Category Archives: gun control

authoritarian swine, gun control

Do they care?

4 Comments

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

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, hoplophobia, Media, mindset, Politics, resistance, Schools and campuses, self defense, Sellouts and traitors, So Much Stupid!, Voting

MeToo

3 Comments

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

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control

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

5 Comments

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.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

The fix is in: proposed rulemaking on bump-fire

9 Comments

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

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers

Liars, and the lied-to

1 Comment

On a recent post, a commenter noted that anti-RKBA groups must have trouble recruiting workers given the conflicting skill sets of credentials and experience and the reasoning skills of a toddler. I had to disagree; since the goal of groups like Moms Demand Deaths Action isn’t reducing violence, poor logical skills aren’t needed.

Just a willingness to lie. Like Shannon “I’m just a stay at home mom” Watts, the professional public relations manager paid by Bloomberg.

Sometimes I’m willing to allow that a person is ignorant, rather than maliciously lying, when advocating for victim disarmament. That’s because there are — at least — two types of gun control advocates.

The first are those for whom the goal is a disarmed citizenry — for the sake of people control — rather than a reduction in violence.

The second is their targeted demographic: those who didn’t care enough about the subject to have already educated themselves using readily available data. The first group lies to the second to instill panic so that they will begin to care. But the targeted demographic will be operating on the dramatic lies and blood-dancing they accepted passively.

How do you tell the ignorantly well-intentioned — who might be capable of grasping reality once it’s presented — from the outright liars? Let’s look at a hypothetical situation.

Some horrible murder occurs. A group forms saying they want to prevent that happening again. They create a Facebook page to present facts about guns and violence, including a graphic that purports to show that having a gun is more likely to be a danger to you and yours, than to useful for protection. Someone else notes that they’ve referenced the debunked Kellerman study.

At this point, the gun control group could do a few things. They could ask what the Kellerman study is, suggesting they work from simple ignorance. They could stand up for the Kellerman study, which might be ignorance or lying; could go either way.

Or, they might claim that graphic doesn’t represent the Kellerman study, indicating they know what the Kellerman paper is, and that it isn’t worth using as a reference.

So let’s say they did the latter. And our observant commenter points out that the graphic specifically includes text saying it’s from the Kellerman paper. A few other people jump in to tell them the same thing. And the next time our fearless commenter visits the page, his comments have been deleted, as have the others supporting his position. The Kellerman graphic remains now unchallenged. That would be a group of liars, not well-intentioned ignoramuses.

Oh. Wait. That situation wasn’t hypothetical. That’s exactly what Watts’ Moms Demand Action did.

Maybe another hypothetical.

Let’s say that a state legislature is considering a bill to impose universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint background checks for firearms purchases. And let’s say that another group formed in response to the above mentioned mass shooting testify in a public hearing that universal background checks would have stopped the asshole who killed the children at Sandy Hook. Since the murderer obtained his weapons by first murdering his mother and stealing her guns, it’s hard to imagine him then stopping for a background check. But hey.

So someone contacts the group to point out the little problem with the claim. The possible responses could tell us how we should view them.

They could say that their reps were overwhelmed by emotion and misspoke, and offer a correction.

Or they could lie, and claim their reps actually said PPYI would not have stopped the Sandy Hook killer.

Oh. Darn it. This one wasn’t hypothetical either. It happened. I was there in the hearing in New Hampshire in 2014 when the Sandy Hook Promise representatives definitely said PPYI would have stopped him. I laughed out loud. So did several hundred other people, who also muttered enough about the outlandish claim that the committee chairwoman had to call for silence. And when I contacted SHP, they did lie about what their reps testified to.

In fact, I got two lies for the price of one.

“Sandy Hook Promise is firmly rooted in constitutional values and as such does not support policy or legislation that poses a burden on anyone’s rights.”

Except when they send representatives to another state to demand just such burdensome legislation. (Frankly, I’m amazed they got there. They said that Connecticut borders on New Hampshire.)

