I know I have a thing about wild animal attack blogging, but it bothers me when I read about someone getting mauled unnecessarily. This time a 70-year old man, Jim Hamm, in a California state park suffered a mountain lion attack.
He and his 65-year old wife are experienced hikers and were on a well-defined trail when the lion grabbed the man’s head and tried to drag him into the woods. I guess it was dinner time for Mr. Lion when Hamm walked by (and yes I’m aware it’s a bad pun).
Hamm’s wife grabbed a log and tried to beat off the lion. Hamm told her to grab his pen and try to stab the cat’s eyes. She tried and when that didn’t work, she grabbed her log and resumed beating the animal. The lion finally decided enough was enough and fled.
Mrs. Hamm helped her husband to the trailhead and got help. He underwent surgery for scalp and facial lacerations. Park rangers hunted down and shot two lions; the story does not say if they ascertained which if either of the two cats was “guilty.” The quotation marks are there because the lion was only doing what comes naturally and is incapable of real quilt.
Here’s the main thing, we have two people in the woods without proper gear. They didn’t have guns and indeed were banned from having them (California Administrative Code Title 14, Section 4313). I don’t blame the Hamms. They were using the park the way the government wanted them to—passive observors instead of people who could actively defend themselves with something other than logs and pens.
Humans are tool-making mammals and those tools set us apart from animals with larger teeth and claws. When Mrs. Hamm grabbed a log and a pen, she used tools to defend her spouse. She created a club and a stabbing implement. Humans have made much more effective tools than sticks and pointy objects. We call them firearms and too many people in society and government don’t want us to have them.
I understand (although I don’t agree) why governments ban firearms and other weapons in parks. They’re afraid that some fool with more testosterone than brains will shoot an animal just to do it. Unfortunately, it’s a valid fear. A few gun owners give the rest of us a bad name. But, governments treat someone who wouldn’t shoot an animal needlessly just like they treat the idiot that would. The result is leaving presumably good people like the Hamms at the mercy of animals and two-legged predators.
Police the parks, arrest the idiots who abuse guns, but let the rest of us carry the tool that prevents us from being prey.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
A Gunnie Book Review--Armed America
Clayton Cramer’s Armed America: The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie is a response to Michael Bellesiles’ Arming America. Even though it’s a response, it stands on its own merits as a study of guns in early America. (Update: Cramer's blog is here.)
You probably remember Bellesiles’ book and the scandal around it. He argued that guns were not a factor in American life until the government flooded the market with surplus guns primarily after the Civil War, but also after the Mexican-American War. Academic historians and gun-banners loved the idea.
Gun-banners and too many academic historians accepted Bellesiles’ argument without question. Here was "proof" that showed guns were not important when the Second Amendment was written. It seemed to prove that without guns America had low crime (particularly white-on-white), that available guns were used for nefarious purposes such as keeping slaves in thrall, and that hunting was a rare pursuit of the well-to-do.
All seemed well for awhile until some historians, law professors, experts in old probate records, and Clayton Cramer began asking serious questions. More and more, they turned up evidence of misused sources that didn’t say what Bellesiles said they did. Some “sources” never existed at all.
Bellesiles eventually lost his tenured professorship even while proclaiming his innocence. Most former supporters now look at his book as fiction.
Cramer’s book is not just a point by point refutation although a few chapters show exactly how Bellesiles misused eye-witness accounts of travelers in America. Cramer has combed historical sources for any mention of guns, hunting, crime, and everything dealing with guns in America. He has produced a solid, convincing work.
When you read the book you get a sense of déjà vu, that there really is nothing new under the sun. You read about hunting seasons and restrictions that were promulgated in 1699. If you think concealed firearms are a new debate, they aren’t. Bans on carrying concealed weapons were passed between 1813 and the 1840s in response to brawling and too many murders. Concerns about lawlessness are nothing new.
There are a few places where Cramer guesses how to interpret historical information, but he identifies those instances and lets the reader decide. For instance, revolutionary war quartermasters were concerned about the supply of arms. Bellesiles might argue that such documents indicated guns were not available. Cramer uses at least some of the same sources and points out that quartermasters were concerned not so much with guns, but with bayonets. Just what you might expect with militia members armed with their own hunting rifles.
Similarly, having an army armed with rifles conflicted with military thinking of the time. Generals wanted to mass troops on a battlefield and have them fire volleys at similary massed enemy troops. Rifles took too much time to reload for effective volley fire, so muskets were the flavor of the day. Muskets however are smoothbore firearms using a ball that is a touch too small for the bore. They are not accurate and thus useless for hunting or home defense.
I would have liked to have seen more social history in Armed America. It would have been interesting to read how Americans expressed themselves about guns, crime committed with guns, and how anti-concealed carry laws got passed when the Second Amendment was more respected than it appears to be today. For that matter, I would also like to know how people of the day discussed that amendment, but that could be another book.
As a woman, I am always interested in how women used guns. Cramer points to probate records that indicate a fair number of female gun owners, but it is rarely shown if women used guns for defense, hunting, or entertainment particularly if they didn’t live on the frontier.
There’s a wealth of information in Armed America. I don’t know if many anti-gun people will read it and that’s a shame.
You probably remember Bellesiles’ book and the scandal around it. He argued that guns were not a factor in American life until the government flooded the market with surplus guns primarily after the Civil War, but also after the Mexican-American War. Academic historians and gun-banners loved the idea.
Gun-banners and too many academic historians accepted Bellesiles’ argument without question. Here was "proof" that showed guns were not important when the Second Amendment was written. It seemed to prove that without guns America had low crime (particularly white-on-white), that available guns were used for nefarious purposes such as keeping slaves in thrall, and that hunting was a rare pursuit of the well-to-do.
All seemed well for awhile until some historians, law professors, experts in old probate records, and Clayton Cramer began asking serious questions. More and more, they turned up evidence of misused sources that didn’t say what Bellesiles said they did. Some “sources” never existed at all.
Bellesiles eventually lost his tenured professorship even while proclaiming his innocence. Most former supporters now look at his book as fiction.
Cramer’s book is not just a point by point refutation although a few chapters show exactly how Bellesiles misused eye-witness accounts of travelers in America. Cramer has combed historical sources for any mention of guns, hunting, crime, and everything dealing with guns in America. He has produced a solid, convincing work.
When you read the book you get a sense of déjà vu, that there really is nothing new under the sun. You read about hunting seasons and restrictions that were promulgated in 1699. If you think concealed firearms are a new debate, they aren’t. Bans on carrying concealed weapons were passed between 1813 and the 1840s in response to brawling and too many murders. Concerns about lawlessness are nothing new.
There are a few places where Cramer guesses how to interpret historical information, but he identifies those instances and lets the reader decide. For instance, revolutionary war quartermasters were concerned about the supply of arms. Bellesiles might argue that such documents indicated guns were not available. Cramer uses at least some of the same sources and points out that quartermasters were concerned not so much with guns, but with bayonets. Just what you might expect with militia members armed with their own hunting rifles.
Similarly, having an army armed with rifles conflicted with military thinking of the time. Generals wanted to mass troops on a battlefield and have them fire volleys at similary massed enemy troops. Rifles took too much time to reload for effective volley fire, so muskets were the flavor of the day. Muskets however are smoothbore firearms using a ball that is a touch too small for the bore. They are not accurate and thus useless for hunting or home defense.
I would have liked to have seen more social history in Armed America. It would have been interesting to read how Americans expressed themselves about guns, crime committed with guns, and how anti-concealed carry laws got passed when the Second Amendment was more respected than it appears to be today. For that matter, I would also like to know how people of the day discussed that amendment, but that could be another book.
As a woman, I am always interested in how women used guns. Cramer points to probate records that indicate a fair number of female gun owners, but it is rarely shown if women used guns for defense, hunting, or entertainment particularly if they didn’t live on the frontier.
There’s a wealth of information in Armed America. I don’t know if many anti-gun people will read it and that’s a shame.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Where Are the Pro-Gun Candidates
David Kopel lists Presidential contenders at Volokh Conspiracy. He ranks them based on how friendly they might be to gun rights. I could quibble with the rankings, but it’s pretty good.
The sad thing about it is that there are too few pro-gun rights people who have a chance of winning. Top tier candidates include Ron Paul and Sam Brownback. Both are certainly gun friendly, but I’d eat this keyboard with fries on the side if either wins.
