Saturday, October 14, 2017

"High Capacity Magazines"

 I can reload my pistol from magazine carriers on my belt  in two seconds.  That's almost the time it takes me to draw my pistol from my belt holster and engage a target ... and hit it ... at point-blank range.

Which makes this Democratically (of course!) proposed law " even more laughable:

Democrats propose ban on high-capacity magazines in wake of Las Vegas attack | US news | The Guardian:
 Democrats are planning to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines in the wake of the Las Vegas attack that left at least 59 people dead and nearly 500 more injured. The proposed ban on the transfer, importation, or possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition follows separate legislation to ban “bump stocks”, the novelty device that Stephen Paddock appears to have used to make semi-automatic rifles mimic the rapid fire of a fully automatic weapon.
I currently own magazines of over 10 rounds ... had them for decades.  They're legal today.
Am I going to be subjected to ex post facto laws?  That's simple possession, right?

The Guardian Article:
Gun rights advocates say the pause to reload when changing magazines is very brief and unlikely to have a significant impact on casualties, and that arbitrarily restricting magazine size to 10 rounds would be costly and inconvenient.
These advocates say it is not hard to make larger capacity magazines by hand, even if they’re not available for legal purchase. Chris Koper, the researcher who evaluated the 1994 assault weapon ban, estimated that renewed limits on the size of ammunition magazines might contribute, in the long-term, to a 1% reduction in shootings each year. This was only a “reasonable ballpark estimate”, he cautioned.
Every thing old is new again, and that's especially true of the "latest" (and 'oldest") proposed Democratic ban on "high capacity magazines".  Various states have imposed bans on sale or transfer of magazines capable of retaining more than six, eight or ten rounds.  This is the first time I'e heard that simple possession might be illegal

If they can't even agree on magazine limits, why should we presume that the various states understand the consequences of their arbitrary laws?
What's the "right" number of rounds which should be permissible in a magazine?  For decades, Anti-Second Amendment activists have grappled with this quandary, and they can't quite seem to get the "right number" of rounds which will stop mass shootings.
The funny thing is:
,,, this is not the first time this "law" has been suggested.  It didn't meet any arbitrarily determined criteria the last time (because it was difficult to define, and impossible to enforce) and it won't accomplish any imaginary goal of "preventing gun crime" this time.

These people, who know nothing about guns and gun-users, have brought back a question that they don't know how to define and that nobody knows how to  accomplish.

In the example of the Las Vegas shooting, the "sniper" was not operating under a time constraint: nobody knew where he was, and he could reload under absolutely no pressure.  He had magazines which are (unreliably) reported to be of "100 round capacity" (which I doubt), but that was never an issue.

Using that specific instance to justify the rejuvenation of an historically fallacious argument toward a provably unproductive end is just a bunch of horse doodie.   People will do what they do, and will always  find ways to get around any arbitrary restrictions which serve no legitimate purpose.

Ex Post Facto Laws:
There are too many (literally .. MILLIONS!) "High Capacity Magazines" in private hands today to make any arbitrary restriction viable; and people who own  them will not give them up, because it's a stupid law to try to impose on people who already own them. Do the states which impose these arbitrary limits intend to confiscate "illegal" (previously owned legally) magazines without compensating their owners for their investment? Doesn't the fifth amendment* of the Constitution have something to say about that?

*(|No confiscation without compensation")

What are they going to do?  Track down everyone who own a 30-round magazine?  They can't do it: magazines are not identified by serial numbers ... it's not a matter of record who owns what  magazines!  And trying to enforce such a law is a waste of time for people (Law Enforcement Offers) who have better things to do with their time.   It's not enforceable, and cops know that!

Politicians who think they have to pass laws to show their constituents that they are "doing something" are idiots and/or fools; politicians who even suggest such an unenforceable law are the object of ridicule from the Law Enforcement Officers who would be required to enforce it.

Are the politicians going to require the cops to go from door to door to search for "illegal magazines"?  Good luck with that!

It makes you wonder how idiots are elected to office.   But I suppose it's in the 'usual' way:  Graft.

Friday, October 13, 2017

Conservative Speech on Liberal Campus

One of the other more difficult transitions to College (besides  not living at home with Mom and Dad, who are leveling influences and are readily available to offer you advice which you probably won't consider for another decade or so) is to assimilate dramatically different social and moral values from what you learned in Podunk, USA.

Ben Shapiro New York Times Op-Ed Response | National Review:
In an op-ed published in the New York Times, Jane Coaston accuses conservative commentator Ben Shapiro of exhibiting “hollow bravery” during his much-publicized speeches on campus. Coaston outlines what she considers to be Shapiro’s trick: Set up a speech in a progressive bastion, ideally a college campus full of coastal elites who have never left their bubble. Spar with snowflakes who are offended by something he says about race or gender and perhaps even believe he never should have been invited in the first place. Post the exchange on the internet and use it as proof that the cultural consensus is stacked dramatically against conservatives.

"if you're going to shoot, shoot! Don't talk!"

Law abiding firearms owners are demeaned, castigated, and insulted on a daily basis by liberal "pundits" who suggest (and too often specifically state) that we are shills for "The Gun Lobby", "Firearms Manufacturers", and the NRA.

It's demeaning to read Internet articles which suggest that we are irresponsible, infantile, and are unduly influenced by money-grubbing industry sharpies with the immoral purpose of taking advantage of our lack of civil and moral values.

It's convenient when a Gun Grabber  Gun Control shill Gun Safety Advocate comes out in the open about their agenda:

What to Bring to the Gun Fight | Crooked Media:
Last week, Republicans rejoiced, and some Democrats winced privately, when Nancy Pelosi said she hoped regulation of bump stocks—the device the Las Vegas shooter used to make his weapon more deadly—would be a “slippery slope” to further regulation. Democrats were concerned that Pelosi had handed the NRA a political cudgel the group would brandish against every one of them. But Pelosi was right, and I would like to see more Democrats find her courage, because the alternative is to surrender our ideals, and the moral high ground, for no discernible upside.
I fail to understand where the "moral high ground" lies in undermining the Constitution and abrogating the civil rights of Americans.
We could lay the death of progress at the feet of the Republican Party, which has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, but that would ultimately be a cop out. 
[emphasis added]

Or the Republican party might be defined as that political group which protect the Constitution;   all of it.    And it could be than many firearms owners are Republicans because the alternative ... to elect Democratic representatives to high office ... would compromise our own civil priorities and moral values.   And since too many Democratic Officials are ignorant of the term "Democratic" (representing ALL, equally) ...

The speaker for the Democratic Opposition to Civil Rights continues:
But when it comes to firearms we routinely fail. We are now in the midst of another gun debate that we will almost certainly lose.  The majority of Americans support stricter gun laws; less than 40 percent of Americans live in a house with a gun; consensus Democratic gun control proposals like requiring universal background checks and banning assault weapons poll above 80 percent; and yet the idea that even trivial legislation will reach the president’s desk remains a fantasy.

"40 percent of Americans" vs Democratic Polls

(See Below The Fold for a short discussion of "DEMOCRATIC")
It's a strange thing about the Constitution.  Each  generation of Liberals fails to understand that the point is to avoid the "tyranny of the majority".   In this case, the author conveniently fails to cite the source of his statistics.   Which I wouldn't believe even if he did.

If you were asked to respond to a telephone "poll" asking if you had firearms in your house, how would you answer?   My own unofficial poll is that 100% of Americans who own guns would decline to answer in the affirmative.   But I'm more honest than the author; I only asked myself.

It's nobody's business whether I own firearms.  I freely acknowledge here that I do, because it's obvious; not because some nosy reporter asked me to become a statistic.

"... another gun debate that we will almost certainly lose ..."
... and rightly so.   People who want to undermine my Constitution have no moral stance here.   It is immoral for one person to demand that a law-abiding American citizen be denied his right to defense of family, self, home and property.

The author suggests asserts that the Republican Party ... has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, which is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst.

The National Rifle Association  (NRA) is a representative organization which is supported by its (approximately 5 million) members, who are firearms owners.   Contributions and support are generously sourced by business interests (which in turn are supported by the purchases made by firearms owners); but the corporate interests would go out of business if NOT for the support of firearms owners and other sportsmen.   The NRA would not exist without its (relatively small) membership.

Note: Political Party Membership varies in the United States, with about 45% in each major party (changes annually).  Membership in the NRA seems relatively miniscule compared to major political party membership, which is somewhere in the area of 100 million members; give or take 5 million.

It's as disingenuous to suggest that the members of the NRA are controlled by the NRA, as to suggest that the NRA is controlled by the firearms industry.   It's a tripartite relationship, each wing as dependent on the others.

And firearms laws would not be enacted by our elected representatives if they were not voted into office.   Note here that the power of the NRA does not come from financial contributions, but by the VOTES OF LEGAL FIREARMS OWNERS.   Politics is funded by money, but it is decided by votes.   Firearms owners are often single-issue voters, and both parties are aware of this.


Thursday, October 12, 2017

When you're right, you're right.

The first time I saw a Vegas video, I said it out loud:
"Holy Shit!   That's Full Auto!"
Well, yes and no.  It was a conversion (bump fire; never heard of it).   But it was still full auto.

Later, I grew angry with the NRA because it wouldn't make a statement about bump fire.   I was torn for two reasons:
  • I never fully agreed with the severe restrictions on private ownership of Full-Auto weapons because I think that any weapon available to the average infantryman should be available the the law-abiding citizen.  Because Second Amendment.
  • I also realize that is unrealistic, because this world is full of crazy people ... and yes, the rest of us ARE penalized unfairly.   Because crazy people are all over and we know we can't predict who is going to do a crazy thing. *(apologies to Minority Report; it just ain't happening)*
Then I got mad at the NRA because they were silent.   But I decided to give the NRA time to decide what they were going to say.   That was a good choice, because ...

Today the NRA's Past President Marion Hammer made a statement:

An open letter to NRA board of directors from past-president Marion Hammer - The Gun Writer:
If you listened to an audio recording of the shooting during that horrific massacre, you must have concluded that it was full-auto fire. You were not alone, many firearms experts and law enforcement professionals came to the same conclusion. It was not until later that information was released disclosing that bump-stocks had been used to convert semi-automatic firearms to perform like full-auto firearms.
Do you have any idea how many people were shocked out of their minds when ATF decided bump-stocks were not subject to regulation and APPROVED them for sale and use? That was under the Obama administration for crying out loud. Your mind is forced to run wild wondering why.
Once the ruling was made, what would you expect NRA to do? Do you think NRA should have said, Oh! No, ATF is wrong, ATF made a mistake?
It doesn’t matter what laws the NRA doesn’t agree with or doesn’t like, the NRA must abide by the law. For decades, over and over again when the enemies of the Second Amendment have tried to capitalize on tragedies by calling for more gun control, NRA has called for enforcing existing law. That is exactly what we are doing now.
On the other hand, there's this:

NRA Opposes New Bump Fire Stock Ban Bill

Bill's language may reach far beyond bump fire stocks

A woman's work is never done.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Why Would Scalise Change His Mind About Gun Control?

Charles C. W. Cooke offers an interesting slant on the Gun Control question:

Why Would Scalise Change His Mind About Gun Control?:
It seems that there is widespread amazement on the Left that, having been targeted by an assassin with a rifle, and almost killed, Rep. Steve Scalise has not changed his mind on gun control. “After being shot,” read a headline at NBC, Scalise still opposes more gun control.” “Even after . . .” added ThinkProgress, indignantly.
And the chorus cried “no fair!” This, alas, was to be expected. When I write on this topic, I am often told that I would feel differently if my family had been killed by a deranged shooter, or if I had more personal experience as a victim of violence. Leaving aside that, even if this were true, it wouldn’t tell us much — I’ll let Mitchell and Webb make the point against relying on victims for instant policy expertise — it always strikes me that this is ultimately an admission of ignorance. 
This commentary deserves some feedback.

First: having been shot (assumedly because of his political convictions), Representative Scalise determined that his personal 'situation' shouldn't vary because someone shot him.   Instead, he seems to have accepted an affirmation that he has taken a stand based on his moral values, and those same values require him to stand firm.

I admire the man for his courage and for his determination.  I don't agree with his opinion, but he is one of the most honorable men in Washington. (And given my opinion on Congress Critters, that should be considered the highest compliment available!)
Second: the general opinion of The Left (as described by Cooke) disagrees with my evaluation.  Which, in turn, confirms my general opinion vis a vis "The Left" as being generally a pack of poltroons with no moral character and no priorities other than their re-election. ( In other words; not much different from the "other side" of the aisle.)

Come to think of it, their response was a  left-handed  compliment to Representative Scalise, even though they may not have intended it so.

Any man who is castigated by The Left is worthy of mention for having firmly established himself on the Moral High Ground.

He's too good for them.

Ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room ... and expecting a solution

Somebody is pointing their finger in the wrong direction!

How gun control advocates could break the NRA's blockade - CNNPolitics:
Since early in Bill Clinton's first term as president, the National Rifle Association and its legislative allies have effectively stymied meaningful federal gun control legislation. That blockade has held for two decades despite a succession of mass shootings over so horrific they have become known simply by their location: Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, San Bernardino, Orlando and now Las Vegas.
Nobody is forgetting the massacres which make the headlines, but everyone is forgetting the true cost of firearms violence.  It's not the crazy-man-with-a-gun that we need to deal with; they're crazy, you can't do anything about them but lock them up after the fact.

The REAL problem is the everyday low-key violence which occurs in urban ghettos.   And while you remain too shy *(or too politically correct)* to identify the real problem, all of your solutions will fail to stop the greatest number of firearms deaths in America.

What is the Real Problem?

Most of the 'firearms violence' incidents, those which continue to rack up high body counts on a daily basis, don't occur in the white-bread high schools in our nation.

Why is it that young black men are being murdered by the dozens on a weekly basis with nobody paying much attention to it; but when one young white man goes crazy in a 'fly-over' state, the pontificating political left acts as if the world is coming to an end?

After the Columbine high school shooting, Clinton pushed in 1999 for legislation centered on closing the so-called "gun show loophole."

Where was Bill Clinton before that seminal moment?  Was he stretching his legs under his desk in the Oval Office, perhaps experiencing his own seminal moment?

There has never been any sign of a National Leadership willing to pay attention to the problems with the urban poor, and ... yes, the young black men who weekly slaughter each other more regularly than all of the Las Vegas and Columbine tragedies, which occur on a relatively rare frequency?

Where is the call from the Federal government for a solution to the SOCIETAL problem which is the true progenitor of Urban Firearms Violence?

Does America choose to ignore the slaughter in Chicago, Baltimore, even D.C. merely because both the victims and the murderers are usually BLACK?
 The more consequential change since the 1990s has been the willingness of more Congressional Republicans with large white-collar and suburban constituencies to vote with the NRA.
Why is there an emphasis on "... large white-collar and suburban constituencies ..." when the violence is not usually perpetrated on, nor by, white-collar and suburban constituencies?

Most urban firearms violence involves a strong racial bias.    It isn't because both killer and victim are black; its because they live in a neighborhood where economic opportunities are lacking for young black men with no marketable skills.   .

They're not shooting each other because there are too many guns, Dammit.  They're shooting each other because they have nothing better to do!

The mothers of these young men are often unmarried, trying to support their family, and there is no father-figure to teach their sons how to be a man.  The daughters have only their mother as a role model ...  sometimes the children have no father in common.  These children often have no incentive to get a good education.  New business opportunities won't establish themselves where the violence is too fearful to attract workers who are NOT young local untrained men and women.

It's because poverty and neglect are so common in these communities that there IS no sense of community, except that "Whitey is going to keep us down!"   (And they are right!)

It's because our  National Leadership is ignoring that particular gorilla, because the headlines are full of Las Vegas and Washington and which Republican Senator is dissing which Republican Party Hack this week.

When we read articles such as the one in the headline, we should cringe.


(They have nothing better to do.)

Monday, October 09, 2017

CBS Statics: misleading, incomplete, amateurish and biased

CBS sponsored a meme which identified the top 20 states which registerd instances of death by firearms.

They were somewhat disingenuous in the criteria they chose.

They chose ALASKA as the most suffering from "death by gun".

They mentioned that suicide was the "leading cause of gun deaths.  They emphasized that ",,, states with the highest rates of suicide also usually had the strongest culture of gun ownership.".

They didn't mention that states with the highest rate of suicide were also the states with very low population.

Some people might consider that "loneliness" might be a huge factor in suicide rates, but this study doesn't address it at all.

1. Alaska - Death by gun: Top 20 states with highest rates - Pictures - CBS News
Death by firearm per 100,000 population: 19.8 No permit required for purchase of a firearm. In Alaska, suicide was the leading cause of gun deaths, with it being the main factor in more than 80% of all firearm deaths. John Roman, senior fellow at the Urban Institute, an economic and social policy think tank told USA Today that states with the highest rates of suicide also usually had the strongest culture of gun ownership. "There are many more suicides in places where it's easy to get a gun," he said.
In fact, this poorly edited website only mentions states which do NOT require a "permit for purchase of a firearm" ... and no other background information was made available.   Efforts to follow up on subsequent 'ratings' were unrewarding.

For example:

5. Arkansas

Death by firearm per 100,000 population: 16.8
No permit required for purchase of a firearm.

As far as I was willing to follow the trail, these were the limited statistics available,  and there absolutely NO details available to differentiate between the states.
No permit required for purchase of a firearm
The insinuation is clear, that the authors consider a 'permit process' to be a valid method to reduce firearm deaths, although no details described the variety of ways which firearm deaths might occur (death by Law Enforcement Officers, Self Defense, Manslaughter, Murder, etc.)

The only significant statistics (according to this website) are whether firearms owners who were (even tangentially) involved in a "firearms death" were required to apply for, and receive, a 'permit' from their state of residence before they were 'allowed' to purchase a firearm.

The problem with the Internet is that anyone can make any statement, and as long as they are able to cite another internet post as "authority", they may be accepted as "fact" by someone who has an axe to grind, and cannot find another source to justify their assertionsl.

How low can WHO go? Schumer

It's difficult to put words in Chuck Schumer's mouth ... there's already a foot in there.

Schumer rips NRA for pushing federal concealed carry bill - NY Daily News: ]\
“Just days after the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history, the NRA is engaging their allies in Congress to push through a dangerous national concealed carry law, which begs the question: How low can you go?” said Schumer (D-N.Y.).
(emphasis added)

Actually, the NRA has been working toward a National Concealed Carry agreement since long before the Vegas Massacre.   But Schumer's vituperative comments are consistent with his long-standing opposition to the Second Amendment:

While serving in the House of Representatives, Schumer, along with California senator Dianne Feinstein, authored the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban which expired in 2004. The National Rifle Association and other gun groups (see gun politics) have criticized him for allegedly not knowing much about guns, alluding to various errors regarding the subject.[citation needed] Supporters of gun control legislation, however, give him much of the credit for passage of both the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.[citation needed] The Assault Weapons Ban, which banned semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns with certain features, expired in September 2004 despite attempts by Schumer to extend it. He was one of 16 senators to vote against the Vitter Amendment, which prohibited the confiscation of legally owned firearms during a disaster.
Schumer is also consistently re-elected by his home state, winning 70% of the vote in his most recent election.

New York loves Schumer, and has no great love for private ownership of firearms.   That's not really surprising, since the abuse of firearms is one of the major issues in any state with many high-density cities, and it's worth noting that New York is NOT among the top 20 states for firearms death.

I don't agree with Chuck Schumer's views about guns, but I have to admit that he is more entertaining than his cousin, Amy Schumer.   (yes, they are cousins ... not uncle and niece,)

(WORKPLACE VIOLENCE WARNING! Your office partners will shoot you if you run the linked video of an Amy Schumer routine with the sound on.)