Once you’ve determined which type you’re dealing with — lying SOBs, or their knowledged challenged targets — deal with them appropriately. Call out the liars like Moms Demand Action, Sandy Hook Promise, and Giffords; especially in a manner that theirs targets can see so they’ll know they’ve been lied to. Admittedly, that’s touigh when the media are the allies of the liars (and generally liars themselves).

The knowledge-challenged you can try to educate directly. But you have to work past the false “knowledge” they’ve been suckered with.

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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, So Much Stupid!

When liars figure

5 Comments

Possibly you’ve seen reports about the new study that showed a sharp increase in firearms-related deaths after the Sandy Hook shooting, attributed to the sharp spike in gun sales. If not, here’s a fine example:

Gun sales spiked after Sandy Hook. So did people being shot and killed.
Gun sales in the United States spiked dramatically after a shooter walked into Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012 and killed 26 people, 20 of whom were children. Now researchers say that as a result of that rush in gun purchases, 60 additional Americans — 20 of whom were children — were killed by accidental gunshots in the five months following the tragedy.

That’s… interesting, if really kinda vague. So off to the study itself. You can read it, or I’ll give you the TL;DR.

They used Google Trends to define the period of gun sales that they attribute to post-SH panic buying (you’ll giggle at their search terms), which they determined to be 5 months. They looked at firearms-related accidental deaths — concentrating on children 0-14yo –for that period and compared them to a 2008-2013 period and magically came up with this:

That’s… even more interesting. I happen to recall another gun buying spree in 2008 and 2009. If these folks really found a sales/accidental deaths correlation, I’d expect a bigger spike in those years.

Well, charts are misleading. What’s graphed there isn’t the number of children dead, but the anomaly in deaths; that is, they essentially figured the statistical average for a five month period for the years 2008-2013, and decide the period in question had 20 more than average.

Not having access to their undisclosed “restricted” data, I decided to use the CDC WISQARS online tool, which only breaks data down by year. For the researchers’ 2008-2013 time frame, I got this:

Right off, you — not being a grant-funded academic — probably notice, despite the apparent increasing trend in deaths, that 2013 wasn’t much of a spike. In fact, it’s five deaths lower than the 2011 “spike.” And the average annual deaths for the 2008-2013 time frame is 62.17. So the annual total for 2013 is only 7 higher than average.* Where did they find 20, 13 more in just a five month period? And haven’t we heard that accidental firearms deaths are decreasing?

That’s an oddly limited time frame, given that more data is readily available. WISQARS currently has data for 1999-2015.

And the rate per 100,000 for that age group:

The entire year of 2013 is only the sixth highest, both in numbers and per capita. And again –not being a grant-funded academic –you may have seen the trend: constantly down.

The researchers’ “spike” in their study appears to be largely imaginary, and what there was is more easily attributed to random variance. The lack of sales/deaths correlations with other known periods of increased buying (2008-2009, 2012) invalidates their Sandy Hook-related claim. The overall consistent decrease in child accidental deaths tells me that, rather than untrained newbies going out and slaughtering kids, more people are getting trained and demonstrating safety awareness. Remember: the number of guns are cumulative; if more guns really correlated with accidents then there be a constantly increasing number of accidents instead of the real decrease.

Researchers Levine and McKnight say, “No external funding was used to support this research.” It might be interesting to see what monetary resources are consider internal.

And just for info regarding that additional people of all ages killed?

In 2012, there were 548 people of all ages killed in accidental firearms-related incidents.

In 2013, it dropped to 505.

* The 17 year average for 1999-2015 is 64, meaning 2013 was only 5 higher than average.

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

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, Politics

Vegas Questions; and why they matter

3 Comments

The Mandalay Bay shooting has left more questions unanswered than answered. And yes, it matters.

It matter because numerous — and gross — violations of Constitutionally “protected” rights are being proposed to “fix” the problems that let that happen.

1. “‘Silencers’ must not be deregulated; they must be banned because what if the Mandalay Bay asshole had used them and nobody knew they were being shot?

2. “More preemptivly-prove-your-innocence prior restraint “background checks” because they were good enough to catch this guy when he passed them.”

3. “Ban bump-fire stocks because they turn any gun into a machine gun.”

4. “Ban all semiautomatic firearms because ‘military grade weapons of war’!”

5. “Stop reciprocal carry because that guy might’ve gotten a carry license.”

6. “Register all gun owners and all their guns because… we don’t know, but do it for Vegas.”

7. “Ban all guns because no murderer will ever figure out how to kill without a gun.”

And the list goes on. Mandalay Bay has become the rationalization for human civil rights violations on a scale not seen in this country since slavery was outlawed. Hyperbole?

Consider that anti-gunners are screaming that gun owners have no right to speak on the subject. Bans and confiscations deprive people of property. Finding the owners and guns will involve mass warrantless searches. Privacy will be invaded as authorities scour email and social media for ownership indications. Bank records will be searched for firearms (and accessories) purchases and sales. Failure to comply fast enough will get you dead or jailed.

Or somebody dead.

It isn’t just the Second Amendment violations; it’s everything else they have to violate just to accomplish them. That’s some serious stuff to be doing based on near total ignorance of the facts of the incident.

And, since the authorities claim the shooter acted alone, and they aren’t searching for anyone else in the matter, there’s no reason for the ignorance; there’s supposedly no real ongoing investigation to compromise unless they’ve lied about looking for accomplices.

So before any more rights violations advance, let’s get answers.

1. Several media outlets reported early on that, in addition to bump-fire stock-equipped weapons, the shooter had AR-pattern rifles converted to full auto. Fox reported that the full auto conversions were chambered in both .223 and .308.

Those reports were never walked backed or corrected. They just stopped talking about the weapons, leaving the anti-gunners free to whine about bump stocks.

I’m not a mass murderer, so I could be missing something. But if he had fully automatic weapons, why bother using bump-fire while the automatic weapons were available? C’mon, you’ve had months to do ballistics testing; you know what weapons were actually fired.

2. If no automatic weapons were used, why does at least one recording of the incident have a burst with two simultaneous rapid fire gunshot audio signatures, one a steady boom, and the other a sharper crack, at different rates of fire?

A wannabe Rambo could grab two fully automatic weapons and fire them at the same time. Poorly and inaccurately, but it’s doable if you don’t mind a face full of brass. But not bump-fired rifles; you need both hands with a bump-fire stock: one for the trigger, and one to provide the tension to pull the rifle forward.

If the weapons were bump-fired, it raises the question of how one guy fired two guns at the same time.

3. Las Vegas is one of the most surveilled cities in the world; possibly the most when you include all the casino and hotel interior cameras. Where is the video of the asshole bringing in his guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition? Sitting in a restaurant? Playing video poker? Walking down halls? He doesn’t even show up in the background in some tourist’s iPhone footage?

Did he carry everything himself, or did someone help him with all that stuff? Maybe an innocent valet, who could at least add to the timeline. Where’s the video?

4. When people spotted a “note” in crime scene photos and speculated that it was a suicide note or explanation of motive, authorities said it was actually “ballistic calculations” to better target his victims. Why would he need such ballistics calculations?

Calculations of that nature would involve wind speed for bullet drift, and more importantly bullet drop for shooting from an elevation at a given range. Except he didn’t need that, and relatively few shooters know how to do it on a scrap of paper. He didn’t need it because such precision is to hit a specific — often relatively small — target accurately. Our asshole wouldn’t be concerned about hitting a torso or head on one person. He was hosing down a mass of tens of thousands of people, a crowd the size of football fields. Unless there’s something else they haven’t told us.

And this brings us back to bump-fire. Bump-fire is inaccurate. 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.

Can we see a legible image of that note/calculations?

5. Authorities said the asshole had an escape plan. What was it, and why did he abandon it for suicide?

6. Where is the computer hard drive? Law enforcement said the drive from the computer in the hotel room was missing; where did it go and when?