The next ranking in the list (“Very Good”) includes Bill Richardson. He has other baggage, not least of which is having been a member of the Clinton administration, but he is not bad on guns. Granted, he may be playing to a New Mexico audience and could govern differently on a national stage. Still, he’s the only Democrat on Kopel’s list that rates above “Almost perfect anti-Second Amendment record.”
I don’t know if I could support Richardson for other reasons, but I think that we gunnies need to have pro-gun people in both parties. We can’t afford to have all of our eggs in one basket. Look at three of the Republicans on Kopel’s list: Mitt Romney who never met a Massachusetts gun law he would eradicate; John McCain sponsored a bill that would make gun shows a thing of the past; and Rudy Giuliani former mayor of New York City, ‘nuff said.
Of course, those who most oppose gun rights are Democrats: John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others.
I’ve never sat out an election before, but it is getting mighty tempting when I try to guess who will be my choices for President in 2008.
Can’t we ever run someone better than “None of the Above?”
The sad thing about it is that there are too few pro-gun rights people who have a chance of winning. Top tier candidates include Ron Paul and Sam Brownback. Both are certainly gun friendly, but I’d eat this keyboard with fries on the side if either wins.
The next ranking in the list (“Very Good”) includes Bill Richardson. He has other baggage, not least of which is having been a member of the Clinton administration, but he is not bad on guns. Granted, he may be playing to a New Mexico audience and could govern differently on a national stage. Still, he’s the only Democrat on Kopel’s list that rates above “Almost perfect anti-Second Amendment record.”
I don’t know if I could support Richardson for other reasons, but I think that we gunnies need to have pro-gun people in both parties. We can’t afford to have all of our eggs in one basket. Look at three of the Republicans on Kopel’s list: Mitt Romney who never met a Massachusetts gun law he would eradicate; John McCain sponsored a bill that would make gun shows a thing of the past; and Rudy Giuliani former mayor of New York City, ‘nuff said.
Of course, those who most oppose gun rights are Democrats: John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others.
I’ve never sat out an election before, but it is getting mighty tempting when I try to guess who will be my choices for President in 2008.
Can’t we ever run someone better than “None of the Above?”
Thursday, January 18, 2007
If the Big One Hits--A Book Review
What did we do before the Internet? For one thing, it has led me to books I wouldn’t have discovered without it. I read about a book in comments to a post from Kim du Toit. Kim’s post included a reader's e-mail who wrote about conversations with liberal friends. He wrote that he had made some TEOTAWAKI preparations including putting aside some food and guns. His now ex-friends called him a hoarder and other interesting names.
Commenters mentioned Lucifer’s Hammer by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle inspiring me to read it. I read science fiction occasionally, but this book is not typical science fiction in the sense of advanced technology and/or BEMS. It's speculative fiction.
It was quite good. Written in 1977, it’s set in California, and is about TEOTAWAKI . I want to avoid spoilers, but doubt I will so read on at your own risk. An amateur astronomer, Tim Hamner, finds an hitherto unknown comet entering our solar system. He and another amateur who found it about the same time announce it and the comet is named Hamner-Brown. Hamner is interviewed on the Johnny Carson show and Carson mistakenly calls it the Hammer comet. The name sticks.
Professional astronomers tell people the comet won’t hit the Earth, but as the comet comes nearer to Earth, their odds keep changing for the worse. People become worried and camping gear, freeze-dried food, guns, ammunition, and other items disappear from store shelves. People are using credit cards like there is no tomorrow and stores are accepting them in the hope that there will be a tomorrow.
A major character decides to get ready days before the comet’s final approach. He buys large beef roasts and cleverly turns them into beef jerky. He also buys many bottles of liquor believing that they would become trade goods should the comet strike. Having trade goods is an interesting concept and something to consider if one is preparing for anything more than a three or four day disaster.
Parts of the comet strike the Earth (the strike is called Hammerfall). Everything changes. Tsunamis wipe out coastal cities, low areas are flooded, emergency services are wiped away, people die in the millions. Man’s civilization is at risk.
Once nature’s fury is abated, survivors have to, well, survive. Those with a little foresight realize that crops will fail due to darkness and cold caused by steam, dust, and ash temporarily blocking the sun. People who carefully prepared become victims of roving bands of thieves. Even the man who made the beef jerky loses his stash.
One group of survivors live in a valley protected by high ridges. They band together and try to save civilization while surviving beyond the coming winter. They do something that raised at least one of my eyebrows. The people in the valley, now called Stronghold, collectivize food, ammunition, weapons and other necessary items.
People who laid aside such stuff have to give it up or be thrown out of the valley and be at the mercy of roving bands of criminals and even cannibals. Those bands, now a small army, are coming closer to Stronghold and its inhabitants must beat them back.
This theme fits into something I’ve thought about for awhile; the balance of societal and individual needs. We are all individuals, but we all have to be part of society. That’s a hard balance to achieve sometimes.
If TEOTAWAKI occurs, it may be necessary for a small community to collectivize certain things. It doesn’t make sense for one person to own fifteen rifles while potential defenders are armed with rocks. On the other hand, there would have to be guarantees that all would share equally and not have elite members of the nascent society keep the best for themselves.
For a good look at how life might be after a world-shattering disaster, Lucifer’s Hammer is an excellently thought out and researched book. It’s a compelling story that will cause many people to wonder how they could survive such an experience or if they would even want to given the conditions that would exist after a Hammerfall.
Commenters mentioned Lucifer’s Hammer by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle inspiring me to read it. I read science fiction occasionally, but this book is not typical science fiction in the sense of advanced technology and/or BEMS. It's speculative fiction.
It was quite good. Written in 1977, it’s set in California, and is about TEOTAWAKI . I want to avoid spoilers, but doubt I will so read on at your own risk. An amateur astronomer, Tim Hamner, finds an hitherto unknown comet entering our solar system. He and another amateur who found it about the same time announce it and the comet is named Hamner-Brown. Hamner is interviewed on the Johnny Carson show and Carson mistakenly calls it the Hammer comet. The name sticks.
Professional astronomers tell people the comet won’t hit the Earth, but as the comet comes nearer to Earth, their odds keep changing for the worse. People become worried and camping gear, freeze-dried food, guns, ammunition, and other items disappear from store shelves. People are using credit cards like there is no tomorrow and stores are accepting them in the hope that there will be a tomorrow.
A major character decides to get ready days before the comet’s final approach. He buys large beef roasts and cleverly turns them into beef jerky. He also buys many bottles of liquor believing that they would become trade goods should the comet strike. Having trade goods is an interesting concept and something to consider if one is preparing for anything more than a three or four day disaster.
Parts of the comet strike the Earth (the strike is called Hammerfall). Everything changes. Tsunamis wipe out coastal cities, low areas are flooded, emergency services are wiped away, people die in the millions. Man’s civilization is at risk.
Once nature’s fury is abated, survivors have to, well, survive. Those with a little foresight realize that crops will fail due to darkness and cold caused by steam, dust, and ash temporarily blocking the sun. People who carefully prepared become victims of roving bands of thieves. Even the man who made the beef jerky loses his stash.
One group of survivors live in a valley protected by high ridges. They band together and try to save civilization while surviving beyond the coming winter. They do something that raised at least one of my eyebrows. The people in the valley, now called Stronghold, collectivize food, ammunition, weapons and other necessary items.
People who laid aside such stuff have to give it up or be thrown out of the valley and be at the mercy of roving bands of criminals and even cannibals. Those bands, now a small army, are coming closer to Stronghold and its inhabitants must beat them back.
This theme fits into something I’ve thought about for awhile; the balance of societal and individual needs. We are all individuals, but we all have to be part of society. That’s a hard balance to achieve sometimes.
If TEOTAWAKI occurs, it may be necessary for a small community to collectivize certain things. It doesn’t make sense for one person to own fifteen rifles while potential defenders are armed with rocks. On the other hand, there would have to be guarantees that all would share equally and not have elite members of the nascent society keep the best for themselves.
