement to write an opinion column not subject to Associate Justice ridicule and judicial dissent?

I’ll see Baker’s 30-something year-old magazine opinion, and raise him four real SCOTUS decisions: HELLER, MCDONALD, CAETANO, and BRUEN. That’s on top of MILLER, CRUIKSHANK, PRESSER, and even DRED SCOTT, all prior to Burger’s little adventure in post-retirement attention-seeking.

Baker had better hope that the Courts don’t get disavowed. The little remaining confidence in the courts is the only thing standing between himself, and his doorkickers, and six to twelve million heavily armed, non-compliant SOBs.

authoritarian swine, gun grabbers, Humor

Credit Where Credit Is Due

April 25, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 1 Comment

Twit “Ballin” has answered the question of who will volunteer to bell the confiscation cat; kick in doors and grab the guns.

He will. Just as soon as the Second Amendment is “banned.” This was a reply to Creepy Uncle Gropey’s Twitter announcement* that he’s running for pseudo-reelection.

Ban the second amendment, I will start up a gun confiscation team where me and my brothers will start going door to door and arresting those who don’t hand their firearms in.

No doubt he thinks the senile groper-in-chief will just sign an executive order “banning” a Constitutional amendment. He doesn’t seem too bright, so I doubt he’s actually considered the magnitude of the task he’s set himself.

I do hope he and his brothers provide their own body bags. If not, well… canvas, lime, pigs, coyotes, gators… We’ll have it covered.

* An interesting announcement video; 3 minutes of interspersed audio and video clips, mostly from previous appearances and statements. Apparently they couldn’t get 3 minutes of him simply speaking coherently, specifically on his reelection.

Courts, duty, Law, shooting

Yet Another Interesting Baldwin/Rust Shooting Development

April 23, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 6 Comments

You may recall that I’ve been wondering how a live round ever made it onto the Rust set.

One thing that always bothered me was presence of live rounds on site at all. Where did they come from? Who brought them? How did at least one end up in the gun?

We may have a better idea of who that was, now. Armorer Gutierrez-Reed had tried suggesting the company that supplied blanks had mixed the live rounds in with the right stuff. The forensic examination of components strongly suggested otherwise. Then there was the report that she had retrieved the gun after the shooting, before the police arrived, and removed the spent case. That’s odd,and sounds rather like tampering with evidence.

I just ran across this tidbit, which — if true — may explain a lot.

The New York Post reports that police gathered text messages from Reed that indicated she had attempted to use live ammunition on the set of her previous film.

Did she bring them again, for the Rust filming? And was she trying to conceal evidence of what she’d done? I suppose we’ll see when her trial starts.

This may be part of the new forensic evidence that the prosecutors cited when dropping charges against Baldwin for now. I still think the actor completely failed to exercise “due caution and circumspection,” but if Gutierrez-Reed herself knowingly brought the live rounds onto the set, and loaded one into the gun, a lot more of the culpability for the resulting death and injury shifts her way. Not all, but some.

Law, Media

Baldwin’s Gun Was Modified?

April 21, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 1 Comment

This claim comes via the not-so-reliable LA Times.

‘Rust’ prosecutors drop charges against Alec Baldwin after questions over gun misfire
The development came after prosecutors received new information in the case — that Baldwin’s prop gun had been modified before being delivered to the low-budget western in October 2021, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment.

The replica of the vintage weapon — a Colt .45 revolver — had been modified , increasing the odds that the gun might have misfired, as Baldwin has said, according to the sources.

Methinks someone neglected to read the FBI forensic report on the testing of the gun. Here’s is the relevant portion (page 6).

TL;DR: They tried to force it to fire without pulling the trigger by pounding on the hammer with a mallet 1) with the hammer down, 2) at quarter cock, 3) at half cock, and 4) at full cock. The only detonation occurred in the full cock position…

…when they pounded the hammer so hard that the sear sheered.

Prior to the breakage, the gun operated properly and would not fire.

Accidental Discharge Testing

Hammer at rest (de-cocked on a loaded chamber)
With the hammer at rest on a loaded chamber, Item 2 detonated a primer without a pull of the trigger when the hammer was struck directly. With a revolver of this design, when the hammer is at rest on a loaded chamber, the firing pin sits directly on the primer of the cartridge. When force is applied to the hammer, such as striking or dropping, it can fire the cartridge without a pull of the trigger. This is consistent with normal operation for a single-action revolver of this design.

Hammer at ¼ and ½ cock positions
With the hammer in the ¼ and ½ cock positions, Item 2 could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger. When enough pressure was applied to the trigger, each of these safety positions were overcome and the hammer fell. This is consistent with normal operation for a single-action revolver of this design.

With the hammer in the ¼ cock position, pressure was applied to the trigger and the hammer fell, however the firing pin did not have enough force to detonate the primer and resulted in light firing pin strikes.

With the hammer in the ½ cock position, pressure was applied to the trigger and the hammer fell, however the cylinder could not be properly aligned to the bore, the firing pin struck the outer headstamp area and did not detonate the primer.

Hammer at full cock position

With the hammer in the full cock position, Item 2 could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional. During this testing, portions of the trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. The fracture of these internal components allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin and detonated the primer. This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms.

This claim that the gun was modified makes me wonder if they got the gun back from the FBI, noticed that now it can misfire, but overlooked the FBI statement that they broke the sear themselves, which most definitely had been working properly pre-mallet-pounding.

I’d like to know who these unnamed sources are, and just what their “familiarity” is. Designated defense teams leakers, perhaps?

Culture, gun control, Humor, Law

Gun Control Schadenfreude

April 21, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger

I don’t normally turn to Vice for news, but this is too good to skip.

The Washington state legislature passed an “assault weapons ban,” HB 1240. It seems to be fairly bog standard as these things go: cosmetic characteristics that they swear “are not “merely cosmetic”,” and doesn’t actually ban any existing firearm. Just future sales and transfers. But…

Ah, schadenfreude! Vice, for once, is freaking out over a gun control law, because the Washington lefties…

Washington Is Banning Assault Rifles and Left-Wing Gun Owners Are Scared
But some Washington residents told VICE News that they’re worried the ban creates a situation where “traditional” gun owners—white, male conservatives—are sitting on an arsenal of high-powered weapons, which emerging demographics of gun owners, like LGBTQ people, leftists and minorities, no longer have access to.

Suck it up, buttercups. You wanted it, you got it. You should have thought things through.

“This is also the worst time to unilaterally disarm a population of left-minded individuals,” George said. “These next five or 10 years might decide the fate of America, and when the music stops and the next January 6 happens and we’re all scrambling to find a chair, I’m worried that the fascists will be the ones with all the guns.”

I can’t stop chuckling.

But who are the fascists, George? The evil right-wingers who just want to be left alone, or the folks who wanted government control over an entire class of firearms, and the population?

gun control, gun grabbers, Law, Politics, Rights, Terrorism, Violence-Enabling Victim Disarmers

So Much For Workplace Violence

April 21, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 1 Comment

Based on the majority of snooze stories, I was chalking up the Louisville bank shooting to workplace violence. Multiple reports had it that he had been, or was about to be, fired. Not so much, apparently.

While the Feeble Bureau of Intimidation is all fired up over right-wing domestic extremists and infiltrating conservative Catholic churches, things like lefty women thinking they’re men and shooting schools get missed.

Or lefty gun control activists shooting up banks.

EXCLUSIVE: Motive for massacre: Louisville bank shooter [Whale Chum ]* wrote chilling 13-page manifesto laying out his THREE reasons for killing spree: To prove how easy it is to buy a gun, highlight America’s mental health crisis…and kill himself
Louisville bank shooter [Bucket O’Chum]* wrote a chilling manifesto before slaughtering five senior executives at the branch where he worked, DailyMail.com can exclusively reveal.

[Some asshole] made three key points in the manifesto, which is in the hands of the police: he wanted to kill himself, he wanted to prove how easy it was to buy a gun in Kentucky and he wanted to highlight a mental health crisis in America.

Hmm. On the one hand, he seemingly thought that there’s some much “gun violence” that guns must be further restricted. On the other hand, apparently there wasn’t enough gun violence, so he had to stage some himself.

What the SOB really was… was a terrorist. No different than a psycho suicide bomber.

(A)involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

Good riddance.

Victim disarmers will probably — secretly — consider him a martyr. The Daily Mail report seems to; given the way they use his case to illustrate why he was “right” and Kentucky gun laws are dangerously lax. Why if you aren’t a known criminal, and haven’t been ruled mentally ill, or use illegal drugs, or any of the other restrictions on gun possession, and if you’re old enough… why, you can go to a gun store, undergo a background check (to confirm all the above) and by a gun.

* I won’t give him the post mortem fame he wanted by using his name, unless it’s necessary for research. Clearly, the Daily Mail doesn’t agree; they give his name 33 times in just that one report.

Username

Password


Remember me

Forgot Password?
Join Us
Logged out successfully.

Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.