Would video answer that question, too? Speaking of video, the shooter had his own cameras which are implied to have been wireless computer types; where’s that video? On the perambulating hard drive?

7. Why did the shooter stop after 9-10 minutes with thousands of rounds of ammunition left over?

Is that when he killed himself?

7. So when did the asshole die?

Just body temperature should give them a rough idea of how long he’d been dead when they finally entered the room. Perhaps that would shed light on why spent brass appeared to be sitting on top of coagulated blood in crime scene photos. Or how he shot himself in the head and fell down, extending one leg under a rifle on a bipod without knocking it over.

9. Within a day or two, authorities were rummaging through the shooter’s financials enough to figure out that he’d purchased software, and been shipping cash out of the country by the pallet. Why did it take another month and a half — when folks were getting antsy over motive — to discover he was despondent over massive gambling losses, when they totally ruled out “terrorism” in less than a day?

How much had he lost? When? Was it significantly higher than previous losses? Victims and families suing the estate would probably like to know how much is left.

10. Why did the most valuable material witness leave the country, and did the authorities know before he left?

Seriously; no one told him, “Don’t go leaving town. Keep yourself available for more questions while we sort out the latest version of the timeline.”?

11. Why did the police wait until roughly an hour and twenty minutes after the last shot was fired to enter the room? Was the shooter still alive, did he communicate with them? For that matter, we don’t know why it allegedly took them so long to figure out what room the shooter was in. Two witnesses claim they reported it.

Oh well. It isn’t as if I don’t know about plenty of “armed standoffs” with empty houses, or sleeping drunks who didn’t know the cops were there.

Until investigators will explain what guns the asshole used, and how, along with other pertinent facts, imposing more infringements of human/civil rights based on “we have to prevent another Mandalay Bay” makes as much sense as banning automobiles because the shooter owned one of those, too. Or houses. Or boats. Airplanes. Clothing. Suitcases.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control

Truth in advertising

4 Comments

Have you noticed the recent trend in arguments from the human/civil rights violators? If not, here are some hints.

“Why is gun control now equal to a restriction of liberties? Gun Control is not Gun erasure, it is not taking away the 2nd Amendment. Gun Control is not saying you do not have a right to own a gun for your protection, safety, and soundness of mind for you and your family.”
— Anjeanette LeBoeuf, The Act of Gun Control

Ms. LeBoeuf, bless her heart, also demonstrates why she should have spent more time on history, and less on women’s studies.

“The challenge in bringing change is that the debate over gun rights isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about what they represent: cherished freedoms, a reverence for independence. ”
— Philip Elliott, Haley Sweetland Edwards, Charlotte Alter; The Fight Over Gun Control Isn’t Really About Guns

Hold that thought.

“So how can we articulate the gun control message more effectively? What if instead of emphasizing gun control, there was a Movement for the Safety of All Americans? If the problem were framed as a domestic and public safety issue rather than a gun control matter, perhaps we could build greater demand for conquering this national epidemic.”
— Bruce Berlin, Let’s Reframe Gun Control To Focus on Our Safety

Ah, safety.

“Take the phrase we often reach toward in the aftermath of a mass shooting: “gun control.” “It feels like there’s an American sense that responds quite well to the idea of ‘rights,’ and not so well to the idea of ‘control,’” Dust says. Dust believes that this small point could the origin of a new type of conversation–around how the right to carry arms is ultimately infringing on our right to peacefully gather.”
— Eillie Anzilotti, Can We Redesign The Way We Talk About Gun Control In America?

The trend is to pretend there is no such thing as “gun control,” and the reason is because they finally realized it’s a non-finisher.

LeBoeuf wants people to believe that only total confiscation is “gun control.” Yet proposes… controls. She’s not alone in adopting that position, and it’s not new; there’s a reason Handgun Control, Inc. isn’t using that name anymore.

The rights violators are used to having money and near-exclusive media access, allowing them to push whatever message they wanted. In the Internet age, that access isn’t so exclusive (in the ’90s, merely getting an unedited pro-RKBA letter to the editor in an urban newspaper was a challenge; yet here you are reading this column now). The rights violators are forced to rephrase and hide their goal.

They think this is a winning gambit.

It might be. For us.

“Excuse me, Ms. LeBoeuf. If those laws preventing me from owning this type of firearm, or making me an ex post facto prohibited person without due process, requiring licenses to own, licenses to buy, licenses to carry, mandatory insurance, waiting periods, mental health evaluations, and so forth aren’t gun control, what are they?”

The answer being, as we’ve long known — but which the human rights criminals tried to deny — people control. Now, every time one of those smarmy SOBs plays the “not gun control” card, we can call them on it, and make them admit that the goal is to manipulate every aspect of every life, all the things they can’t do to an armed populace.

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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control

Extreme Risk Facebook Use

8 Comments

I’ve warned about the dangers of due process-free “Extreme Risk Protection Orders. The lack of said due process, the way pretty much anyone can get one, the way the target isn’t allowed to know until it’s too late, the potential for abuse.

Let’s look at one of those points again: he way pretty much anyone can get one. It varies by state, but generally anyone who sort of knows the target can get one. Truly sucks if the requestor was simply trying to get his target disarmed, the better to kill or injure him with impunity.

Anyone who sort of knows the target…

Like Facebook.

Facebook rolls out AI to detect suicidal posts before they’re reported
“This is about shaving off minutes at every single step of the process, especially in Facebook Live,” says VP of product management Guy Rosen. Over the past month of testing, Facebook has initiated more than 100 “wellness checks” with first-responders visiting affected users. “There have been cases where the first-responder has arrived and the person is still broadcasting.”(emphasis added-cb)
[…]
Facebook’s tools then bring up local language resources from its partners, including telephone hotlines for suicide prevention and nearby authorities. The moderator can then contact the responders and try to send them to the at-risk user’s location, surface the mental health resources to the at-risk user themselves or send them to friends who can talk to the user.

Gee, I can’t see any possible way that could go wrong. Except when it does. A lot.

But assuming you survive the wellness/welfare check, what’s next? We have Facebook notifying the authorities that a person is suicidal; is that going to trigger an ERPO?

Perhaps not under most current laws just now — though several have been written to allow police to file for an order when they become aware of a situation — but given the fad for minority reports predictive policing, and for mental health tests for gun ownership, I figure it’s merely a matter of time before the Pelosis of the statist world take note of Facebook’s snooping and require a FB report to trigger an ERPO. Just to be sure.

Unfortunately, after TechCrunch asked if there was a way for users to opt out, of having their posts a Facebook spokesperson responded that users cannot opt out. They noted that the feature is designed to enhance user safety, and that support resources offered by Facebook can be quickly dismissed if a user doesn’t want to see them.

Quickly dismissing the “first-responders” kicking in your door may be a little more difficult. Dismissing a gun-siezure ERPO is effectively impossible.

But the spokesman is wrong. There is an opt-out: drop Facebook for your own protection. True, FB permanently archives your account contents in case you ever want to come back, but at least you can avoid the near real-time telescreen psych monitoring.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers

The Rules of the Gun [Control] Debate

3 Comments

David Frum, who has mastered the art of psychological projection, presents a an asinine parable and cynical “rules” for running the gun control debate. This man clearly has mental health issues.

Frum’s little parable, meant to represent the problem of “gun violence,” purports a town which has stupidly built itself in a locale guaranteed to suffer repeated natural disasters. The sensible folk of the town think everything should be raised up on stilts to avoid flooding, while the pro-gun reactionary do-nothings object to preparation because it won’t stop floods.

The reality of the “gun violence” problem is that 1) it’s man-made by a relatively few bad guys, and 2) the pro-gun folks don’t object to taking measures to protect themselves. In Frum’s water-logged village, we’d be the folks putting up our own houses on stilts, pilings, and mounds, while the anti-flood violence idiots like From pass laws designating the town a flood-free zone.

Frum’s “rules” illustrate the usual problems of irrationality on the part of victims disarmers.

Frum’s Rule 1. “The measures to be debated must bear some relationship to the massacre that triggered the debate. If the killer acquired his weapons illegally, it’s out of bounds to point out how lethally easy it is to buy weapons legally. If the killer lacked a criminal record, it’s out of bounds to talk about the inadequacy of federal background checks. The topic for debate is not, iWhy do so many Americans die from gunfire?’ but ‘What one legal change would have prevented this most recent atrocity?'”

My Rule 1a. If you are proposing a solution to a specific incident, the proposal should address characteristics of that incident.

My Rule 1b. General discussion of the many sordid causes of “gun violence” is a separate conversation.

Frum’s Rule 2. “The debate must focus on unusual weapons and accessories: bump stocks, for example, the villain of the moment. Even the NRA has proclaimed itself open to some regulation of these devices. After the 2012 mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, attention turned to large capacity magazines. What is out of bounds is discussion of weapons as in themselves a danger to human life and public safety.”

My Rule 2a. See My Rule 1a.

My Rule 2b. Any proposed solution must included a cost:benefit analysis, and not be based on the unicorn wishes of just one party.

My Rule 2c. Firearms are not a natural disaster; they are man-made tools, which must be manipulated by an external force — like a person — to do anything, good or bad.

Frum’s Rule 3. “The debate must always honor the “responsible gun owners” who buy weapons for reasonable self-defense. Under Rule 1, these responsible persons are presumed to constitute the great majority of gun owners. It’s out of bounds to ask for some proof of this claimed responsibility, some form of training for example. It’s far out of bounds to propose measures that might impinge on owners: the alcohol or drug tests for example that are so often recommended for food stamp recipients or teen drivers.”

My Rule 3. Since there are 55-120+ million gun owners, and the human race has not been rendered extinct in the US, one should start with the assumption that most gun owners are not murderous lunatics bound and determined to kill everything; if we were, you’d know… not know it because everyone would already be dead.

Frum’s Rule 4. “Gun ownership is always to be discussed as a rational choice motivated by reasonable concerns for personal safety. No matter how blatantly gun advocates appeal to fears and fantasies—Sean Hannity musing aloud on national TV about how he with a gun in his hands could have saved the day in Las Vegas if only he had been there—nobody other than a lefty blogger may notice that this debate is about race and sex, not personal security. It’s out of bounds to observe that ‘Chicago’ is shorthand for ‘we only have gun crime because of black people’ or how often ‘I want to protect my family” is code for ‘I need to prove to my girlfriend who’s really boss.'”

My Rule 4. Assume parties in the discussion mean what they say unless you have evidence to the contrary. An automatic assumption that ‘Chicago’ must be a racist codeword — in face of demographics of Chicago criminals — or that the only possible reason to have a defensive weapon is to abuse women says much more about the person who believes only that than it says about most lawful gun owners.

From there, Frum devolves into “discussion.”

“A requirement that gun owners carry insurance would not only protect potential accident victims—including gun owners, since many gun accidents are self-inflicted—against economic loss.”

We did that. You folks called it “murder insurance” and tried to stop it. Make up your minds.

As for preemptively-prove-your-innocence (“background”) checks: If they work, then lawful gun owners have already proved themselves “responsible gun owners” (FR3). If they don’t, then stop demanding something that doesn’t work and come up with something that would.

My Rule 5. There is no “gun violence” problem. There is a violence problem, most prevalent in certain economic/geographic demographics.

If a doctor conducted a study to determine if a chemical caused a certain cancer, and found that cancer in just 0.00124% of regular users of that chemical, he’d discard that hypothesis and go looking for another cause.

0.00124% happens to be the estimated number of lawful gun owners who are murderers in any given year.

Clearly, while guns are used, they aren’t the cause. People kill with guns, knives, clubs, cars, fists, feet… If guns are removed, the cause will remain until addressed and fixed; murderers will simply use one of the myriad other methods available, as they have through history.

My Rule 6. If you ignore the underlying cause and only treat symptoms, you will never cure the disease.

* Note the original URL.

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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail