Posts Tagged ‘guns’

A Little Shooting

Sunday, January 6th, 2013

Seeing as how the gun control topic seems to be big now, I thought I’d post a few pictures of us shooting. After all, I’m an endowed life member of the NRA so I’m supposed to be a gun nut. The photos were taken at a family ranch in Arizona.

Here is the ranch with my cousin Kerry and his wife Sharon ready to go shooting.

Here are some of the guns we used. In deference to Diane Feinstein, we didn’t show the machine guns. The gun on the far left is a muzzle loader that is fun to shoot. Since it only fires one shot at a time, this would probably be permitted by Senator Feinstein.

Here is Kerry shooting an assault rifle, 1870 edition. Apologies to Diane.

Here I am firing an assault pistol, 1862 edition. It’s called an “old Army” design and uses black powder and lead balls. It can fire six shots in rapid succession so it probably should be banned.

Here I am assembling one of these scary looking shotguns. It is a semi-automatic and has a magazine that holds four rounds plus one in the chamber. I don’t know that it might be too scary for Diane.

Now, here is a photo that should go on the Brady campaign web site. Cindy is firing one of those dangerous semi-automatic hand guns that is “military style” as defined by Diane’s new bill. Kerry is shooting a safer revolver but it can still fire six shots in rapid succession.

This is a photo that would probably be a mystery to Diane or Mayor Bloomberg. It is called “shooting trap” a sport that us scary gun nuts like. Shooting sports are not hunting and they are not self defense. However, if you are going to know how to shoot a gun, you have to practice. People who have never held or fired a gun are doing a lot of talking about guns and usually don’t know what they are talking about. It is embarrassing to see some of these people pontificating on television who are obviously ignorant of the subject and make silly gaffes in terminology. And, importantly, we didn’t have any rocket launchers.

By the way, the black puff of smoke in the sky in line with Kerry’s gun shows that he hit the clay pigeon. Nice shot, Kerry.

Obama and guns

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

UPDATE: A furious response from gun owners has resulted in a quick reversal by DoD on the used brass decision. Apparently there are some people in this administration who can understand how stupid they look.

Since the election, there has been a huge increase in the purchase of guns and ammunition. Some attribute this to fear of Obama’s previously expressed antipathy to private ownership of firearms. His most recent actions seem to confirm this, as he has taken every step available to him without going through Congress to reduce gun ownership.

His history is not reassuring.

Chicago Defender December 13, 1999,

Obama unveils federal gun bill

Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.

He’s proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for “antique” weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms

And more when he was a Senator.

Associated Press, Sept. 11, 2004:

-Voted ‘No’ on letting people claim a self-defense protection in court for using a gun in their homes despite local weapons bans. (SB2165, 2004)

First came the new policy in which the Defense Department will no longer sell fired brass cartridges to private ammunition makers. This will cause job losses in the ammunition industry and hurt police departments that need cheap ammunition for target practice.

It will also cost the government money that it has made from selling the brass.

Haynie further pointed out this move is a stupendous waste of taxpayer money–reducing the worth of the brass some 80%–from casings, to shredded bulk brass.

Now pilots who have passed gun safety classes, will be disarmed.

Arming pilots after Sept. 11 was nothing new. Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. Indeed, U.S. pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) ever causing any significant problems.

Screening of airplane passengers is hardly perfect. While armed marshals are helpful, the program covers less than 3 percent of the flights out of Washington D.C.’s three airports and even fewer across the country. Sky marshals are costly and quit more often than other law-enforcement officers.

Armed pilots are a cost-effective backup layer of security. Terrorists can only enter the cockpit through one narrow entrance, and armed pilots have some time to prepare themselves as hijackers penetrate the strengthened cockpit doors. With pilots, we have people who are willing to take on the burden of protecting the planes for free. About 70 percent of the pilots at major American carriers have military backgrounds.

Obama’s hostility to private ownership of firearms will cost the Democrats at the polls unless Congress reverses some of his policy changes.

The consequences of a gun ban.

Thursday, July 17th, 2008

This article from the Daily Telegraph describes the process by which the British were stripped of the right to self defense.

Self defence, wrote William Blackstone, the 18th-century jurist, is a “natural right that no government can deprive people of, since no government can protect the individual in his moment of need”.

What changed ?

For almost 500 years, until 1954, England and Wales enjoyed a declining rate of violent crime. In the last years of the 19th century, when there were no restrictions on guns, there was just one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million people. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world.

We still remember this reputation of Britain as a peaceable kingdom. The Lord of the Rings trilogy contrasted the peaceful Shire, inhabited by hobbits who were more concerned with warm hobbit holes, good food and smoking tobacco than with politics, with the harsh outside world. The books have been interpreted as allegorical comparison with Nazi Germany. What has happened since Tolkein wrote them ?

The practical removal of the right to self defence began with Britain’s 1920 Firearms Act, the first serious limitation on privately-owned firearms. It was motivated by fear of a Bolshevik-type revolution rather than concerns about householders defending themselves against robbers. Anyone wanting to keep a firearm had to get a certificate from his local police chief certifying that he was a suitable person to own a weapon and had a good reason to have it. The definition of “good reason”, left to the police, was gradually narrowed until, in 1969, the Home Office decided “it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person”.

Thus, crime was never the problem that led to the disarming of the population. Once guns were banned, the principle was extended to any potential weapon.

The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act made it illegal to carry in a public place any article “made, adapted or intended” for an offensive purpose “without lawful authority or reasonable excuse”. Any item carried for defence was, by definition, an “offensive” weapon.

Thus, it became illegal to defend yourself. The rule became to wait for the police to defend you. What if they didn’t arrive ?

Rather than permitting people to protect themselves, the authorities’ response to the recent series of brutal attacks on home-owners has been to advise people to get more locks and, in case of a break-in, retreat to a secure room – presumably the bathroom – to call the police. They are not to keep any weapon for protection or approach the intruder. Someone might get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident will be sued by the burglar and vigorously prosecuted by the state.

What was the result of this policy ?

At the same time as government demanded sole responsibility for protecting individuals, it adopted a more lenient approach toward offenders. Sentences were sharply reduced, few offenders served more than a third or a half of their term, and fewer offenders were incarcerated. Further, they were to be protected from their victims. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another, was denied parole because he posed a danger to other burglars.

The “more guns, less crime” argument has been attacked in America as flawed research and the author of several of these studies has been vilified. What about the experience in Britain, far from the National Rifle Association?

This trade-off of rights for security has been disastrous for both. Crime has rocketed. A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world’s crime league. Five years after the sweeping 1998 ban on handguns, handgun crime had doubled. As was forecast at the time, the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only outlaws have handguns.

The recent Heller decision has stimulated this debate once again. We will hear more about this issue in the months and years to come. Here is a Glenn Reynolds law review article on the future course of gun law litigation.

UPDATE: The original plaintiff, Heller, had his application denied today. The bureaucrats don’t give up that easily.

Why I am an NRA Life Member

Sunday, July 13th, 2008

Take a look at this video and tell me the police can be trusted to protect us.

In the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992, Korean store owners stationed themselves on the roofs of their businesses with rifles to protect them. The seven-day waiting period for gun purchase kept many from obtaining protection. At least the LAPD did not confiscate weapons.

What’s the matter with…

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

A number of commentators have attributed Obamas’s gaffe about small town white working class voters to a well known book from 2004 called What’s the Matter With Kansas ? that postulates a theory that middle class voters act against their own best interests by voting Republican. David Frum has an excellent column on the problems with that theory. It looks more and more that this book has led Obama and many other Democrats astray. It has also confirmed a bunch of rather obnoxious prejudices about small town working class whites. Part of their problem is that they don’t know why anyone else is upset at these characterizations. They think this stuff is really true.