Tag Archives: firearms

Intent

LSU art student Jordan Marcell speaks of the “intent” in the creation of firearms. A lot.

Opinion: Guns dangerous by nature, effects not containable
“Even when not performing their purpose, the ever present danger with firearms, is that— somehow— they will.”

Too much, and yet still misses two points.

Let’s start with that intent. Marcell claims to believe that firearms are simply built to be deadly destroyers of biological life, and that this is a continuing and progressive trend towards ever more deadly weapons. If that were true, there would be no handguns produced, as long guns can project bigger, faster, more damaging rounds than could — effectively — any handgun. If simple killing were the goal, I’d stick to a AR-15 pattern rifle and a vest full of 30 round magazines, and junk the compact polymer pistol in wimpy 9mm which I do carry everyday.

I don’t carry that handgun to kill. I carry it to defend myself (and others, should the circumstances warrant). My handgun was not designed by Ruger to be the penultimate killing machine. It’s designed to be carried routinely and comfortably and to provide basic protection.

Or take this little number.

Does anyone seriously believe that was designed for anything other than punching holes in paper? One could use it to kill, but so could such a determined person bash in his victim’s skull with Marcell’s coffee mug.

Next, consider Marcell’s fear that all firearms will perform the deadly purpose mistakenly attributed to the inanimate gadgets.

According the CDC, in 2015, 36,252 people died by firearm; that includes homicide and legal intervention (such as self-defense) and accidents. We’ll pretend each death was accomplished with a separate firearm: 36,252 guns.

Conservative estimates of firearms in civilian hands in America range from the wildly implausible 265 million to a more likely 500 million, to a possibly over the top 750 million.

If you studied math, rather than Marcell’s “Studio Art” you probably see where I’m going with this.

36,252 firearms were seemingly used in accordance with the “intent” Marcell believes imbued their design. Out of 265-750 million firearms. If Marcell were correct then — conservatively — 99.98632% of firearms suffered gross design failures: 264,963,748 guns failed to kill anyone (as they are allegedly designed to do).

You’d think that if 60-130 million gun owners (estimates vary as wildly as estimates of firearms) thought their guns had malfunctioned, there would be a monumental class action lawsuit wending its way through the courts. As some anonymous Internet wag noted, “If guns kill people, where are mine hiding the bodies?”

Or, just maybe, those inevitable deadly effects are “containable,” because of the intent of the owners.

There is no “intent” conferred upon firearms. As always, intent resides in the person operating it. Yes, even in negligent or accidental discharges, some had the intent to do something — likely stupid — with the gun.

So Marcell missed two points. Did you notice a third point which he implied?

“A firearm, as a tool, is an instrument that was created with the purpose of eliminating biological life— or killing, if you prefer that term.”

“Killing.” He fails to distinguish between murder and self defense. Or to differentiate between murder and hunting for food. Or murder and putting down a terminally suffering animal. Even in “killing” intent varies. Unless one is a liberal arts student incapable of more than simplistic over-generalizations bearing no resemblance to reality.

If Marcell equates all killing to murder, I wonder what our young student eats. Surely not meat, yet…

And you who feed on nothing but plants
Don’t hold your pride so high
For plants are living, and just might feel
And they take so long to die.
– Fisher’s Chant, Leslie Fish

Does Marcell heartlessly murder suffering plants for sustenance?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

poll: best training?

trainingThe first time I’d ever shot any type of firearm was in Army basic training. I knew enough about firearms to know which way to point one. My dad had always kept a gun in the house, but I knew not to play with it, and when I did pick it up a few times, I instinctively kept my finger off the trigger.

In basic, the first thing we did was familiarize ourselves with our M16A2 rifle. They had us take those things apart and put them together so many times, I could have done it in my sleep! It was useful knowledge. By the time we got to the range for the first time, I was so comfortable with that rifle, I could have slept with it.

But we still didn’t fire the thing. We dry fired. A lot. The drill instructors had us put a penny on the front sight, and we practiced pulling the trigger in the prone position so smoothly, that the penny would not fall off. We had to pull that trigger 10 times in a row without the penny falling off the sight. If it fell, we had to start over.

We spent a lot of time in the dirt in the prone position.

The drills worked. I qualified Expert – 39/40 – at the pop-up range at Fort Jackson thanks to the training we received.

So what about you? What training do you find most useful when it comes to firearms?

The choices below are in no particular order, and I’m sure there are scores of others you can name. Choose one, or let us know in the comments what firearms training you find the most useful.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Russia: History repeats itself

Cross-posted at the Liberty Zone with slight modifications.


I’ve been trying to find this article in English, but for some reason, all I find is really crappy translations of what is actually written. Those of you who read Russian can head over to the first link.

Does this look a bit Big Brother-ish to you?
Does this look a bit Big Brother-ish to you?

Bottom line: Russian President Vladimir Putin has created a “National Guard” (Нацгвардия), but it’s not like the National Guard we’re accustomed to. While Putin claims this armed force, which incorporates some of the Interior Ministry troops, is created specifically to address terrorism, transnational organized crime, and arms trafficking in the country, it as a way to continue consolidating power in the presidency. It is a ministry-level organization that falls directly under the control of the President.

“If you have noticed, this decision is not simply related to detaching the interior troops from the Interior Ministry. But this has been done so that this new structure will now concentrate all that is connected with firearms. This refers to various kinds of security provision and the authorization system [to get the right to possess firearms], ensure oversight of private security firms and this also refers to interior troops proper,” Putin said.

Yes, I know the translation sucks, but think about this for a moment. The Russian president, who already has been well on the path to grabbing power, censorship, stringent nationalism, and violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of his country’s neighbors, is now creating himself a little army that’s focusing not just on terrorism and TOC, but also firearms trade. By the way, the Russian Federation in November 2014 eased firearms restrictions to allow its citizens to carry firearms for self defense, but now Putin is controlling some pretty powerful military troops who focus internally.

Call me crazy and untrusting, but I wouldn’t want any government – especially not an authoritarian crap weasel like Putin – having control of his own little army that can be used against the citizenry, and given Russia’s pivot back toward statism in the past few years, this Нацгвардия is more than concerning.

We view the right to keep and bear arms as a bulwark against tyranny. The fact that Putin has now created an armed entity, controlled solely by him, to focus on “all that is connected with firearms” should tell you everything you need to know about where that nation is headed internally. No, it is not becoming a free nation. Those of us who were mildly surprised and gratified when the Russian government loosened gun laws a year and a half ago can go back to being disgusted. Russia is still ruled by a cunning authoritarian with the aim of subjugating those around him to his will. And the best way to do that, is to use the military (I don’t care what you call them – internal troops, security troops, national guard, whatever) to ensure that the people’s right to keep and bear arms is tightly regulated and controlled.

Because as the Russian economy swirls the drain, and as Russia becomes a more and more aggressive force toward its neighbors, you can be sure that the regular people’s lives will be more controlled and more miserable. And the Russian government needs to ensure that the people don’t use their right to remove the source of their misery with armed force.

Everything old is new again.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Never had any doubt

“You’re paranoid.”

“The government isn’t after your guns.”

“Nobody wants to confiscate your guns.”

“Registration doesn’t lead to confiscation.”

How many times have we heard gun control advocates snottily ridicule us for knowing our own history? For understanding the nature of statism?

“This isn’t Nazi Germany,” they say. “No one is going to disarm you and victimize you.”

“Registration is a safety measure,” they claim. “It’s a crime prevention measure.”

Is it? From Buffalo, NY comes a report that details a plan by the police department in that city to begin confiscating firearms of legal gun owners after their deaths.

Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel Derrenda said at a press conference last week that the department will be sending people to collect guns that belong to pistol permit holders who had died so “they don’t end up in the wrong hands.” The department will cross reference pistol permit holders with death records and the guns will be collected when possible, he said.

Derrenda said guns pose a threat if their owner is no longer alive to safeguard them, especially if a recently-deceased gun owner’s home is burglarized.

[…]

The state law says that if the permit holder dies, the estate has 15 days to dispose of the guns or turn them in to authorities, who can hold the weapons up to two years. LoHud.com reported that violation of the law by survivors is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine.

So how will the police department find out whether the deceased had a gun? Carry permits? ATF 4473 forms, which licensed firearms dealers have to retain for at least 20 years?

While not “technically” registration, these records give the authorities the tools they need to confiscate firearms – to steal them from the families of the deceased when they are grieving and vulnerable – to violate basic property rights.

And Buffalo isn’t the only place where this odious infringement on basic human rights has happened.

In Connecticut, cowardly politicians rammed through a registration requirement for all firearms they deemed to look scary.  Gun owners resisted, and the majority of what these pusillanimous twits call “assault” weapons remained unregistered.  A few tried to register at the last minute, before the suspense, they wound up in limbo. The state now had their ownership information, and began confiscation proceedings against these gun owners, claiming they illegally held their property.

The state is sending letters to 106 rifle owners and 108 residents with high-capacity magazines saying they can destroy the guns and ammunition, sell them to a federally licensed gun dealer, move the items out of state or sell them to somebody out of state, or make arrangements to turn them over to local or state police.

Those who fail to do so could face serious criminal penalties.

In California, a de facto registration law signed by Jerry Brown in 2011 required the state to retain background-check records of those who purchase guns (although it did not register specific guns to specific people.) And you know what happened? Reason magazine explained in January.

The new law will bolster a program that has generated much controversy. Earlier this month, legislators held hearings on the effectiveness of the Armed Prohibited Persons System, used to confiscate the firearms of California residents who are no longer eligible to own them. The California Department of Justice relies on the current ownership lists to identify gun owners and cross check those with lists of people who have been convicted of crimes or have been involuntarily committed for mental issues.

The state auditor found, in a report released in October, that the department has not sufficiently notified courts and mental-health officials of their reporting requirements. Despite a new $24-million state appropriation, the auditor found that the program has failed to take guns from nearly 21,000 Californians who have forfeited their gun rights.

Not enough for you?

Registration led to confiscation in Australia, and Barack Obama wants to make that nation an example for the United States. (Yes, I know the link is RT – the Kremlin funded propaganda machine – but in this case, it’s actually correct reporting.)

After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Australia, its government passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. They also implemented a mandatory gun “buyback” – also known as confiscation (with perhaps a nominal payment for the owner’s property).

Those who do not remember history are, indeed, doomed to repeat it. That is the warning Canadian news anchor Brian Lilley  gave his American neighbors last year when he emphasized that registration did, in fact, lead to confiscation in Canada.

And in my birthplace – the USSR – firearm registration was introduced in 1918, which led to confiscation of weapons from everyone but… you guessed it… members of the Communist Party, with a stint in jail for anyone who possessed firearms and wasn’t a member. This was how Communists cemented their power over the hated bourgeoisie – those business owners, capitalists, and other undesirables whom they wanted to keep defenseless.

Those of us who grew up in tyrannical holes understand only too well that registering people for exercising their natural rights can only lead to the demise of those rights. Those of us who have studied history understand this as well.

Those who ignorantly seek to treat their fellow Americans like criminals merely for daring to exercise their rights either forgot their history, or are ignoring it.

Those of us who remember history never had any doubt about the end result of registration.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Faith and Firearms Revisited

Years ago – when I had time to write more than an occasional blog post, I wrote an article on faith and firearms for the U.S. Concealed Carry Association.

Having grown up Jewish, I always wondered why it is that major Jewish organizations were always pushing disarmament, and worse yet, leaning on faith to do it!

For an answer in this article, I turned to Rabbi Isaac Leizerowski – a friend of my dad’s and an authority on Jewish law. Rabbi Leizerowski confirmed that the right to self defense is actually mandated by Jewish law.

From the sanctity of Life comes an imperative to safeguard Life. The directive to defend your life is written in the Talmud, the 70-volume Code of Jewish Law, in at least three places. “And the Torah says, ‘If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.’”

For a reply on the psychology of disarmament, I turned to another friend, who shed some light on the issue.

Jack Feldman, Professor of Psychology at Georgia Institute of Technology, has one theory: “Jews are called on to care for others who are troubled, suffering, etc. and to stand up for the oppressed,” he says. “It’s a mitzvah. Democrats and socialists (traditional proponents of gun control) have taken that role, in appearance if not reality…A lot of us have yet to get the message about the Left, and [continue to] cling to these fallacies.”

Life is sacred, my friends. We must work to change the mindset that disarmament somehow promotes safety, and is therefore a mitzvah.

It’s not.

Disarmament is death. It’s slavery. It’s tyranny. It’s the antithesis of everything Jews strive to achieve in the social sphere – life, liberty, goodness.

The Nazis knew this, and we should never forget this.

And we must strive to show it for what it is and challenge its proponents – especially in organized Jewish circles!

Because if we allow gun grabbers to control the message and spread the lie that gun control is somehow beneficial, we’ll be swimming upstream for a long time.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail