Category Archives: gun control

How to End “Gun” Violence in Three Easy Lessons

After every high profile shooting, the usual suspects dance in the blood and cry out for a solution to “gun” violence. Somehow, knife, baseball, and fist violence don’t rate.

The proferred “solutions” always involve more rules and laws that restrict the rights of people who didn’t do it. Laws that, oddly enough, won’t apply to the folks perpetrating the violence. They specifically blame the innocent for the acts of criminals.

Laws that regulate things that had nothing to do with the shooting.

Laws that already don’t work.

When rational people point that out, the gun people controlling victim disarmers plug their ears and run around chanting, “Nyah, nyah; can’t hear you!” and claim we don’t have any better ideas.

Yes. I do. I’ve mentioned them a time or two over the decades. And for the disarmers’ convenience, here they are. Three basic reforms that would fix most of the “gun” (and other weapons) violence: incarceration, education, and defense.

Incarceration

End catch and release sentencing policies for violent criminals. If they’re that dangerous, you don’t need to be putting them back on the street. Repeat felons would not be eligible for plea bargains. Victim restitution must be included.

End “3 strikes” style sentencing guidelines that actually encourage criminals to escalate (i.e.- two time loser kills next victim to eliminate witnesses).

Reform sentencing guidelines to promote rehabilitation. Regardless of sentence length, the criminal will not be eligible for parole or release until he has successfully completed a course of study. For first offenders without a high school diploma, that can be a General Equivalency Diploma program. For repeat offenders and those who have a high school diploma or GED, it will be a trade school such as welding, machinist, mechanic. Also acceptable will be a college degree program in hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) or engineering. Soft sciences (sociology, psychology, etc.) or liberal arts that prepare one for a career as a minimum wage barista will not qualify. Some industries or businesses might sponsor training programs, for a source of skilled workers who they’ve had a chance to observe improving their lot.

Instead of eliminating questions about criminal history from job applications, we could add, “And what new useful skill are you bringing me that experience?”

Divert money from victim disarming “gun” control programs to increase staffing and training in parole offices. The goal there is to have sufficient parole and probation officers to properly supervise and counsel their subjects. Parole/probation should require gainful employment or continuing — successful — education (maintain C average, for instance).

Education

The public school system is broken. Taken over by education majors who’ve rewritten the rules to require an education major to be a teacher, rather than a degree in the subject(s) taught. Schools focus on socialization over learning. They’re full of the latest, ever-evolving theories of teaching subjects they do not understand The result is high school graduates who are not literate enough to fill out a job application or capable of balancing a check book. Too often those people — otherwise unemployable — fail at boring unskilled labor and turn to lucrative crime.

Schools must abandon social justice, and teach basic skills: reading (to the point of reading a novel and comprehending it), writing (to the point of drafting a comprehensible resume cover letter), mathematics (balancing a check book and estimating whether you’ve got enough gas in the tank to reach your destination), basic science (basic laws or motion, enough biology to under what allosomes do in mammals, enough chemistry to understand why mixing vinegar and baking soda doesn’t make a great cleaning product, and why there’s no such thing as chemical-free food). I had a science who believed that potatoes have zero calories.

Classes that teach actual life skills like old style home economics, shop, and basic firearms safety are good.

English. English. English. Classes must teach and be taught in English. English has been the defacto majority language in the US for a very long time. If a person cannot function in English, she’ll be severely limited in employment and life opportunities.

America does not have the educational resources to hire qualified teachers in every subject for every possible at-home language. We cannot have parallel English/Spanish/Somali/Arabic/whatever curricula. If a student does not function at an age appropriate level in English, that student should be placed in a remedial English class until she achieves a level which allows her to successfully participate in the regular curriculum.

I knew two women at a company whose first language was Spanish. One woman only had a few words of English and had worked in her section for years. She could not get promoted up. As a new hire, I had to read instructions for her and show her how to do her job. She was not stupid; she simply never bothered learning English.

The other woman was fluent in spoken and written English. Since she was able to read technical manuals and parts diagrams, she was immediately hired in another department at a much higher wage.

If a Somali won’t learn English, he’ll most likely be restricted to his local Somalian community, with limited employment opportunities. Perhaps all he’ll be able to do for a living is sell drugs to his neighbors, in competition with folks who will shoot it out over turf.

End peer promotion. You aren’t protecting someone’s self-esteem by promoting him to a higher level where he’s going to fail again. Hold him back until he learns. If he’s ashamed to share a class with younger folks, he can work harder.

If he works hard enough, he can test to see if he is ready to rejoin his former classmates in the more advanced class. He can be proud that he accomplished something himself, instead of it being given to him. Maybe he’ll learn to appreciate that over a sense of entitlement.

For that, any student who believes herself to be ready can take the tests for high school graduation; if she passes — regardless of age — she gets her diploma and walks out.

It wouldn’t break my heart to see it made a felony to graduate a person who is functionally illiterate after twelve years of “schooling.” My sisters — 2 and 4 years older than I — taught me to read before I started school. We have “teachers” far less effective than a couple of untrained little girls.

Self Defense

The last time a nuclear weapon was used in combat on this planet was fifteen years before I was born. Like it or not, one reason for that was deterrence. Mutual Assured Destruction was… ahem, overkill, but no one dropped nukes because they didn’t want anyone replying in kind.

Criminals, being human, too, also realize this. There have surveys of inmates which showed that given a choice of targets, criminals will choose to avoid a potential victim they believe may be armed. I have personally heard convicted felons state that flatly.

I also saw a dayroom full of inmates who were watching a news report on “gun control.” Their consensus was that gun control, and firearms bans in particular, would be a good thing. One inmate gleefully noted how helpful it would be to disarm victims, and “I’ll always be able to get a gun when I’m out anyway.”

Please note that “studies” allegedly showing lower rates of violence or crime in places with stronger “gun” control typically lump in suicide with real crime, exclude violence with other implements, or use artificial — nonexistent, that is — “synthetic states” for comparisons. Cherry-picking time frames is also popular.

The reality is otherwise. Baltimore has strong “gun” control laws, and the highest murder rate in the country at more than 55 per 100,000 people. That’s worse than Venezuela or cartel-ridden Mexico. For that matter both Venezuela and Mexico have very restrictive gun laws.

Licenseless New Hampshire and Vermont generally vie for the last nationwide slot for homicides and violent crime.

So the ability of noncriminals to defend themselves will reduce violent crime; through deterrence and — if widespread — Darwinian selection. Dead would-be killers are rarely recidivists.

So…

National reciprocal carry is a good start. National “constitutional carry” is better.

A national Stand Your Ground (SYG) law that places the burden of proving guilt on prosecution, rather than requiring an honest defender to prove his innocence, is good. If a criminal killer says, “I didn’t do it.” the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If a lawful gun owners, “I did it in self defense.” the burden shifts to him sans SYG.

The police must stop regarding a holstered or slung weapon as probably cause for stopping, questioning, and too often shooting noncriminals. Particularly when they, ironically, have holstered or slung weapons. Lawful gun owners make up such a tiny fraction of a percent of firearms-wielding murderers that being in possession of a car is as much an indicator of criminal intent as gun possession.

Divert money from useless gun “buybacks” to free firearms classes for the community. More people trained will mean more honest people carrying (deterring criminals who’ll probably have to move to Baltimore), and even fewer firearms accidents.

Kill the National Instant Check System (NICS). It doesn’t work. Really, they don’t. Mostly because criminals usually get their guns from their own social networks. Not even at gun shows or online sales.

But lawful gun owners who want protection from bad guys, don’t really want to inadvertently sell guns to bad guys. So put the thumb-twiddlers at NICS to work on “Blind Identification Database System” (BIDS). Either allow private sellers access to the system, or pay dealers to run the checks without paperwork (unless someone fails, maybe).

Establish “firearms assistance” programs for poor but honest folks who can’t afford guns, ammunition, and practice. If abortion, nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, is a right worthy of subsidy, certainly protection should be supported.

We need more ranges, too.

Local and state governments could promote self defense, and raise money for it, by running gun lotteries. Pow’R Ball, if you will. Prizes could be high end defensive tools, ammunition, accessories, gift cards, and range memberships.

There you have it the — already declining — problem of “gun” violence (all criminal violence) largely solved.

1. Teaching people the things they need to function in an honest society.
2. Providing second chances and skills to those who slip and survive.
3. Providing skills and equipment to those who want to stop the real violence.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Stung

So the talk of the twon is the GAO’s Internet Firearms Sales report.

That would be the one — commissioned by anti-human/civil rights activists Elijah Cummings [D-MD]and Elizabeth Warren [D-MA] — in which the GAO attempted to purchase guns on the Internet while posing as prohibited persons.

They made 72 attempts on public sites. All failed. Twice, they thought they’d succeeded only to discover they were scammed; folks took their our money and never shipped guns.

Go figure. Gun owners who often are gun owners because they want protection against bad guys are generally not going to knowingly provide guns to bad guys.

Well, they had to come up with something for Congressional weasels, so they went to the “Dark Web,” to sites specifically set up for illegal black market transactions. They skipped the part about claiming to be prohibited persons.

And still only succeeded twice, out of seven attempts. I have no doubt that Cummings and Warren will present that as a 29% success rate rather than 2.5%.

If it’s really that high. One firearm they purchased was billed as an Uzi converted to full-auto. The report notably says, “If the firearm meets the NFA’s definition of a machine gun, the seller’s prior possession of the Uzi, and the shipment to our agent, likely violated federal law.” Which means they aren’t sure they got what they ordered.

Interestingly, while the report mentions prices paid in other online stings, they neglect to tells us how much they paid for an old AR-15 or a dubiously “converted” subgun.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

große Lüge: Firearms are “grossly unregulated”

We’ve discussed the große Lüge of victim disarming gun people controllers. Another lie on the list is this one:

NRA Unveils Drivable Gun That Doesn’t Require Registration Or A License To Operate
Again, NFA items not the point (just as tanks and ICBMs aren’t). Firearms are grossly under-regulated in the United States by comparison with other nations who (surprise!) have far less problems with gun violence.

“Gulliver” appears to be the author of that failed attempt at satire. “Gulliver” also appears to have bought the big lie.

Let’s see how “under-/unregulated firearms are. I’ve done this in abbreviated form in the past, but this will be a little more detailed.

[“Gun Culture” types can stop here; you know this, more than likely. This column is for the less-informed like “Gulliver,” whoever s/he/ze/zyr/&tpen/@/it may be.]

Manufacturing
Naturally, a firearms manufacturer has to comply with all the same rules that any other manufacturer faces: OSHA, EPA, labor law, finance… it’s a long list, which is why we have to import a lot of stuff; regulatory compliance makes it too expensive to actually make a lot of stuff in America these days.

Moving on, we have firearms specific laws and regulations. First, you need a Federal Firearms License to build guns for sale. Usually that will be a Type 7 FFL. Maybe.

Let’s say you had a potentially great idea for a system that disperses fire retardant chemicals over an area. You think it’s just the thing for suppressing forest or grass fires on the perimeter. Fire departments and ranchers will love it. Your system is a 40 millimeter “grenade” full of said chemicals, fired from a light weight polymer launcher.

Whoops. 40mm makes that a “destructive device.” Now you need a Type 10 FFL. And you’ll mostly be able to sell it to governments; tougher for volunteer fire departments of ranchers. Manufacturing the rounds for the launcher also requires a Type 9 FFL, so it’s no good contracting out just the launcher while you assemble the ammunition.

So you scale it back to 37mm. It’s less effective than 40, but better than nothing.

Or maybe you say the heck with it, and move on to a different product. Howa bout a short self defense shotgun with a 14 inch barrel? If you put a standard shoulder stock on it, it becomes a short-barrel shotgun, and buyers will need a market-limiting tax stamp. If you put a pistol grip on the same exact action, it’s magically not. You aren’t sure why, since smoothbore pistols are “Any Other Weapons” (AOW) and require tax stamps. But the ATF made a ruling. (Ghu save the buyer if he puts a shoulder stock on it without getting a tax stamp.)

That’s too complicated, so you decide to enter the light weight polymer defensive pistol market. You have a fantastic design that makes even the slide nonmetallic. This will be easy to to carry on a daily basis.

But is it too light? Federal law bans the production of nonmetallic “undetectable” firearms, even if the dense polymer shows up in x-rays. If your metal barrel is underweight, you have to build in a chunk of nonremovable metal, raising the weight of your previously light weight sidearm.

The heck with it, let’s just make a cute little pistol out of metal, that looks like a cell phone. Except that might be an AOW, too; so you’d better submit a sample to the ATF and get a ruling.

One these is a pistol, and one is an AOW cell phone gun. Which is yours?

Hmm… how ’bout a simple little pen shaped gun (made of metal, of course). You’d best submit your design to the ATF again.

One of these is a pistol, and one is an AOW pen gun. Which did you submit to the ATF?

 

Argh! All right. Conventional pistol, with the action simplified to make it cheap to machine.

Wait. You didn’t make that an open bolt design, did you? That’s a machinegun. I know it’s just a semiautomatic-only, but new open-bolts are automatically machineguns now, under firearms regulations.

Good Bog, you’re trapped in a regulatory maze, and you haven’t even built anything yet!

OK, screw it. You’ll build a simple autoloader pistol. Reverse engineer a Raven with enough differences not run afoul of any patents, and better quality. Good to go.

So you start building guns. Which have to be marked: manufacturer, serial number, caliber. You’re CNC milling these, so you do the marking during initial milling to minimize the process.

Bad move. Every firearm you make — and it’s a firearm once marked — has to be logged in the books for ATF inspection. Yes, inspections. If you make one and it fails quality control testing, and you destroy it, you have to log that, and prove you destroyed it.

So you mark it afterwards. No, no, no! You can’t do that. If firearms are not marked, that’s illegal, too. You’ll just have to guess at what point in production the serial numbers are required. Good luck complying with that rule.

Umm… you did do the marking in the approved font, in the regulated size, and to the specified depth? Right?

But somehow you manage. Your firearms are ready to ship. You exchange FFL paperwork with distributors across the country (under firearms laws and regulations, you can’t ship to end buyers). And away you go!

Wait a minute there, bud. You didn’t design that pistol for a round which the ATF considers armor-piercing (this week), did you? Back to the drawing board.

So it’s finally ready for prime time. Keep your fingers crossed.

State Laws and Regulations
First, you need assorted state (and possibly local) licenses to operate. Not just any old manufacturer licensing; that and licensing specific to firearms. There be additional zoning laws to keep firearms manufacturing out of areas where other manufacturing is allowed. Forget being within miles of a one room schoolhouse in the country.

You can’t just start shipping out federally legal guns to anywhere. Some states will require you to submit samples for evaluation and approval. Massachusetts wants to be sure they’re “safe” and don’t look too much like weapons they banned that complied with their rules but also looked too much like guns they don’t like.

California will do the same and more. Is the gun too small? Too big? Will it pass drop testing? Did you remember to submit a sample of every single variation you make? That means if you offer the pistol with black plastic grip panels and pink plastic grip panels, you have to submit two complete pistols in both colors. We’re aren’t sure how color makes a difference, but we aren’t smoking what the California legislature smokes.

Whoops! Your pistol doesn’t microstamp pistol-identifying data on the case of each round fired, in two places. Yes, we know the technology doesn’t yet exist to do that, but California apparently has really good weed.

So you just scratch off some large potential markets and just ship a firearm that complies with physical reality to the sane parts of the country. Or…

You could say the hell with manufacturing. Eliminate the need for FFLs and all that garbage. You go back to your plastic pistol design and tweak the 3D printing files so the design complies with all federal laws (minimum metal content, and such), and sell those on the Internet. You can draw on the Defense Distributed Ghost Gunner market; they have the mill, you can supply really cool printer files, right?

You’re going to prison for violating ITAR arms export laws and regulations. Yep, more of those “grossly under regulated” laws and regs.

At this point, maybe you’re thinking that firearms manufacturing is too tough and you’ll just say the hell with it and make something safe. Like shoelaces.

Sorry, that might a machinegun, too. Better get an FFL anyway, just in case the ATF changes the rules again.

Back to just selling legal pistols in the safe parts of the US.

The Retail World

So — complying with all federal and state laws and regulations — you sell a shipment of Super-Concealed Thug Slayer pistols to a distributor. Distributor checks laws and regs and sells some to a fully compliant retail FFL (yes, another federal firearms license). The retailer follows all laws and regs and logs the guns into his bound book for ATF inspection.

The FFL dealer also has state and local laws and regulations to deal with. Some zoning laws keep him out of cities altogether. If someone builds a church a thousand feet away, he might be forced to relocate or close. He’ll be required to install security systems beyond that required for banks or jewelry stores. He’ll be required to pull all his merchandise off the shelves and lock them in a safe in a back room after hours, even if the cases are unbreakable and the store has roll-down blast-proof shutters. He might be required to install anti-vehicle barricades to prevent thieves driving a stolen car through his store front.

The dealer is required to be a mindreader or precognitive, capable of determining whether a customer who meets all legal requirements is really a straw-purchaser, or might commit mass murder years down the road, or if the ATF overrides a NICS denial to allow an unlawful sale so they can pretend to “entrap” someone. He’ll be required to provide unlicensed mental health counseling for potentially suicidal customers; he’ll be required to be an unlicensed psychologist to make that diagnosis.

Joe Citizen walks into the Isher Weapons Shop and likes your gun. He presents state-issued photo ID, fills out a multi-page form swearing that he is allowed by the feds to purchase a firearm. As required, he informs the feds of his race. In some states, Joe will also present his license to merely own a firearm (more PPYI, fingerprinting, photos, taxes and fees, probably training). The dealer calls the FBI to complete a prior restraint on the would-be buyer’s constitutional rights requiring him to preemptively prove his innocence.

If the buyer is lucky, the FBI will approve the sale. If he isn’t lucky, they might make him wait a few days for approval/denial. If the FBI doesn’t respond in three days, the dealer has the option of completing or killing the sale. If the buyer is really unlucky, the FBI will declare him a prohibited person and deny the sale.

Joe Citizen, being a law-abiding type, can’t understand why the sale was denied. Assuming he isn’t in one of the states that requires the dealer to report him to the police (whereupon he’s arrested, charged, jailed, etc.), he files an appeal of the denial. Maybe he knows that virtually all NICS denials are false positives, and it’ll all get straightened out. Some day. Maybe. Because there’s a backlog of tens of thousands of unprocessed appeals.

But we’ll back up; Joe was legal and got his new defense pistol. He takes it home and locks it in a safe (per state “safe storage” laws, with ammunition locked away in a separate safe). Because he has not yet also gone through the PPYI check, fingerprinting, photographing, mandatory training by state-approved/licensed instructors, and paid the taxes and fees for a separate carry license for that specific firearm in his state (even though he’s already licensed for the Super-Concealed Thug Slayer with blue grip panels. Bog save him if he lives in Hawaii, where his license is only good in one county and he’ll have to try to repeat the process in every county to which he might travel.

Well, perhaps. In some states, there’s a mandatory waiting period before he can take his new pistol home. He still has to pay for, but he must wait. Even though the point of the federal NICS “instant background PPYI check” was to eliminate waiting periods. He must wait to prevent him from doing anything impulsive with that gun. He must wait even if he already owns a dozen guns with which he could act impulsively. Because of grossly under-regulated guns.

The “End User”

But finally Joe takes it home. After registering it, depending on state. Hopefully with ammunition he purchased after yet another round of PPYI checks, in some states.

And that night, some goblin breaks in, murders Joe, gets into the safe, and steals that Super-Concealed Thug Slayer you built and sold. Goblin steals a Ford Escort, uses it to plow down a bunch of pedestrians, then uses your product to finish off the survivors.

What’s that got to do with you? It’s your fault. Not Ford’s fault, even though Goblin used a Ford. Not the Ford dealer. Not the Ford’s owner. But it is Joe’s fault for negligently storing the gun in a safe that the Goblin could get into after Joe negligently let himself be murdered. Thanks goodness you excluded California sales, or Joe’s estate might be prosecuted for dead Joe failing to report the stolen firearm.

It’s the dealer’s fault for following all local, state, and federal laws. Ditto for the negligent distributor. And most especially you, Mr. Manufacturer, for making and marketing a weapon to kill people.

“But the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects me if I followed all the rules and someone else misused my product,” you cry. “Why not sue Ford?”

Possibly they’ll get around to it, though it seems unlikely. But you engaged in “negligent marketing.” By obeying the grossly under-regulating state and federal laws and regulations that damned near kept you out of the market in the first place.

Welcome to the wonderful world of unregulated firearms. Next week, we’ll talk about the laws, regulations, and rules surrounding ammunition for those unregulated guns. If my head doesn’t explode; I may need a Federal Explosives License from the ATF for that.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

New Years Eve or Sylvester Night

While much of the world celebrated New Years Eve as the start of a fresh new civil year, it is not the same for Jews. Remember, the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah, began at sunset on September 20th, 2017. New years eve is also known as Sylvester night. Sylvester night has long been known as a scheduled pogrom night. This column explains it very well. But here are some salient points.

This evening was, once the calendar settled on December 25th as Christmas, calculated to be the night preceding the circumcision of the child born in the “little town of Bethlehem”, therefore a call for the local peasants to engage in drinking, making merry and killing Jews.

Darkness along with the silence before a storm reigned in Jewish shteitls (small villages) that night in an attempt to make it harder to find defenseless victims, barricaded behind the flimsy doors of their huts. Torah study, which was done by the light of candles, was thus impossible.
As opposed to random pogroms and other manifestations of Jew hatred, this was a predictable yearly date.

A “Yerushalmi”, i.e. someone who lived in the Old City of Jerusalem before the State of Israel was declared, once told me that in this part of the world they would barricade their doors on Easter Sunday, knowing that the traditional Christian procession would often end in rioting against the local Jews.

Sylvester was Pope from January 31, 314 C.E. to December 31, 335 C.E. His Saint’s Day is the day he was buried, and it falls on December 31 of every year, that is since the civil solar calendar was straightened out (the Jewish calendar is a lunar one).

“On New Years Day 1577 Pope Gregory XIII decreed that all Roman Jews, under pain of death, must listen attentively to the compulsory Catholic conversion sermon given in Roman synagogues after Friday night services.  On New Years Day 1578 Gregory signed into law a tax forcing Jews to pay for the support of a ‘House of Conversion’ to convert Jews to Christianity.  On New Years 1581 Gregory ordered his troops to confiscate all sacred literature from the Roman Jewish community.  Thousands of Jews were murdered in the campaign.

“The Israeli term for New Year’s night celebrations, Sylvester, was the name of the ‘Saint’ and Roman Pope who reigned during the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.).  The year before the Council of Nicaea convened, Sylvester is said to have convinced Constantine to prohibit Jews from living in Jerusalem.

I know that’s a lot of quoting, but I think you understand what I mean when I say it’s not the same New Years Eve commonly thought of. I want to compare history with today. Easy one first, Jerusalem. This is actually the most cheerful one of the lot. While perhaps the media would have you believe that the Arab world is united standing behind the Falestinians, that is not at all the case. They are not. Now, the UN, that is another story. No matter who it is, if Israel is involved, the UN stands behind them in condemning Israel. If Israel were invaded by something out of the movie “Independence Day” or “Men In Black” the UN would unite behind the space invaders who want to destroy all of humanity to condemn Israel. Iran slaughtering it’s citizens? Yawn. And the Israeli politicians are finally, perhaps, beginning to act like all of Israel, is well, Israel. There were two good bills passed. The United Jerusalem bill and the bill calling for Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. You should check out the link on the United Jerusalem bill just to see the jaw dropping beautiful picture of Jerusalem they used with the article. So this New Years does show some good things happening as compared to the past.

Now let’s look at the part about Pope Gregory and his tax forcing Jews to pay for a house of conversion. France it seems has decided to open a special tax branch, to investigate Jews only. Yep, secular France is going after Jews with their very own tax branch. From Pamela Geller

My various sources in Paris tell me it is life for Jews in France is intolerable. The large spike in Muslim immigration has made the terrible – the horrible. Daily humiliations and the constant threat of violence are their constant companions. And it is widely known that going to the police is pointless. The police have long turned a blind eye to the war on country’s Jews.

So that part is about the same, except they attacks and killing seems to be coming from the imported Muslims and the tax part is coming from the government. Not both from the same source, not that who it comes from affects the outcome much.

So regarding at attacks, let’s look at another country which is becoming Muslim dominant, jolly old England, and specifically London. London proudly did the politically correct thing and elected a Muslim mayor. Not sure that they think it turned out all that well, well at least the law abiding citizens may not. We know islamic terror has been up under Mayor Sadiq who dismissed it as part and parcel of living in a big city. Raheem Kassam has a good column on how that’s played out for Londoners as crime has skyrocketed.

It would seem that while Christians attacking Jews has dropped way off, in fact I don’t know of any recently, there may have been, I haven’t heard of it, muslim attacks have not decreased at all, in fact they are increasing I would say.

Which brings me to a particular attack that occurred recently in Jerusalem. The was an attack against two Jewish kids in Jerusalem. In case you don’t know what a 2013 EASY attack looks like, here ya go.

A pack of Falestinians attack and the crowd grows ever bigger, even the “kids” get in on the fun. A game the whole family can play it seems.

In this particular attack, the victims were beaten. They reported it to the police, who opened an investigation and caught the “arab youths” or as we might call them, “thugs”. This column was from Arutz Sheva.

I found out later from another column that someone shared there is a bit more to it than that. They were forced to convert to Islam, to praise the terrorist organization Hamas, and curse the State of Israel and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And all the while it was being video taped. In addition to going to the police, they went to the legal organization Honenu. Forced conversion version 2018. Side note, this is no big deal as it’s been going on in Germany and America for awhile, just minus the beating part.

Boston Public School Teaching Islamic Conversion Prayer to Elementary Students

Children Forced to Recite ‘Allahu Akhbar’, Learn Muslim Prayer by Heart

Lawsuit: Public school forced my child to convert to Islam

This attack violated their body and their soul. Shades of Pope Gregory. Of course, the Pope is still attacking Jews, so that hasn’t changed.

I would maintain the Haredi are easy targets. Their clothing sets them apart, and it’s well known that they have no military service, and so no self defense skills. Unless of course they are attacking a lone female IDF soldier who attempts to clear them out of the road when they are blocking traffic.

Why they didn’t do that when they were attacked by the arabs I don’t kno….yeah, I do.

They don’t know their enemy. Reminiscent of Moshe Feiglin asking a the Chief of Staff who the enemy was, Hamass or the tunnel and the the Chief of Staff couldn’t answer.

My answer of course is predictable. I think all the Israeli citizens, well, all citizens, need to be allowed to carry concealed. Moshe, of course agrees with me. From August 2016 Give the Good Guys Guns and from May 2014 Gun Control? Or Citizen Control? Some governments view us as the enemy. We are not. They don’t know who their enemy is. We are people that don’t wish to experience a modern day Sylvester night. The government and the liberal leftists with their paid bodyguards think normal little people, us unwashed masses are “dangerous”. I would ask why they think that? What is it they want to do that they think we will resist, and they want to remove the most effective means of resistance we have? The tools that make us dangerous. They haven’t yet figured out it’s what’s in our head, not our hand that makes people dangerous. Dangerous. Reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend not all that long ago. A person can be dangerous, and they can be good or evil. It’s not that fact that they are dangerous you need to fear. It’s whether they are good or evil. I want to be dangerous. I want to have the ability to protect myself and my family. I want to be dangerous, I have no intention of kneeling on the ground reciting islamic conversion sentences. I want to stand on my own two feet and scream Shema at them and have them run. His point was, we have to know who we are, and what we are. To me, being dangerous is an asset. I have no desire to huddle behind a flimsy door afraid to have a light on. I have no desire to see a modern day Sylvester night, no matter who is perpetrating it.

New year, new start. I will give you this by Rabbi Johnathan Sacks, Five Ideas for Life. We are all here for a purpose I believe. We all have something we were meant to accomplish. I believe we are happiest when we know what that is and we are fulfilling that purpose. We have to know ourselves. So my goal for this year is to become better at my purpose, for my soul to become closer to what G-d created it to be. I want to be a child that makes him smile as he thinks, ah, she is catching on. I want to be dangerous, and I want to lose that ten pounds.

And so to help you stay dangerous, I have a little goodie for you. Stephen Wenger who wrote DEFENSIVE USE OF FIREARMS is making the book available as a free download! This fantastic book is out of print, so this e-version is a great way to start your new year. Thank you Stephen for permission to share!

I wish you all the bright promise the new year can bring, with hope, happiness, dreams fulfilled and all the good things that matter to you. And may you all stay dangerous, because whether it is New Years Eve or Sylvester night, depends on us.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Factually Challenged Keyboard Commandos

Bob Ault wants to ban…

Something.

Now is the time to discuss gun control: Letter to the Editor
We need sensible gun legislation now. We need to ban military style assault rifles, bump stocks and high capacity magazines now, and then move on to pass legislation for universal background checks for all gun sales, which is supported by 90 percent of Americas.

But he’s confused as to what. Is it insanely expensive, highly regulated, taxed, and registered assault rifles of very limited quantities? Or is is nonexistent “military style assault weapons“? If the latter, can he inform of us of what country in the world generally issues semiautomatic rifles to its regular troops?

He tells us that that 90% of Americas [sic] want unconstitutional prior restraint of a constitutionally protected right through universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence — PPYI (“background checks,” is his term). Can he tell us in what state such PPYI was actually approved by 90% of the population when put to a vote? I can’t help but recall polls predicting Jeb Bush would win the Republican primary, Clinton would defeat Trump, Moore ahead of Jones, or… heck, everyone knows Dewey beat Truman.

Can he tell us how PPYI would have stopped the Mandalay Bay murderer, who passed such checks; the Sutherland Springs killer, who passed such checks because the Air Force never reported his involuntary committal or domestic violence conviction; or the Sandy Hook murderer who bypassed checks by murdering his mother and stealing her guns? Can he explain how prohibited persons can be required to self-report their unlawful attempt to obtain firearms, which would be in violation of the Supreme Court’s Haynes decision?

Since Bob Ault believes there is no need for civilians to have weapons such as that possessed by the Sutherland Springs killer, does he believe the man who stopped the killer with his own AR-pattern rifle should instead have let him go to keep killing?

Can Mr. Ault explain, should a ban on semiautomatic rifles be enacted, how he expects to identify gun owners when mere estimates of their numbers range from 55 to 120 million; or to find the rifles when estimates of firearms in civilian hands range from 265 to 750 million?

If Ault’s solution involves kicking in the doors of 125 million households to search them all — in case they’re heavily armed — will he personally volunteer his jackbooted services?

[An abbreviated form of this column was sent to Cleveland.com as a Letter to the Editor in response to Bob Ault’s letter. It was not printed.]


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

By the Numbers

In recent years, victim disarmament advocates have been making more use of international firearms homicide rate comparisons. The United Kingdom used to be their go-to example, but that’s largely fallen by the wayside since, not only has its crime rate been growing as America’s has dropped, but they were outed for faking their low numbers.

These days, the line is, “The United States has the highest firearms murder rate of any developed nation,” along with assorted variations on the theme. Typically, they also throw in the fact that we have far more guns per person than any other country (I see that as a point of pride). When they want a specific example, they point to Australia and its post-Port Arthur confiscation and proclaim, “Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since,” carefully ignoring at least four mass shootings (using the anti-rights Gun Violence Archive’s definition of 4+ people shot, not counting the shooter). And then there’s the low confiscation compliance rate which has caused them to hold multiple “amnesties.”

Now, it’s true that Australia’s firearm-related homicide rate is only 0.16/100K, compared to the United States at 3.60/100K. But we’re allegedly talking about developed nations.

The United States is ranked first in the world by Gross Domestic Product. Australia comes in at number 13. Australia’s GDP is roughly one-fifteenth of the United States, less than 7% of ours. Peaceful Sweden is another country that the gun people controllers like to point to, with its 0.19/100K firearm homicide rate. But we’re talking economics, too. Sweden’s GDP ranks 23rd, well behind even Australia, and is just one thirty-sixth that of the US.

Instead, let’s try a country quite close by which is closer to Australia’s GDP than Sweden’s.

Our southern neighbor Mexico ranks 15th, with a GDP 83% of Australia’s. For that matter, there’s Brazil in the #9 slot. If Sweden is economically developed surely Brazil counts. But the gun grabbers don’t like to talk about them for some reason.

Said reason being:

Firearms-related homicide rates per 100K

Australia (13) 0.16
Sweden (23) 0.19
United States (1) 3.60
Mexico (15) 6.34
Brazil (9) 19.99

At this, the controllers are screeching that GDP is meaningless, that GDP per capita is the indicator of development. Well, no; that’s more an indicator of average wealth than development. And by per capita GDP Mexico does trail the US’s #7 ranking at #70. I think that says more about wealth distribution than development.

With Chinese made goods filling most department stores, I think we can agree that China is an industrially developed nation. They are producing that stuff we’re importing.

So is Mexico. Let’s look at our imports from various countries. We get $14.3 billion worth of vehicles from China. But we get $75.2 billion worth of vehicles from Mexico. That’s more than than we import from Japan, Korea, Germany, or any other country.

For total imports, Mexico is our second largest provider, behind China and ahead of Canada.

Yes, they’re developed. And with 15 guns per 100 people they have a firearms homicide rate almost double that of the US with 101 guns per hundred people. Brazil, with a mere 8 guns per 100 people, still manages a firearms homicide rate 5.5 times ours.

If guns and gun ownership were the problem, the United States would have depopulated itself decades ago.

Louisiana ranks 13th in gun ownership, but #1 in murder rate. Maryland is 43rd in gun ownership, but #5 in murder rate. Baltimore alone has a murder rate of 55.4/100K (and note that Maryland has strong gun control laws).

It isn’t the guns or the honest owners.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Do they care?

A comment was left on the post Commenting Now Open: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.

Carl… do you actually think any rational explanation of anything will influence the bureaucrats? Do you think that any of them CARE in the least? If they were the least influenced by reality, none of this would be happening.

That could almost be a template for things I’ve been told over the years. Strike out “bureaucrats” and insert “HOA,” “mayor,” “councilman,” “congresscreep,” “senator,” “reporter,” or “pollster.” It’s always pointless trying to reach these folks because they don’t care what us peons think.

I disagree.

I think there’s some value to outreach. Occasionally you reach someone whose mind isn’t closed and is willing to learn. Not the politicians and bureaucrats, of course.

But there is one bit of “reality” that will influence them. Sheer numbers.

So the periodic reminder that there are millions of honest gun owners who won’t play their game gives them pause. Given the blatant animosity towards the Constitution from people like Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer, Reid — and so many others — I think the only reason they haven’t attempted outright bans and confiscations is that there are too many us, too well armed. It’s too late to “bell the cat,” and they know it.

So they keep trying just a little bit at a time; testing the waters.

And we remind them that the waters still hold piranha. With lots of big teeth.

Do the bureaucrats of the ATF care about the facts in my rulemaking comment? Of course, not. But they do care that hundreds of gun owners per day let them know we’re still watching for those dipping toes.

That said, I strongly suspect we’ll initially lose the bump-fire battle because the ATF is notoriously stupid. They classified a shoestring as a machinegun. They thought no one would notice that they were overriding NICS to sell guns to felons and traffickers with the intent of arming Mexican cartels.

I think they’re looking at potential revenue, too. The request for comments asks manufacturers and retailers how many bump-fire stocks are out there. I’m sure they’re thinking, “Wow! Hunnerds of thousands of new NFA devices that people will have to fork out two hunnerd bucks a pop to keep, if we grandfather existing stocks. That’s millions in new revenue! Oak desks for everyone! Vegas ‘conferences’!

Initially. They think bump-fire stocks and trigger cranks are a small niche that we won’t fight for. They’re wrong, because the proposal is too broad. As my comment indicates, this redefines almost anything as a machinegun, including fingers.* They aren’t dipping a toe in the water this time; they’re sticking their foot in, and they’ll lose it. They’ll be forced to back off just as they did with the full-auto shoestring.

Because they do care. About our numbers, if not our words.


* If you don’t think the vaguely broad scope isn’t intentional, you haven’t been paying attention. If bump-fire stocks were all they were after, Feinstein’s bill could have read like this, or the ATF could have issued the same ruling:

1. It shall be unlawful to possess, transfer, or use an accessory

a. which attaches to a semiautomatic firearm to allow the firearm to be held securely which reciprocating forward and back with the purpose of using that motion to engage and disengage the trigger with no movement of the trigger finger.

b. which engages and operates the trigger of a firearm multiple times for each individual operation of the accessory; this includes, but is not limited to, trigger cranks or motorized gloves.

2. Accessories which do not result in multiple trigger operation per operation of the accessory are not prohibited. Non-prohibited accessories include, but are not limited to,

a. release triggers which allow a firearm to be fired when the trigger is released.

b. set triggers which allow the trigger to be partially pulled to reduce trigger weight for the final operation of the trigger

c. fire on pull and release triggers which operate with separate motions of the trigger finger.

d. replacement light weight triggers to improve accuracy of the firearm.

e. replacement recoil springs.

f. replacement mainsprings.

g. replacement light weight bolts or other reduced mass parts which lower the mass of the firearm.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

MeToo

I’m sure most folks are familiar with the ongoing social media trend with the hashtag #MeToo. It began when allegations of sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein began surfacing this fall, and continued to ever expand like ripples on a pond after a rock. Women who had been harassed,raped, and catcalled were all posting in response to an actresses’ request to respond to her tweet with #MeToo. The floodgates opened. More Hollyweird types, politicians and people of all walks were thrown in the arena for the lions of public opinion to devour. Now, lest you think I am defending Weinstein or something like Al Franken, I’m not, not at all. But some of the men thrown out there had no due process, it was just court of public opinion. Al Franken is an exception, Lauren Tweed had photos. It is reminiscent of what happens when conservatives run for office. Remember the allegations against Dr. Ben Carson that just faded away after he dropped out of the race? And honestly, I don’t understand why someone waits for forty years and then brings this stuff to the press when a politician has run for political office many times before. Yes, I’m talking about Judge Moore, and a few things that didn’t seem to make the national news. Hide your shock. Did Gloria Allred’s daughter offer to pay them as she did President Trump’s accusers? And so it seems #MeToo is becoming a stick to bludgeon men. I’ve had a couple of conversations about this in the last few days that have been interesting. One was a friend, he’s a white male. He’s stated before, “I’m not allowed to have an opinion, or express it”. He’s not the only white male co-worker/friend/Facebook buddy that has said similar. They feel if you are in those categories you don’t dare express a thought that isn’t politically correct or approved. Mayim Bialik, an actress ran afoul of the pack when she dared suggest that perhaps some of this is avoidable. If a known Hollyweird horn-dog invites you up to his hotel room to view his etchings the prudent answer might be “No, thanks”. She was not saying that there aren’t women who haven’t been harassed, just that in some situations, perhaps different attire or answers might yield different results. DISSENT, DISSENT from the party line, can’t have that. She tried to have a conversation about it. That went as well as you could imagine. A girl friend of mine posted something on Facebook, a video where a woman was making similar points, and suggesting don’t sleep with a man to further your career then claim you were harassed. And my friend was attacked for the video she posted. DISSENT, DISSENT, this will not be tolerated! You must stick with the party line. Women were powerless in these situations, and now all men must pay.

Are you tired of that sort of thinking? Especially from people who claim to be feminists and/or supportive of women?

#MeToo

And so, I’ve decided #MeToo needs a fresh purpose. Let’s take it for a test spin, shall we?

Murder

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

In 2016 there was a total of 16, 964 murder victims. 10,310 were male, 1,295 were women and 5,359 were unknown. In 2015 one of those statistics would have been Carol Browne who had applied for a concealed carry permit in her state of New Jersey. She was afraid of her ex and was doing what she could to protect herself. She also obtained a restraining order. She apparently had called to check on the status of her request for a concealed carry permit, but it wasn’t in yet and so her ex walked through the restraining order and stabbed her to death in her driveway.

Where was that Shannon T.Watts?  If it saves just one life? While you have hired armed bodyguard at your marches? Are ya’ll tired of the #hypocrisy?

#MeToo

Apparently the US murders concentrated in 5 percent of counties and those would be urban, Demoncrat controlled. It seems the areas with a high concentration of gun owners do not see the high murder rates. Don’t you find that interesting?

#MeToo

In one of those high crime areas, Chicago, Concealed Carry Gets Boost from Black Women on Chicago’s South Side.

Think Mayor Rahm will be disconcerted?

#MeToo

Then we have Aggravated Assault

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury.

There were 803,007 of those in 2016. I couldn’t find a breakdown of how many male vs how many female, but I bet at least a couple of them were female.

And lastly we’ll take a look at Rape statistics.

In 2013, the FBI UCR Program began collecting rape data under a revised definition within the Summary Reporting System. Previously, offense data for forcible rape were collected under the legacy UCR definition: the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Beginning with the 2013 data year, the term “forcible” was removed from the offense title, and the definition was changed. The revised UCR definition of rape is: penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

There were 130,603 rapes by the revised definition and another 95,730 by the legacy definition.

It’s a horrible crime, not about sex, and having to do with power and control. It brings out the worst in gnat brained politicians like Representative Joe Salazar who suggests Women use ‘Whistles’ rather than Guns to Defend against Rape. Besides which good old Joe, that self professed defender and respecter of women points out, women might not know if they’re REALLY going to be raped or just responding hysterically out of fear. Think he’s a bit patronizing?

#MeToo

Then there is the arrogant, ignorant AND gnat brained Evie Hudak. Yes, I can use the word in a sentence, “It’s Thursday so I need to clean the Hudak out of the chicken house”. Does it seem to you that Evie Hudak has irked me mightily?

#MeToo, sigh.

Why? Because the gnat brained Evie decided to try to tell a rape survivor that had a concealed carry permit that her gun would not have saved her. Amanda Collins was a well prepared woman on her “safe gun free zone” campus at University of Nevada-Reno. She knew martial arts and she went out with a group of people to the parking garage. However, her car was parked away from the others. Her car was parked 50 feet from the campus police department office. Which was closed. Her attacker went on to rape two more women and kill a third. The gnat brained Hudak proceeded to tell the victim (who was present at the rape) that she, THE Evie Hudak (who was in fact, NOT present at the rape) knew that she would not have been able to stop the rapist with her firearm. And then she proceeded to vomit out statistics that bear no semblance to the truth as we know it. Because to the all knowing Evie Hudak towing the Demoncrat party line is far more important than empowering women to defend themselves. In 2013 women made up 41% of the Colorado legislature. Why did you bother to run for office Ms. Hudak? The odds were not with you. Oh? You wanted a chance did you? And then you used that opportunity to legislate your sisters into defenselessness. You had a chance to empower them, instead you did chose to betray them. Anyone else think the self-important,lying Evie is full of hudak?

#MeToo

These hearings took place in Colorado in the spring of 2013. Here’s the helpful list of hints the University of Colorado provided to students:

1.    Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
2.    Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead!  It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
3.    Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
4.    Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
5.    If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
6.    Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
7.    Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
8.    Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
9.    Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
10.    Remember, every emergency situation is different.  Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.

Does reading the list of “helpful” suggestions from the University and legislators make you want to vomit or worse on them?

#MeToo

And that makes this February of 2013 column by the ever wonderful Daniel Greenfield even more interesting.

Colorado Springs University legalized the right to carry concealed firearms on campus in 2003. Since then, according to Students for Concealed Carry, the number of forcible and non-forcible sexual assaults dropped sharply, falling 90 percent from a high in 2002 to a new low in 2008.

Wait, what? Rape had dropped by 90% and now they want to make it a gun free zone all the while warbling on about what great respecters and defenders of women and women-rights they are?

Anybody going to call “B.S. or hudak” on this one?

#MeToo

Demoncrats, liberals, Hollyweird and the mainstream media (all different snakes on the deranged head of Medusa) keep saying they “want to empower women” they “respect women” they “support women”. But then when someone like Mayim Bialik, or the writer of the National Review column, or the woman who put the little video on Facebook offer a different take or dare to say in some of these situations that women had the ability to change the outcome or prevent them, well then, Katie bar the door. DISSENT from the party line! No, no, these women must be seen as helpless victims powerless to have changed anything. They could only accept what was dished out and they had no choices whatsoever in the whole matter.

Because the same cabal of flotsam is incapable of seeing people as individuals and can only see them as victim groups, race groups, gender identity groups, ethnic groups, grope groups. Pigeon hole city.

Now we Southern girls, at least ones of a certain era, have a different way of seeing how such things should be handled.

Think that might sort a few things and solve a few problems?

#MeToo

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Commenting Now Open: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.

As mentioned last week, the ATF has proposed a rule which would render bump-fire stocks, and trigger assist devices, “machineguns.”

The Zelman Partisans opposed this when legislation was introduced to do the same thing, and we opposed doing it via bureaucratic fiat.

Comments are now being accepted on “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” You may submit comments online through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

I have submitted my personal comments already. This what I sent.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Docket No. 2017R-22

I oppose classifying as machineguns “bump-fire” stocks or any other external device or accessory which does not alter the internal action of a firearm.

In effect, this proposed rule would make any firearm a machinegun if a well trained person can pull the trigger faster than your arbitrary threshold.

EXPLANATION:

The rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm is based in physics. Force is applied to the firing pin. That force and the pin’s mass determine its acceleration into the cartridge primer. The primer ignites at a given velocity for that cartridge; that in turn ignites the powder with its own ignition velocity. The bullet is propelled forward; force and mass again.

The force of the detonating powder also works to move the bolt backwards; the old “equal and opposite reaction.” How fast the bolt goes back is determined by its mass and the resistance of the spring behind it. When it has traveled all the way back, the spring applies force and pushes the mass forward once again.

The bolt is slowed as it strips the next round out of the magazine. Finally it moves the round’s mass into the chamber.

In a machine gun, the firing pin would continue forward starting the cycle over again. In a semiautomatic firearm, the pin does not go forward until the trigger (with its own mass and springs) returns to the ready position and is manually operated again. So semiautomatics have an inherently slower rate of fire than machine guns, all else being equal.

The only way to even approach the theoretical maximum rate of fire of most semiautomatics is to have a fast finger.

A machinegun is designed to fire multiple rounds per trigger operation. Bump-fire stocks in no way affect that operation/rounds relationship. If you put a bump-fire stock on a semiautomatic rifle, you still individually operate the trigger for each round fired. Bump-fire stocks do not make the weapon fire faster. The theoretical rate of fire of the rifle is determined by the physics of the internal parts, as described above.

To fire a rifle with reasonable expectation that the round will hit the target, you normally hold the rifle firmly with both hands, and pull it against your shoulder. This provides a stable shooting stance.

A rifle has recoil. When fired, it pushes against your shoulder.

But let’s trying hold that rifle a little differently. With your off hand (the hand you don’t use to pull the trigger) grip the rifle. Your trigger hand does not grip the rifle. Nor do you pull the rifle butt snug against your shoulder. It isn’t a stable stance, and accuracy will suffer.

When your rifle is on target, extend your trigger finger into the guard. Now, with your off hand grip, push the rifle forward until your trigger finger pulls the trigger.

The rifle fires. Recoil pushes the rifle back so your finger disengages the trigger. Your rifle-gripping off hand acts like a spring and pulls the rifle forward again. If your shooting finger was held steady, the trigger is pushed against the finger again, firing.

The bump-fire stock is simply a device that can be pulled snugly to the shoulder, and provides a grip to help keep the trigger finger in position. The rifle proper just recoils back in a channel into the stock. It is training wheels for folks who have trouble bump-firing. And since it’s a bit more stable, it helps with accuracy compared to normal bump-fire. However, accuracy even with the stock is poor compared to conventional stance with conventional stock.

Considering bump-fire stocks, and other accessories, to be machineguns would not simply regulate a physical device. It effectively outlaws the bump-fire TECHNIQUE, and even pulling the trigger faster than some arbitrary threshold.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The fix is in: proposed rulemaking on bump-fire

The ATF has posted a PDF document which will officially be published December 26, 2017. It solicits comments on proposed rules on the “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.”

The document makes it clear that bump-fire stocks (and other devices) will be classified as machineguns under the NFA definition. It is troublesome in other ways, as well.

“‘Bump fire’ stocks (bump stocks) are devices used with a semiautomatic firearm to increase the firearm’s cyclic firing rate to mimic nearly continuous automatic fire.”

They absolutely in no way affect the firearm’s cyclic firing rate; it’s impossible:

The rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm is based in physics. Force is applied to the firing pin. That force and the pin’s mass determine it’s acceleration into the cartridge primer. The primer ignites at a given velocity for that cartridge; that in turn ignites the powder with its own ignition velocity. The bullet is propelled forward; force and mass again.

The force of the detonating powder also works to move the bolt backwards; the old “equal and opposite reaction.” How fast the bolt goes back is determined by its mass and the resistance of the spring behind it. When it has traveled all the way back, the spring applies force and pushes the mass forward once again.

The bolt is slowed as it strips the next round out of the magazine. Finally it moves the round’s mass into the chamber.

In a machine gun, the firing pin would continue forward starting the cycle over again. In a semiautomatic firearm, the pin does not go forward until the trigger (with its own mass and springs) returns to the ready position and is manually operated again. So semiautomatics have an inherently slower rate of fire than machine guns, all else being equal.

The only way to even approach the theoretical maximum rate of fire of most semiautomatics is to have a fast finger.

Instead of looking at mechanical function, and simple physics, in this document the ATF has adopted the media and gun controller definition of “if it’s fast, it must be a machinegun.” The intent is preordained regardless of comments.

As I have explained, bump-fire stocks are training wheels, and no more make a semiautomatic rifle work as a machinegun than training wheels turn your child’s bike into a high performance racing machine.

Next, we have another problem.

“On October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and several hundred were wounded in Las Vegas, Nevada, by a shooter firing one or more AR-type rifles affixed with a particular bump stock device.”

How does Deputy Director Thomas E. Brandon know that? Is he privy to data from the investigation which has not been released to the public? Or is he assuming the media claims (not investigator statements) to that effect are true?

In no news story I can find is there a statement from authorities of what weapons were used. We were told that there were 23 weapons in the asshole’s suite, that some were AR pattern semiautomatic rifles, that at least one was an AK pattern semiautomatic rifle, that weapons were chambered in 5.56/.223 and .308, and that at least one rifle in addition was fully automatic. But not which were actually used.

If the bump-fire stocked rifles were used, as this document states, why won’t investigators say so? If it was being kept confidential for legitimate investigative purposes, why release the data in this very public document?

A law enforcement source has said that the shooter left behind a note with ballistic calculations “pertaining to the distance and trajectory from his 32nd-floor window to the crowd of concertgoers he targeted below.” Such calculations are pointless for inherently inaccurate bump-fired rifles: “What’s the point of careful calculations of the most accurate way to aim a firehose? An automatic rifle in most people’s hands wouldn’t be much better.” This suggests that the plan was certainly to use something other than bump-fire.*

In preparing for new bump-fire stock rules, the ATF starts with the unsupported claims that such were used in Las Vegas, that they magically change the physics of a firearm’s internal action, and operating the trigger rapidly makes them work like machineguns. So does your well-trained finger.

The fix is in.


* It also raises questions on the need for precise ballistics calculations when we’re told the “target” was simply 22,000 random people crowded into an area the size of multiple football fields, and why he stopped shooting.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail