Guns

Finally getting to the long promised story of my trip to California. You were warned. [grin]

It all started months ago when my sister sent me tickets for the airfare. She'd always wanted to do that, but I'd never before agreed to fly... but I had a 2 1/2 year old grandson I'd never seen, and wanted badly to reconnect with my two sons, so I bit the proverbial bullet and accepted.

I have a friend who is into guns in a big way. He has been since before he was old enough to buy one without his mother's permission. He loves to shoot. He also is a computerphobe. He son gave him a computer. He refuses to use it. We were talking the other day and he noted to me that among his shooting friends, almost none of them use the computer. To me, this is mind-boggling. It is like choosing not to read or some such thing. But so it is with this group of people.

Sometimes a seemingly simple question - or a misunderstanding - can create great rifts between people and challenge deeply held ideas... I may have lost a very long time friend - and he's an incredible champion of freedom - over this. I really don't understand why and he, strangely, is not at all clear why he disagrees with me. I would really appreciate any feedback.

The usual suspects, naturally. But it turns out that isn’t all.

Those of us who have longed for international comparisons on firearms ownership and various crime rates have something to sink our teeth into. A taste for you [reformatted, footnote numbering removed, emphasis in original]:

[M]anifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998‐2004 (the latest figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R. .... While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,” that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.” Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text:

[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups ....

....
[T]he undeniable result is that violent crime, and homicide in particular, has plummeted in the United States over the past 15 years. The fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s. This contrast should induce thoughtful people to wonder what happened in those nations, and to question policies based on the notion that introducing increasingly more restrictive firearm ownership laws reduces violent crime. Perhaps the United States is doing something right in promoting firearms for law‐abiding responsible adults.

Much more for your perusal at Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence [PDF] by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser. Thank you, gentlemen!

You've probably had an article or movie smack you upside the head at some point... probably more than once. I know I have, and will again.

The latest such was an article submitted to The Price of Liberty called, An Old-Fashioned, Judgmental, Closed-Minded American Pleads “Guilty”
By Timothy A Thorstenson from American Handgunner magazine.

I saw this movie last night. It may not be in theaters much longer. It has qualities that a large screen will show better than a small one.
First the trailer -

Please see the completed/final article at my website.

I've spent a great part of the last week reading the "news" and hundreds of commentaries, blogs and emails related to the tragedy in Virginia on Monday.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually studies old fashioned journalism anymore... not that it was ever pure, but the current mix of hysteria and conflicting stories - not to mention horrible writing and endless typos - make me wonder just where these "news" people come from.

With various state legislatures tackling the "issue" of guns in the workplace parking lot again, I see the usual Repugnican apologists whining that letting workers store guns in their cars violates the companys' rights.

Let's put that argument in plain corporate English:

From: Management
To: All Peons Employees

The Overseers and Masters

When honest people speak of "rights" we are using a bit of verbal shorthand; the complete term is "human rights." Real people have rights; not artificial legal constructs.

Today marks the start of my second year in Wyoming. It's also almost exactly 6 months since I started to open carry my revolver.

Both of those things have caused me to do a lot of thinking, reevaluate my motives, goals and a lifetime of beliefs and conclusions. A lot of them have changed and some have been completely replaced. It's been an incredible roller coaster ride, but I've enjoyed it more than almost anything I've ever done before.

In many ways, I'm a whole new person.

Here is the letter from the Spearfish WalMart, received this week, and my response.

Thank you for the concerned letter, and I absolutely apologize for any misunderstanding of what our policy is and/or isn't, concerning firearms and whether or not someone can openly carry on our property.

Travis Olson
Co-Manager 1543

My response:

Dear Mr. Olson,
Your apology is gladly accepted, but you have not clarified the policy very well.

Reading your letter, I get two messages. The first is that open carry is allowed.The second seems to be that it can't be loaded.

An unloaded gun does not represent any increase in safety to me or to your employees/customers - but it could spell the difference between life and death in a lethal encounter with a criminal.

I am a responsible, well trained adult. I fail to see any difference between the ammunition in the cart and what is already in my sidearm. There are probably a dozen or more people in your store at any given time carrying concealed. I assume they don't announce their status when they buy ammunition.

Anyone who, in any way, becomes aggressive or physically endangers others should be promptly removed from the store. Those who are peaceful and non-aggressive should be left alone. The mere presence of a tool on one's belt does not constitute a danger to innocent bystanders, whether it is a gun or a hammer. That seems simple enough.

Unfortunately, you seem to be laboring under at least some of the same disinformation so dear to all those who would create vast seas of disarmed victims. Somehow, the gun or the ammunition is the evil problem, regardless of who is using them.

So, I am still at a loss to understand just what to expect if I return to your store.

Sincerely,

Well, this comes as a pleasant surprise: Appeals Court Overturns DC Gun Ban. Not only that, but it appears to have been overturned for at least some of the right reasons. Quoting from that Washington Post piece:

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.

The ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also threw out the district's requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock.

In 2004, a lower-court judge told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

I included that last sentence/paragraph just so those inclined to could laugh at Judge Henderson’s pickiness. Also, I expect that the case will be heard by the Robed Nazgul, unless the wimps dodge the issue yet again—but this ruling will make it much more difficult for them to do so.

No open carry in WalMart February 20, 2007. Is the next mass murder by a madman going to happen in a crowded WalMart near you?

After nearly five months open carrying all over Wyoming and western SD, I had my first really negative experience. I've carried in a SD Walmart for three plus months, with only friendly questions from both customers and clerks on occasion.

Lots of things I want to touch on, and not much time for it. So, a shorter, and probably less coherent, look around this morning:

I would guess that most readers have heard about Angel Shamaya's situation in Michigan. For those who haven't, he's the founder of Keep and Bear Arms.com, and was recently—and suspiciously—arrested and jailed for carrying unpapered firearms, apparently. I've met Angel in person, and think the world of him. He was a big help when my friend and fellow LRTer the Hunter went through the legal wringer in Ohio on a firearms charge a few years back. Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, is currently helping coordinate various means of helping Angel. I've met Gary too, and hold him in high regard. He's accepting contributions to Angel's defense fund, using MSSA infrastructure to process them (without charging any administrative fees). The situation regarding donations may change over the next several days, but if I can scrape enough together to help, I'd still send it to Gary, because I trust him. A PayPal donation button can be found on the MSSA web site, if you'd like to use that option to make a contribution. For more details on donations and further developments in Angel's situation, I'd recommend keeping an eye on End the War on Freedom -- Bill's posting Gary's updates.

-:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:-

Jim Bovard—who appears to be on his way to becoming a Brazilian sensation—has a good piece up at LRC outlining how farming became a federal affair. Also over there, not so new but still highly worthwhile, is Becky Akers' explanation of how an inheritance case wound up being heard by the Robed Nazgul. Spot on, especially her closing.

-:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:-

Two items on Real ID: At least one Wisconsin newspaper apparently thinks the state should just roll over and take the fedgov ass-raping on ID. A Kalifornia editorial is much more to my liking: Feds must drop ID plan. There's still time to resist, and it's clear there's lots of educating still to be done on the issue. One idea was presented to me by a very dear friend I don't hear from often enough (that shouldn't be construed as pressure, though!): states can simply choose not to comply with making their driving permission slips acceptable federal ID. Hell, I'd almost consider buying a state's driver's license just for the grins I'd get every time I looked at it and saw "NOT VALID FOR FEDERAL ID" on it in big red letters.

-:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:-

Some people, even those who should, simply don't know enough about the calculus of taking risks. How else to explain this handwringing over the lack of takers of bonds to rebuild New Orleans? I think a clue could be found in Iceland.

After seeing an excerpt from a gun column by Massad Ayoob at Backwoods Home Magazine courtesy of Bill St. Clair, I clicked through to read the whole thing. I've met Ayoob before, and read a fair amount of his extant work (including at least one book), and had consistently been impressed. However, this time he stumbled so badly out of the gate that I didn't make it through all of his answer to the first question. Here's the offending bit, which is all the more disappointing because it started out promisingly:

Male or female? It's less about gender than about hand size and shooting experience. A home defense gun is a "pool weapon," like the shotgun in a police patrol car that's on the road for three shifts a day: multiple individuals may be resorting to the same weapon. This means that the gun's size and power have to be tailored to the smallest, least physically capable shooter who is authorized to use it. A large man can easily shoot his wife's short-stocked 20-gauge shotgun or her slim-gripped SIG P239 9mm, but she will be awkward, clumsy, and poorly prepared to defend herself with his long-stocked 12 gauge, or his fat-handled .50 caliber Desert Eagle, which also requires a long finger to properly reach the trigger.

The truth of the matter is she might be unable to handle either of those weapons. "She" -- this mythical female -- won't know unless she tries them. I wonder how many women might read that bit o' excrement from Ayoob and not even try any larger gun, because she "will be" awkward and poorly prepared to defend herself.

The first firearm I ever shot was a "long-stocked 12 gauge". Pump, too -- none of that fancy-pants semiauto stuff. Not having Ayoob's, er, wisdom to guide me at the time, I was a natural with it, and I absolutely loved it. Later, when I got comfortable -- and a bit careless -- with the gun, I learned that I could abuse my shoulder quite soundly with it; but even that did not render me awkward or clumsy.

Moving on to handguns, as Ayoob himself subtly suggests, there's more to the choice of a suitable one than a "slim" or "fat" grip. It's how the weapon fits and feels in your hands, whether your finger can comfortably reach the trigger and smoothly pull it, and whether your arms can handle the recoil sufficiently to recover the target quickly. Much of that has very little to do with caliber size -- contrary to Ayoob's inference otherwise. I once shot a training course with a Glock 27 -- the mini version in .40 -- and found the damn thing just too barky for me. The larger 22 and 23 feel better in my hand, and perform splendidly for me. [Please take note of that, if you're reading this and considering buying a handgun: Same caliber, same manufacturer, but very different feel and performance. The lesson here is two-fold: never take anybody else's word as gospel on what will or won't work for you; and before you settle on a gun, try everything you can get your hands on in the largest caliber you can safely handle!] One of the most wonderful handguns I've ever shot is easily the Grizzly Win Mag, although I'm not generally a fan of the 1911 frame. It's a honkin' big handgun, but I don't recall shooting better with any other pistol. I've shot a Desert Eagle, too, but the experience didn't really stand out in my mind.

Just to be clear here: I'm not some big, strong Amazon wench, nor do I have huge hands -- I do have rather longish fingers, though. Nor am I petite. My hands are quite a bit smaller than my Sweetie's, but my fingers are just about as long as his, if memory serves. But that again goes to my point: men and women alike have tremendous variation in hand/wrist setup -- palms can be meaty or dainty, as can fingers. Either can be squat, average, or long. Some people have a great deal of wrist/forearm strength, where others don't. There's no firearm equivalent of Match.com, where one gives one's relevant physical data and the computer spits back a list of good guns for the individual.

I imagine that some folks who've been shooting with me will be protesting that I'm not providing sufficient information on my shooting experiences. Okay, I'll confess: It's been alleged that I'm a recoil junkie. Yeah, I have shot some impressively big-bore stuff that I've not mentioned above; and yeah, I've enjoyed it. Recoil junkie? Maybe ... ["Wouldn't you like to find out?" she asks with a sly grin] But I've also shot smaller guns that worked well for me, too. I've done a little shooting with smaller calibers, but mostly haven't seriously bothered with any ammunition that I don't think is sufficiently powerful to protect me.

And the point isn't what I like; it's what works for the person choosing and using the gun. It was hugely disappointing to see Ayoob end up defaulting to the "only big people can handle big guns" nonsense; it was even worse to have the "small calibers are better for the girls" nonsense slyly shoved in there too. I realize that Ayoob may not have done the latter intentionally -- but that doesn't let him off the hook. If he's to be taken seriously as an expert, he needs to be extra-careful to avoid sloppy shit like that.