For a good look at how life might be after a world-shattering disaster, Lucifer’s Hammer is an excellently thought out and researched book. It’s a compelling story that will cause many people to wonder how they could survive such an experience or if they would even want to given the conditions that would exist after a Hammerfall.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Meeting a Gun Show Curmudgeon (Rant)
I don’t often go off on a rant—I leave that up to Yosemite Sam (Bill earned the nickname). But, every now and again I have to vent. You’ve been warned.
What is it about some pro-gun people? On one hand, I’ve met friendly people, but on the other hand, I’ve met the meanest, cantankerous old farts you never hope to meet. I met one of the latter last Saturday.
Bill and I went to the Manchester Gun Show. There was the usual mix of guns, knives, books, and other merchandise. Bruce of mAssBackwards was there and he found a new friend.
I’m at that point in my collecting life where I own most of the guns on my list. I go to a gun show to find a “Holy Grail” gun, but mainly I’m there to buy ammo, accessories, and decent reference books.
Bill and I first roamed the show without buying anything. We don’t like to carry stuff with us, but will mentally mark tables and come back to buy. As part of our initial tour, I bellied up to a table of gun books and saw several that I wanted. I got no response from the dealer, maybe I had turned invisible. No biggie, I wasn’t going to buy then anyway.
The second time I slid up to the book table, I pulled out the first book I wanted. It had a sticker price of $54.95. The table owner was talking to another dealer. I took my wallet out of my purse; he’s still talking to another dealer. The visiting dealer says something like, “Looks like you got a customer.” The table owner continues his point with the second dealer for about two more minutes.
The book dealer finally turns to me. Do I get a pleasant “can I help you” or even a gruff “whatcha want?” No I get a scowl and raised eyebrows. I said, “Would you take $50.00 for this book?” I usually offer a little less than the sticker price at a gun show, just in case the dealer welcomes dickering. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. But they always let you know.
I expected to hear either “yes” or “all books are priced as marked.” Either would be welcome and would help me decide how many books I would buy. Instead, I hear “NO” blatted out much like a goat’s bleat. I swear it was loud and at least three syllables long. He then folded his arms and scowled.
I don’t know what I expected, perhaps only affirmation as a customer if nothing else. I slid the book back into the box and left with the $150.00 in cash I might have spent at his table. Maybe I’m being too sensitive, maybe he was having a bad day (although he seemed pleasant with the other dealer). Maybe he had noticed me at the table earlier and felt I wasn’t going to buy. Maybe, he thought a woman was not a serious customer. Maybe one or all of the above.
As I said at the beginning, I’ve met pleasant people and unpleasant people at gun shows or stores. The same’s true in any walk of life. Still, it soured me on the whole show and we left with only one box of ammo. I went home and bought the same book online that he didn’t sell me in person and ironically the order came out to $55.00 even with postage.
Bill thought that the guy’s in business primarily to chew the fat with cronies he sees at every show. Maybe that explains a few things, but he still represents the curmudgeonly side of gunnie-dom; at least to me.
What is it about some pro-gun people? On one hand, I’ve met friendly people, but on the other hand, I’ve met the meanest, cantankerous old farts you never hope to meet. I met one of the latter last Saturday.
Bill and I went to the Manchester Gun Show. There was the usual mix of guns, knives, books, and other merchandise. Bruce of mAssBackwards was there and he found a new friend.
I’m at that point in my collecting life where I own most of the guns on my list. I go to a gun show to find a “Holy Grail” gun, but mainly I’m there to buy ammo, accessories, and decent reference books.
Bill and I first roamed the show without buying anything. We don’t like to carry stuff with us, but will mentally mark tables and come back to buy. As part of our initial tour, I bellied up to a table of gun books and saw several that I wanted. I got no response from the dealer, maybe I had turned invisible. No biggie, I wasn’t going to buy then anyway.
The second time I slid up to the book table, I pulled out the first book I wanted. It had a sticker price of $54.95. The table owner was talking to another dealer. I took my wallet out of my purse; he’s still talking to another dealer. The visiting dealer says something like, “Looks like you got a customer.” The table owner continues his point with the second dealer for about two more minutes.
The book dealer finally turns to me. Do I get a pleasant “can I help you” or even a gruff “whatcha want?” No I get a scowl and raised eyebrows. I said, “Would you take $50.00 for this book?” I usually offer a little less than the sticker price at a gun show, just in case the dealer welcomes dickering. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. But they always let you know.
I expected to hear either “yes” or “all books are priced as marked.” Either would be welcome and would help me decide how many books I would buy. Instead, I hear “NO” blatted out much like a goat’s bleat. I swear it was loud and at least three syllables long. He then folded his arms and scowled.
I don’t know what I expected, perhaps only affirmation as a customer if nothing else. I slid the book back into the box and left with the $150.00 in cash I might have spent at his table. Maybe I’m being too sensitive, maybe he was having a bad day (although he seemed pleasant with the other dealer). Maybe he had noticed me at the table earlier and felt I wasn’t going to buy. Maybe, he thought a woman was not a serious customer. Maybe one or all of the above.
As I said at the beginning, I’ve met pleasant people and unpleasant people at gun shows or stores. The same’s true in any walk of life. Still, it soured me on the whole show and we left with only one box of ammo. I went home and bought the same book online that he didn’t sell me in person and ironically the order came out to $55.00 even with postage.
Bill thought that the guy’s in business primarily to chew the fat with cronies he sees at every show. Maybe that explains a few things, but he still represents the curmudgeonly side of gunnie-dom; at least to me.
Monday, January 15, 2007
What is the deal with movies today?
I recently told Denise that most movies made after 1975, leave me cold. A case in point is the recent remake of Shaggy Dog. I liked this movie as a child so I decided to give its remake a try. From the beginning this movie made me grate my teeth. It starts out with gun toting personnel from an evil pharmaceutical company raiding a Tibetan village. They are after a dog that is believed to be 300 years old. They bring the dog back to their lab and try to discover the reason why the dog has lived so long.
While all this is happening, assistant DA Dave Douglas, played by Tim Allen, is prosecuting an animal rights activist, who is accused of torching a facility, owned by the evil pharmaceutical company. The twist is that the animal rights activist is also Dave Douglas’ daughter’s science teacher. She fully supports her teacher to the point of wearing t-shirts and going to protests.
Well, at this point, I could see where all this was going. Tim Allen would learn the error of his ways and would become an enthusiastic animal rights supporter. To reach this end, the Methuselah dog escaped from the lab, ended up at Tim Allen’s house, bit him and transformed Tim Allen into a dog. As a dog, Tim Allen learned that dogs and other animals are as intelligent as human beings and that the lab was indeed evil, because they experiment on animals. The movie ends with the tables turned on the evil pharmaceutical company and the animal rights advocates hailed as heroes.
What we have here is naked agenda disguised as a children’s movie. Seriously, what did the pharmaceutical movie do that is so wrong? They found a dog that has this amazing characteristic and they tried to learn how it all worked. Isn’t this what science is supposed to be about? How many people who work in Hollywood take life saving drugs that were developed because of animal testing? Do they think this testing should stop, even if it means the end of research into new medicines?
I would blow this all off if this was just an isolated instance, but this has become all too common. The recent movie Happy Feet had a basic message that humans should just stop eating fish, because our consumption of fish is destroying the environment.
It’s because of this in your face propaganda that I mostly eschew modern movies. As a counterpoint, here is the synopsis of the 1959 version of the Shaggy Dog, courtesy of IMDB:
“Through an ancient spell, a boy (played by Tommy Kirk) changes into a sheepdog and back again. It seems to happen at inopportune times and the spell can only be broken by an act of bravery....”
But by 2006, ancient spell becomes amazing, long-lived dog, evil pharmaceutical company is invented from whole cloth, and act of bravery is jettisoned. I think that tells you everything you need to know about the difference between 1959 and today.
While all this is happening, assistant DA Dave Douglas, played by Tim Allen, is prosecuting an animal rights activist, who is accused of torching a facility, owned by the evil pharmaceutical company. The twist is that the animal rights activist is also Dave Douglas’ daughter’s science teacher. She fully supports her teacher to the point of wearing t-shirts and going to protests.
Well, at this point, I could see where all this was going. Tim Allen would learn the error of his ways and would become an enthusiastic animal rights supporter. To reach this end, the Methuselah dog escaped from the lab, ended up at Tim Allen’s house, bit him and transformed Tim Allen into a dog. As a dog, Tim Allen learned that dogs and other animals are as intelligent as human beings and that the lab was indeed evil, because they experiment on animals. The movie ends with the tables turned on the evil pharmaceutical company and the animal rights advocates hailed as heroes.
What we have here is naked agenda disguised as a children’s movie. Seriously, what did the pharmaceutical movie do that is so wrong? They found a dog that has this amazing characteristic and they tried to learn how it all worked. Isn’t this what science is supposed to be about? How many people who work in Hollywood take life saving drugs that were developed because of animal testing? Do they think this testing should stop, even if it means the end of research into new medicines?
I would blow this all off if this was just an isolated instance, but this has become all too common. The recent movie Happy Feet had a basic message that humans should just stop eating fish, because our consumption of fish is destroying the environment.
It’s because of this in your face propaganda that I mostly eschew modern movies. As a counterpoint, here is the synopsis of the 1959 version of the Shaggy Dog, courtesy of IMDB:
“Through an ancient spell, a boy (played by Tommy Kirk) changes into a sheepdog and back again. It seems to happen at inopportune times and the spell can only be broken by an act of bravery....”
But by 2006, ancient spell becomes amazing, long-lived dog, evil pharmaceutical company is invented from whole cloth, and act of bravery is jettisoned. I think that tells you everything you need to know about the difference between 1959 and today.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Mayors and Guns
I made a short post yesterday about the Mayors’ Coalition Against Illegal Guns. There’s something about the name of the group that bothers me. It includes a lie. No gun can be “illegal,” because no gun has the ability to break a law. It’s only a hunk of metal and wood (or polymer).
While a gun can’t be illegal, it can be owned by someone who has been stripped of gun rights, or someone who uses it to commit a crime. In that case it’s called a “crime gun” and there’s another anthropomorphic term.
I hate it when people anthropomorphize an inanimate object like a gun. You see it all the time. Reporters write that a gun killed a victim or that a gun went off accidentally yet the gun didn’t go off or kill anyone by itself. Reporters use the grammatical construction to avoid naming an actor. They don’t want to say a teenage thug shot a store clerk or that a cop shot himself in a leg with his or her own gun.
The mayors declare that they’re against “illegal guns,” but they have no idea how to reduce violence by people who commit crimes while using guns. They’re reduced to supporting gun registration and microstamping. Their own words show how they humanize guns while not dealing with the problem of the thugs who use them.
Here’s what Mayor William “Bill” Bell of Durham, NC has to say, “All citizens need to know what a terrible impact that guns in general, and illegal guns specifically, have and how they are contributing to the violence in our communities.” (Note: the webpage will cycle with different quotes from different mayors). Guns themselves have no impact unless someone wields them.
So what should concerned mayors be doing to reduce violence?
First, they should stop calling it “gun violence.” Violence includes stomping, hitting, knifing, clubbing and everything else. The use of a gun may make an attack more deadly, but the main point is that there’s an attack in the first place.
Second, recognize that the problem lies with a small segment of the population. Very few gun owners will ever commit a crime with a gun. Criminals must be identified and it will hurt to admit that most of them are inner city young male blacks and Hispanics. Inner city problems must be solved and political correctness will only may that solution harder to find.
Third, end the “War on Drugs.” After thirty years let’s recognize that people will demand drugs, others will supply it, and they will protect their turfs with violence. Having this prohibition in place makes it harder to solve inner city violence. Drug prohibition has helped turn inner cities into war zones and given their inhabitants well-paying “jobs” in the black market. Without these jobs they would be forced to find work in the real world.
Fourth, gun owners can throw the mayors a bone: and I say this in the spirit of collegiality. We gunnies need to secure our guns when we aren’t carrying or otherwise using them. That’s not to say we can’t use them for self-defense, but all guns should be locked up securely when you’re away from home. Safes or cabinets can be defeated, but we should make it as hard as possible for damn thieves.
Fifth, the mayors need to recognize that there are legitimate purposes for guns. People can enjoy hunting, target shooting, plinking, collecting, and other activities. A gun is an excellent self-defense tool. They should recognize that owning a black rifle is just as valid as owning a skeet gun. It’s how the gun is used, not the gun itself that matters.
But, I’ll see this agenda come to pass when pigs fly.
While a gun can’t be illegal, it can be owned by someone who has been stripped of gun rights, or someone who uses it to commit a crime. In that case it’s called a “crime gun” and there’s another anthropomorphic term.
I hate it when people anthropomorphize an inanimate object like a gun. You see it all the time. Reporters write that a gun killed a victim or that a gun went off accidentally yet the gun didn’t go off or kill anyone by itself. Reporters use the grammatical construction to avoid naming an actor. They don’t want to say a teenage thug shot a store clerk or that a cop shot himself in a leg with his or her own gun.
The mayors declare that they’re against “illegal guns,” but they have no idea how to reduce violence by people who commit crimes while using guns. They’re reduced to supporting gun registration and microstamping. Their own words show how they humanize guns while not dealing with the problem of the thugs who use them.
Here’s what Mayor William “Bill” Bell of Durham, NC has to say, “All citizens need to know what a terrible impact that guns in general, and illegal guns specifically, have and how they are contributing to the violence in our communities.” (Note: the webpage will cycle with different quotes from different mayors). Guns themselves have no impact unless someone wields them.
So what should concerned mayors be doing to reduce violence?
First, they should stop calling it “gun violence.” Violence includes stomping, hitting, knifing, clubbing and everything else. The use of a gun may make an attack more deadly, but the main point is that there’s an attack in the first place.
Second, recognize that the problem lies with a small segment of the population. Very few gun owners will ever commit a crime with a gun. Criminals must be identified and it will hurt to admit that most of them are inner city young male blacks and Hispanics. Inner city problems must be solved and political correctness will only may that solution harder to find.
Third, end the “War on Drugs.” After thirty years let’s recognize that people will demand drugs, others will supply it, and they will protect their turfs with violence. Having this prohibition in place makes it harder to solve inner city violence. Drug prohibition has helped turn inner cities into war zones and given their inhabitants well-paying “jobs” in the black market. Without these jobs they would be forced to find work in the real world.
Fourth, gun owners can throw the mayors a bone: and I say this in the spirit of collegiality. We gunnies need to secure our guns when we aren’t carrying or otherwise using them. That’s not to say we can’t use them for self-defense, but all guns should be locked up securely when you’re away from home. Safes or cabinets can be defeated, but we should make it as hard as possible for damn thieves.
Fifth, the mayors need to recognize that there are legitimate purposes for guns. People can enjoy hunting, target shooting, plinking, collecting, and other activities. A gun is an excellent self-defense tool. They should recognize that owning a black rifle is just as valid as owning a skeet gun. It’s how the gun is used, not the gun itself that matters.
But, I’ll see this agenda come to pass when pigs fly.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Help MassBackwards
Bruce of MassBackwards needs your help. You see, he just moved to New Hampshire, my home state. He moved here for reasons very similar to those that drove Bill and me here. He wants freedom. He wants to get away from Massachusetts' anti-gun craziness. It doesn't hurt either that it is cheaper to live in New Hampshire than Massachusetts.
Bruce wants to buy a scary rifle that could cause anti-gunnies to lose bladder control in a most embarassing way. So let's help him out. Visit his site and buy a bumper sticker.
Bruce wants to buy a scary rifle that could cause anti-gunnies to lose bladder control in a most embarassing way. So let's help him out. Visit his site and buy a bumper sticker.
Bloomberg Protest
SailorCurt of Captain of a Crew of One is spreading the news. The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) is arranging a "welcome" protest for Mayor Bloomberg of New York City when he makes an appearance in Washington, D.C. on January 23. Mr. Mayor is sponsoring a "national summit" of his Mayors' Coalition Against Illegal Guns.
Boston Mayor, Tom Menino, is part of this little band of unmerry men. He’s used his position to attack New Hampshire as being a gun supplier for Boston’s criminals. More significantly, Bloomberg has sent private investigators to gun shops in other states hoping to trick them into selling to a straw purchaser.
A straw purchase is when a person who cannot legally own guns has someone who can pass a NICS check buy a gun for him. Bloomberg’s little team of private investigators would team a man and a woman to enter a gun store and the man would do all the talking, inspecting, and then motion the woman over to actually buy a gun.
A straw purchase is against the law, but it is not against the law for a more knowledgeable person to inspect a gun for a newbie friend or spouse and help select a gun for their first purchase. Telling the difference between an honest person and a straw purchaser is an art not a science.
Some gun stores refused to make the sale, others didn’t. Bloomberg’s crew sued the gunmakers who made the sale and a few settled rather than spend a fortune on legal fees. Others are fighting Bloomberg. And where’s the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in all this? They’re not happy with Bloomberg who may have messed up an investigation or two and Bloomberg’s investigators may have broken the law with their little stunts.
There is a lot to protest where Bloomberg is concerned, so if you can attend please do so.
Boston Mayor, Tom Menino, is part of this little band of unmerry men. He’s used his position to attack New Hampshire as being a gun supplier for Boston’s criminals. More significantly, Bloomberg has sent private investigators to gun shops in other states hoping to trick them into selling to a straw purchaser.
A straw purchase is when a person who cannot legally own guns has someone who can pass a NICS check buy a gun for him. Bloomberg’s little team of private investigators would team a man and a woman to enter a gun store and the man would do all the talking, inspecting, and then motion the woman over to actually buy a gun.
A straw purchase is against the law, but it is not against the law for a more knowledgeable person to inspect a gun for a newbie friend or spouse and help select a gun for their first purchase. Telling the difference between an honest person and a straw purchaser is an art not a science.
Some gun stores refused to make the sale, others didn’t. Bloomberg’s crew sued the gunmakers who made the sale and a few settled rather than spend a fortune on legal fees. Others are fighting Bloomberg. And where’s the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in all this? They’re not happy with Bloomberg who may have messed up an investigation or two and Bloomberg’s investigators may have broken the law with their little stunts.
There is a lot to protest where Bloomberg is concerned, so if you can attend please do so.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
L. Neil Smith and the NRA
Say Uncle has a link to an article by L. Neil Smith about the NRA and its policies. He is critical of what he perceives to be the compromises that the NRA has taken in its defense of the 2nd Amendment. He thinks the NRA should adopt a no compromise strategy and that the compromises of the past have severely harmed the cause of freedom.
I understand the appeal of adopting a no compromise strategy. It seems that we freedom advocates are suffering the death of a thousand cuts. We seem to be endlessly compromising while the forces of gun bigotry chisel away our freedoms until we are left with empty words and promises and then have to beg for rights that are supposed to be guaranteed.
It is certainly well past time to start pushing back.
I think the NRA recognizes this and that is part of its preemptive strike against any possible Democratic Party inspired gun control laws.
But, I also recognize that there are times when we have no choice but to compromise. In the 60’s and 70’s, gun control was in the air and it was going to pass. If the NRA had adopted a no compromise strategy, gun control still would have passed. The NRA would have been sidelined and the laws would have been much more restrictive.
Whether you are an incrementalist or someone who brooks no compromise, I think it is a mistake to quit the NRA in a huff over their policies. At the annual meeting in 2005, only a small perecentage of the total membership was present. If more no compromise members were active and voted in NRA elections, the organization would move more towards that attitude.
The NRA is the largest and most influential gun rights organization in the United States. But their membership is a fraction of that of the AARP. Congress doesn’t dare push any laws that might alienate the AARP or their members. They are deathly afraid of a voting block that huge. If every active gun owner was a member of the NRA, Congress would take notice and I think that we would have a much better chance of rolling back these noisome gun control laws.
Most anti-gun types have never heard of JPFO or GOA, but they know and hate the NRA. The NRA with its multi-million dollar headquarters in suburban Virginia projects power and the Washington establishment may hate them, but they do respect that power.
L. Neil Smith also has 12 points that he thinks the NRA should adopt in order to best defend the 2nd Amendment.
I think point 4 is particularly important.
“FOURTH, in the same context, I'd want the NRA to disconnect all future discussion of the Second Amendment from the totally unrelated topic of crime. My rights have nothing whatever to do with anything anybody else does, right or wrong. If the crime rate were only 1/10 that of today, my rights would be unaffected. Likewise, if the rate were TEN TIMES what it is, it would have nothing whatever to do with my individual right to own and carry weapons.”
I think gun rights advocates have made a big mistake in trying to tie crime to the Right to Bear Arms. We often argue that after passage of a concealed carry law that crime goes down or doesn’t change. I feel that this line of reasoning is a trap. What will happen if crime goes up if we get rid of a bit of gun control? Then the anti-gun zealots can yell, ah ha, you argued that guns lower crime, now we have a situation where crime is going up because of the repeal of a gun control law.
Let’s not argue from the gun banners paradigm. We have a Human Right to defend ourselves and to own and bear arms to best protect our persons and property. It could easily be argued that crime could be reduced if we had more restrictions on speech and the press. This should not be tolerated and our disarmament should not be tolerated, regardless of the crime rate.
As they say, RTWT.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
They say they want a Revolution
Instapundit has a link to an excellent site that has a photo montage of hypocritical hippie bumper stickers.
These pictures were taken in Berkley and are a collection of gas guzzling vehicles that have bumper stickers like "No Blood for Oil" and my favorite, a personalized license plate that reads AWD4MAO.
I don't know what Mao would have thought of AWD, but I do know that Mao would have pulled the punk ass driver out of this car and shoved his ass on a bicycle. If he was feeling charitable.
If he was in a bad mood, then his ass would have been off to a labor camp or if he was really pissed, a bullet to the base of the neck.
What cracks me up about these pictures is that these white-bread, wanna be revolutionaries would be the first against the wall if there ever was a Communist revolution. During the Cultural Revolution in China, Mao sent these kinds of people(mostly academics and white collar types) to the fields to work as peasants. Pol Pot just had them shot, as well as anyone who wore glasses and even looked vaguely intellectual.
Sometimes I wonder if maybe what this country needs is a decade or so of the kind of real tyranny that people experienced in Vietnam or Cambodia.
Hey, at the very least, it would rid us of these Bourgeois Marxists.
These pictures were taken in Berkley and are a collection of gas guzzling vehicles that have bumper stickers like "No Blood for Oil" and my favorite, a personalized license plate that reads AWD4MAO.
I don't know what Mao would have thought of AWD, but I do know that Mao would have pulled the punk ass driver out of this car and shoved his ass on a bicycle. If he was feeling charitable.
If he was in a bad mood, then his ass would have been off to a labor camp or if he was really pissed, a bullet to the base of the neck.
What cracks me up about these pictures is that these white-bread, wanna be revolutionaries would be the first against the wall if there ever was a Communist revolution. During the Cultural Revolution in China, Mao sent these kinds of people(mostly academics and white collar types) to the fields to work as peasants. Pol Pot just had them shot, as well as anyone who wore glasses and even looked vaguely intellectual.
Sometimes I wonder if maybe what this country needs is a decade or so of the kind of real tyranny that people experienced in Vietnam or Cambodia.
Hey, at the very least, it would rid us of these Bourgeois Marxists.
A Dead Coyote on an Urban Beach
Are we really a nation of urbanized, sanitized boobs. Have we ripped ourselves completely out of the natural world? Do we have to anthropomorphize everything? Here’s a story that Seth form Massachusetts sent me about a coyote that evidently wandered through several miles of urban landscape and wound up on a beach.
The coyote reportedly acted aggressively toward a woman and her dog. She called the police. The police watched the coyote and then decided to shoot it as it wandered into an even more settled area. Here’s what an onlooker (a man) had to say, “He was just out celebrating, the poor thing.”
That's just not right. I suppose a coyote can enjoy life, but I don’t see him celebrating with a day at the beach. Do we have to treat every wild animal as if it were a cartoon star in “Bambi,” “The Ice Age,” or “Over the Hedge?”
Further, I don’t know because I wasn’t there, if the coyote was aggressive or not. If it was aggressive it needed killing, but I wonder how aggressive Mr. Coyote was if the woman with the dog could call the police. If it was truly aggressive and the woman didn’t live in Massachusetts, she could’ve handled the problem with her own gun.
I know my last sentence will cause someone to raise an eyebrow, but the professionalization of self-defense bothers me. We appointed a special cadre of civilians special powers to enforce and uphold the law. They should do that, but we didn’t abrogate to them all of our rights to defend ourselves from four or two-legged predators. That's really what it si coming to in Massachusetts; don't defend yourself, wait for the police no matter how much it hurts even unto death.
Scott Allen Miller is a talk radio host who blogged about urban coyotes and the dead coyote recently. He points out that they are invading our turf, at least in Massachusetts. In other words, nature is coming to us even if we have become too urbanized and too PETA-ized to deal with it. And to paraphrase Martha Stewart, that’s not a good thing.
The coyote reportedly acted aggressively toward a woman and her dog. She called the police. The police watched the coyote and then decided to shoot it as it wandered into an even more settled area. Here’s what an onlooker (a man) had to say, “He was just out celebrating, the poor thing.”
That's just not right. I suppose a coyote can enjoy life, but I don’t see him celebrating with a day at the beach. Do we have to treat every wild animal as if it were a cartoon star in “Bambi,” “The Ice Age,” or “Over the Hedge?”
Further, I don’t know because I wasn’t there, if the coyote was aggressive or not. If it was aggressive it needed killing, but I wonder how aggressive Mr. Coyote was if the woman with the dog could call the police. If it was truly aggressive and the woman didn’t live in Massachusetts, she could’ve handled the problem with her own gun.
I know my last sentence will cause someone to raise an eyebrow, but the professionalization of self-defense bothers me. We appointed a special cadre of civilians special powers to enforce and uphold the law. They should do that, but we didn’t abrogate to them all of our rights to defend ourselves from four or two-legged predators. That's really what it si coming to in Massachusetts; don't defend yourself, wait for the police no matter how much it hurts even unto death.
Scott Allen Miller is a talk radio host who blogged about urban coyotes and the dead coyote recently. He points out that they are invading our turf, at least in Massachusetts. In other words, nature is coming to us even if we have become too urbanized and too PETA-ized to deal with it. And to paraphrase Martha Stewart, that’s not a good thing.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Happy Anniversary to Ten Ring
Today is a momentous occasion for the Ten Ring. It is our Second Anniversary. I had doubts that we would see our first one, but here is number two and with it the beginning of our third year in the blogosphere.
Anniversaries, especially when they fall so close to the end of the old year, cause introspection. One of the things I find heartening is that we gunnies are winning. That’s not to say that we have no problems. We must continue to be vigilant. Still, Americans seem more skeptical of gun control’s empty promises, Democratic activists see gun control as the kiss of electoral death, more people are buying guns, and more women are joining the shooting sports. All good things.
Also, anniversaries engender a tendency to look back:
Our first post,
Our First Anniversary announcement, and
My favorite post (a parody).
I don’t post as much as I once did. Thinking up new posts gets hard after awhile, especially because I tend to write essays rather than link to news. Still, Bill and I will be around and you’ll see a Third Anniversary post before you know it. Meanwhile, give a click on the archives to the right and enjoy.
Anniversaries, especially when they fall so close to the end of the old year, cause introspection. One of the things I find heartening is that we gunnies are winning. That’s not to say that we have no problems. We must continue to be vigilant. Still, Americans seem more skeptical of gun control’s empty promises, Democratic activists see gun control as the kiss of electoral death, more people are buying guns, and more women are joining the shooting sports. All good things.
Also, anniversaries engender a tendency to look back:
Our first post,
Our First Anniversary announcement, and
My favorite post (a parody).
I don’t post as much as I once did. Thinking up new posts gets hard after awhile, especially because I tend to write essays rather than link to news. Still, Bill and I will be around and you’ll see a Third Anniversary post before you know it. Meanwhile, give a click on the archives to the right and enjoy.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
One From the Vault
Albion Number 2, Mark 1**
I posted my most recent "One From the Vault" last June. It doesn’t seem that long. In fact, I would’ve sworn I did one just the other month. Its true: as you get older time accelerates. Each day seems to flicker by and weeks seem like days. Oh well such is life.
I collect guns mainly from World War II and earlier. I can’t afford many nineteenth century guns, but I can still find bargains on twentieth century war-horses. For instance, the British World War II service revolver can be found as low as $250.00 (and yes you can find them for more too). Most of these guns are still functional and reliable.
This "One From the Vault features an Albion Number 2, Mark 1** revolver. It has an interesting production history if you don’t mind such details. The British military establishment believed it needed to replace the venerable Webley Mark VI revolver chambered in a manly .455 (even though it had a slightly wimpy load).
For whatever reason, the generals and their civilian cohorts thought their soldiers and officers would appreciate a lighter gun with a smaller, less powerful round. They had taken to heart complaints that the old Webley was too heavy (it does weigh over two pounds) and too large (it’s about a foot long). The generals thought extensively and chose a .38/200 cartridge for designers to build a much smaller and lighter revolver around. This is not a very effective cartridge, so I bet those complainers wished they’d kept their mouths shut.
The .38/200 is a British designation for a .38 caliber bullet weighing 200 grains. It was a heavy bullet for a revolver and you would think that its designers would have put a lot of gunpowder in its case. No, the case is basically the same one Smith & Wesson invented in the 1870s only it sported a 148-grain bullet. You can easily fire .38 S&W cartridges in the British revolver; however, the .38 S&W is not the more famous .38 Special. The former is only about 2/3rds the size of the latter.
Once the British military decided on a caliber, they asked manufacturers to submit drawings and prototypes. Webley & Scott scaled down the Mark VI and submitted the new design. Their competitor, Enfield, submitted their own version of the revolver. It looked just like the Webley entrant, but had slightly different internal lockwork.
Albion Number 2, Mark 1** (Click for larger size)
The British government, in their infinite wisdom, chose the Enfield submission—let’s not forget that Enfield was the Royal Small Arms Factory. Webley & Scott blustered about patent infringements, but little came of it. The British military called the new gun the Enfield Number 2, Mark 1 and production began in 1932. World War II was just seven years away.
Enfield ran into a few problems. Tank crews were armed with Enfield revolvers, but if they had to get out of a tank quickly, the hammer could catch on the tank’s hatch. Enfield bobbed the hammer making the gun effectively double action only (no hammer spur, no cocking for a more accurate single shot). The revolver was also cheaper to make this way, which may have been more important than tank crew complaints. The Enfield Number 2, Mark 1* was born.
Because the gun could only be fired double-action, there was a problem with accuracy. The trigger pull had always been heavy so Enfield replaced the main spring with a weaker one. Wartime production called for cutting corners and factories stopping installing transfer bars. This means the gun (unless arsenals added a transfer bar in post-war refits) can fire if dropped. Thus the Enfield Number 2, Mark I** was born.
Enfield faced another common wartime problem. They couldn’t keep up with demand. They licensed the Mark1** design to Albion Motors a Scottish car company. Albion sublet production later to Coventry Gauge and Tool. A company in Australia produced a handful of revolvers under Enfield’s license.
Ironically, the British military issued Webley & Scott a contract to produce their version of the gun and Webley called it the Mark IV.
My gun is an Albion Number 2, Mark I** made in 1943. It has all matching serial numbers and no transfer bar. I’ve ran a few .38 S&W cartridges through it and it works fine. It’s not accurate. The hard, long trigger pull is not conducive to any decent trigger control or good sight alignment. I would not call the cartridge a man-stopper by any means. A 200-grain bullet might hit a little harder, but even then I have my doubts about its effectiveness.
The gun itself is reliable. It’s a top-break action and the spent cases pop right out for speedy reloading. It was slightly rusty when I bought it, but a little Breakfree and elbow grease with a brass brush took it right off.
I am a sucker for old British top-break revolvers. I own a Webley Mark IV and a Webley Mark I. I am looking for the right Webley Mark VI. The funny thing about these top-break revolvers is they really didn’t seem to change much from the 1880s until the British military stopped issuing them in 1963. Maybe it's a "stiff upper lip" thing.
I posted my most recent "One From the Vault" last June. It doesn’t seem that long. In fact, I would’ve sworn I did one just the other month. Its true: as you get older time accelerates. Each day seems to flicker by and weeks seem like days. Oh well such is life.
I collect guns mainly from World War II and earlier. I can’t afford many nineteenth century guns, but I can still find bargains on twentieth century war-horses. For instance, the British World War II service revolver can be found as low as $250.00 (and yes you can find them for more too). Most of these guns are still functional and reliable.
This "One From the Vault features an Albion Number 2, Mark 1** revolver. It has an interesting production history if you don’t mind such details. The British military establishment believed it needed to replace the venerable Webley Mark VI revolver chambered in a manly .455 (even though it had a slightly wimpy load).
For whatever reason, the generals and their civilian cohorts thought their soldiers and officers would appreciate a lighter gun with a smaller, less powerful round. They had taken to heart complaints that the old Webley was too heavy (it does weigh over two pounds) and too large (it’s about a foot long). The generals thought extensively and chose a .38/200 cartridge for designers to build a much smaller and lighter revolver around. This is not a very effective cartridge, so I bet those complainers wished they’d kept their mouths shut.
The .38/200 is a British designation for a .38 caliber bullet weighing 200 grains. It was a heavy bullet for a revolver and you would think that its designers would have put a lot of gunpowder in its case. No, the case is basically the same one Smith & Wesson invented in the 1870s only it sported a 148-grain bullet. You can easily fire .38 S&W cartridges in the British revolver; however, the .38 S&W is not the more famous .38 Special. The former is only about 2/3rds the size of the latter.
Once the British military decided on a caliber, they asked manufacturers to submit drawings and prototypes. Webley & Scott scaled down the Mark VI and submitted the new design. Their competitor, Enfield, submitted their own version of the revolver. It looked just like the Webley entrant, but had slightly different internal lockwork.
Albion Number 2, Mark 1** (Click for larger size)The British government, in their infinite wisdom, chose the Enfield submission—let’s not forget that Enfield was the Royal Small Arms Factory. Webley & Scott blustered about patent infringements, but little came of it. The British military called the new gun the Enfield Number 2, Mark 1 and production began in 1932. World War II was just seven years away.
Enfield ran into a few problems. Tank crews were armed with Enfield revolvers, but if they had to get out of a tank quickly, the hammer could catch on the tank’s hatch. Enfield bobbed the hammer making the gun effectively double action only (no hammer spur, no cocking for a more accurate single shot). The revolver was also cheaper to make this way, which may have been more important than tank crew complaints. The Enfield Number 2, Mark 1* was born.
Because the gun could only be fired double-action, there was a problem with accuracy. The trigger pull had always been heavy so Enfield replaced the main spring with a weaker one. Wartime production called for cutting corners and factories stopping installing transfer bars. This means the gun (unless arsenals added a transfer bar in post-war refits) can fire if dropped. Thus the Enfield Number 2, Mark I** was born.
Enfield faced another common wartime problem. They couldn’t keep up with demand. They licensed the Mark1** design to Albion Motors a Scottish car company. Albion sublet production later to Coventry Gauge and Tool. A company in Australia produced a handful of revolvers under Enfield’s license.
Ironically, the British military issued Webley & Scott a contract to produce their version of the gun and Webley called it the Mark IV.
My gun is an Albion Number 2, Mark I** made in 1943. It has all matching serial numbers and no transfer bar. I’ve ran a few .38 S&W cartridges through it and it works fine. It’s not accurate. The hard, long trigger pull is not conducive to any decent trigger control or good sight alignment. I would not call the cartridge a man-stopper by any means. A 200-grain bullet might hit a little harder, but even then I have my doubts about its effectiveness.
The gun itself is reliable. It’s a top-break action and the spent cases pop right out for speedy reloading. It was slightly rusty when I bought it, but a little Breakfree and elbow grease with a brass brush took it right off.
I am a sucker for old British top-break revolvers. I own a Webley Mark IV and a Webley Mark I. I am looking for the right Webley Mark VI. The funny thing about these top-break revolvers is they really didn’t seem to change much from the 1880s until the British military stopped issuing them in 1963. Maybe it's a "stiff upper lip" thing.
Chistmas and Laziness
I’m writing a "One From the Vault" that I will post later today. It’s been a while since I wrote one. It’s not for lack of inspiration. I t’s due to the rapid passing of time and the bottomless pit of my laziness.
Allow me a second to wallow in personal matters, but I’ve been lazy lately. I’ve been getting less done in more time than I’ve done for a long time. I blame work. I’ve been handed a few tasks there that have been forcing me to think harder than usual, to write more than usual, and to talk to more people than usual. I guess something has to give.
Maybe Bill is noticing my recent laziness a little too. He bought a Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner as a Christmas gift (I had mentioned it would be a good idea). We’ve run it several times since it Christmas Day and it is an amazing thing. It runs around the house all by itself and picks up stray cat hair, little bits of the outside that we track in, little bits of food that somehow doesn’t get into our mouths.
Unlike last year, we did not have a gunnie Christmas this year. Oh, we’re still shooting and buying guns (are we ever) and having gunnie fun. But, Bill needed a new watch and I needed the Roomba so I would stop feeling guilty about making Bill live in a house full of cat hair. Besides we're both still sick--walking wounded, but sick none the less.
I hope all of you had a very good Christmas or a nice day off if you don’t celebrate the day.
Allow me a second to wallow in personal matters, but I’ve been lazy lately. I’ve been getting less done in more time than I’ve done for a long time. I blame work. I’ve been handed a few tasks there that have been forcing me to think harder than usual, to write more than usual, and to talk to more people than usual. I guess something has to give.
Maybe Bill is noticing my recent laziness a little too. He bought a Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner as a Christmas gift (I had mentioned it would be a good idea). We’ve run it several times since it Christmas Day and it is an amazing thing. It runs around the house all by itself and picks up stray cat hair, little bits of the outside that we track in, little bits of food that somehow doesn’t get into our mouths.
Unlike last year, we did not have a gunnie Christmas this year. Oh, we’re still shooting and buying guns (are we ever) and having gunnie fun. But, Bill needed a new watch and I needed the Roomba so I would stop feeling guilty about making Bill live in a house full of cat hair. Besides we're both still sick--walking wounded, but sick none the less.
I hope all of you had a very good Christmas or a nice day off if you don’t celebrate the day.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Merry Christmas
Bill and I are here at home and both of us are under the weather. Bill brought home a flu-like virus. At least we think he's the one who brought it home given half of his office is sick. We had planned a turkey dinner with all the trimmings--made even sweeter when his work gave turkeys to employees. Now, I think we may emulate Scrooge and eat gruel by an open fire.
Oh well enough whining, we sincerely wish our readers a very Merry Christmas. If you don't celebrate Christmas, we wish you a wonderful day, Here's a Boston-centric picture for the day:
It's the deck of the USS Constitution during a Christmas tree lighting ceremony (from www.ussconstitution.navy.mil).
Oh well enough whining, we sincerely wish our readers a very Merry Christmas. If you don't celebrate Christmas, we wish you a wonderful day, Here's a Boston-centric picture for the day:
It's the deck of the USS Constitution during a Christmas tree lighting ceremony (from www.ussconstitution.navy.mil).
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
New York Yellow Journalism
Yesterday, Bill (Yosemite Sam) posted about a South Dakota newspaper publishing the names of Concealed Carry license holders. Frequent commenter, Drew, sent us an e-mail before Bill posted. We read it yesterday afternoon and wanted to follow up on it.
Drew informs us that a newspaper in New York State did the same thing. In a later editorial, they claimed they removed the list from their site. I believe that open records are a good thing. The laws were written so that citizens could keep track of their governments and ensure those governments were acting lawfully and for the common good. However, that opens up big loopholes for people to mine government records for data that could harm citizens.
Publishing names of concealed weapon permittees is just one of those ways that open records could be abused to harm us. As someone said in the editorial, "As far as I'm concerned, I've done everything legally. I've been fingerprinted and everything's on record...But maybe because we can publish information, maybe it's not always a good idea."
These newspapers must exercise discretion. They don't publish the names of rape victims, but that can be a public record. They don't publish floor plans to their editors' houses and those can be a public record. They can and should exercise discretion, but of course too many journalists believe keeping and bearing arms is suspect if not out right hostile.
Both the article and the editorial mention one other thing that bothers me. They decry the fact that government is not grabbing the guns of deceased license holders. You see, in New York State a handgun owner must register his/her gun and be licensed. When they die, the gun is supposed to be turned over to the police. An heir can claim the gun if he or she has or gets a permit.
This is the danger to these licensing and registration schemes. They allow governments, police officials, journalists, and others to view guns not as private property, but as items that the state allows a person to use for awhile. You see this attitude when the press reports a gun was "recovered" from a felon in possession or found at a crime scene or turned into a gun buyback.
Guns are property and my heirs should be able to sell or use my guns as they see fit. They are not the society's or state's or the people's property. The newspaper in question laments that the government has no good way to track and then "secure" a deceased permittee's guns. Who the hell gave government the right to do that in the first place?
Drew informs us that a newspaper in New York State did the same thing. In a later editorial, they claimed they removed the list from their site. I believe that open records are a good thing. The laws were written so that citizens could keep track of their governments and ensure those governments were acting lawfully and for the common good. However, that opens up big loopholes for people to mine government records for data that could harm citizens.
Publishing names of concealed weapon permittees is just one of those ways that open records could be abused to harm us. As someone said in the editorial, "As far as I'm concerned, I've done everything legally. I've been fingerprinted and everything's on record...But maybe because we can publish information, maybe it's not always a good idea."
These newspapers must exercise discretion. They don't publish the names of rape victims, but that can be a public record. They don't publish floor plans to their editors' houses and those can be a public record. They can and should exercise discretion, but of course too many journalists believe keeping and bearing arms is suspect if not out right hostile.
Both the article and the editorial mention one other thing that bothers me. They decry the fact that government is not grabbing the guns of deceased license holders. You see, in New York State a handgun owner must register his/her gun and be licensed. When they die, the gun is supposed to be turned over to the police. An heir can claim the gun if he or she has or gets a permit.
This is the danger to these licensing and registration schemes. They allow governments, police officials, journalists, and others to view guns not as private property, but as items that the state allows a person to use for awhile. You see this attitude when the press reports a gun was "recovered" from a felon in possession or found at a crime scene or turned into a gun buyback.
Guns are property and my heirs should be able to sell or use my guns as they see fit. They are not the society's or state's or the people's property. The newspaper in question laments that the government has no good way to track and then "secure" a deceased permittee's guns. Who the hell gave government the right to do that in the first place?
Monday, December 18, 2006
South Dakota Yellow Journalism
Alphecca has a link to an article in the Sioux Falls, South Dakota newspaper that declares the start of the newspaper's jihad against a new state law that protects the privacy of concealed carry permit holders. The newspaper in a fit of pique has compiled its own database of permit holders and is making this database available online.
Here is today's editorial in the Argus Leader.
Notice how he plays the typical anti-gun ploy of saying he is a sportsman and a Marine to boot. I've noticed that all of the recent anti-gun editorials seem to start with I'm an avid hunter/sportsman but.....
Also notice the angle they have of basically saying that it is censorship now that the South Dakota government has passed a law protecting the privacy of permit holders.
Censorship? This from a newspaper that is initiating a campaign of intimidation against legal, law-abiding concealed carry permit holders. The gist of their campaign is that if you dare get a concealed carry permit, we will publish your name and address. Just like when they publish the names of johns in the newspaper. To these elitist bigots, concealed carry permit holders are equivalent to johns.
The usual line that the police need to know who carries is used as well. Any police officer who doesn't assume that the person they are pulling over might be potentially armed is a fool.
It's garbage like this that makes me less than enthusiastic about concealed carry permits. These should never be public information and where they are, newspapers love to publish permit holders names and addresses. The Cleveland Plain Dealer did this soon after the passage of concealed carry in Ohio. This is not just a Blue State problem since most newspapers are anti-gun. The Union Leader here in New Hampshire is a welcome exception. The spread of Vermont and Alaska style carry would put an end to this nonsense. The South Dakota legislature should push for the passage of a Vermont style carry law in order to make the Argus Leader's database moot.
South Dakota is one of the most Conservative, pro-gun states in the Union. The state is ill served by a newspaper who's elitist, knee jerk, anti-gun attitude would be better served in Massachusetts, Illinois or New Jersey.
Here is today's editorial in the Argus Leader.
Notice how he plays the typical anti-gun ploy of saying he is a sportsman and a Marine to boot. I've noticed that all of the recent anti-gun editorials seem to start with I'm an avid hunter/sportsman but.....
Also notice the angle they have of basically saying that it is censorship now that the South Dakota government has passed a law protecting the privacy of permit holders.
Censorship? This from a newspaper that is initiating a campaign of intimidation against legal, law-abiding concealed carry permit holders. The gist of their campaign is that if you dare get a concealed carry permit, we will publish your name and address. Just like when they publish the names of johns in the newspaper. To these elitist bigots, concealed carry permit holders are equivalent to johns.
The usual line that the police need to know who carries is used as well. Any police officer who doesn't assume that the person they are pulling over might be potentially armed is a fool.
It's garbage like this that makes me less than enthusiastic about concealed carry permits. These should never be public information and where they are, newspapers love to publish permit holders names and addresses. The Cleveland Plain Dealer did this soon after the passage of concealed carry in Ohio. This is not just a Blue State problem since most newspapers are anti-gun. The Union Leader here in New Hampshire is a welcome exception. The spread of Vermont and Alaska style carry would put an end to this nonsense. The South Dakota legislature should push for the passage of a Vermont style carry law in order to make the Argus Leader's database moot.
South Dakota is one of the most Conservative, pro-gun states in the Union. The state is ill served by a newspaper who's elitist, knee jerk, anti-gun attitude would be better served in Massachusetts, Illinois or New Jersey.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Police and Auto Weapons
Tam of View From the Porch has posted a very important essay on modern policing. She mentions instances when the police have gotten out of line. She knows that cops perform a valuable function, but wonders if their powers need to be curtailed and hopes we don't tighten the leash too much.
If we do need to tighten the leash, I hope we can. We've given law enforcement a great deal of power recently. We let them dress like ninjas because sometimes they need to. Of course, they determine what that need might be. We let them have automatic weapons and armored vehicles because sometimes they just might need them. We can only blame ourselves if law enforcement doesn't always use these powers and equipment wisely.
In Tam's last paragraph, she says, "I don't care if Johnny Law has a scary looking assault rifle. Heck, I have one, so why shouldn't he?" Like Tam, I don't care if they have rifles, but I've often wondered why police need automatic weapons.
Such guns were invented to shoot at massed bodies of troops. Police rarely deal with massed groups of criminals. If they do, it will be rioters and police wouldn't (I hope) open up with machine guns for fear they'd hit bystanders.
Most of the time, police deal with only a few criminals at a time. They almost always have backups who can carry shotguns or semi-auto carbines. I just don't see their need for automatic weapons.
Then there's the civil libertarian side of me that feels miffed that police departments can buy brand new machine guns for less than $1,000.00 while I'm limited to guns made on or before 1986 and costing $3,000.00 on up to six figures. The police should never have weapons that the average civilian can't have.
Then there's the realization that modern military practices limit most soldiers to rifles that will fire at most three round bursts. In a squad one soldier is equipped with a fully automatic Squad Assault Weapon (SAW). As I understand it, the soldiers use their rifles for precision, aimed fire, while the guy with the SAW uses his gun to lay down suppressive fire when needed.
I really hope we never see a time when our police lay down suppressive fire in an American city.
If we do need to tighten the leash, I hope we can. We've given law enforcement a great deal of power recently. We let them dress like ninjas because sometimes they need to. Of course, they determine what that need might be. We let them have automatic weapons and armored vehicles because sometimes they just might need them. We can only blame ourselves if law enforcement doesn't always use these powers and equipment wisely.
In Tam's last paragraph, she says, "I don't care if Johnny Law has a scary looking assault rifle. Heck, I have one, so why shouldn't he?" Like Tam, I don't care if they have rifles, but I've often wondered why police need automatic weapons.
Such guns were invented to shoot at massed bodies of troops. Police rarely deal with massed groups of criminals. If they do, it will be rioters and police wouldn't (I hope) open up with machine guns for fear they'd hit bystanders.
Most of the time, police deal with only a few criminals at a time. They almost always have backups who can carry shotguns or semi-auto carbines. I just don't see their need for automatic weapons.
Then there's the civil libertarian side of me that feels miffed that police departments can buy brand new machine guns for less than $1,000.00 while I'm limited to guns made on or before 1986 and costing $3,000.00 on up to six figures. The police should never have weapons that the average civilian can't have.
Then there's the realization that modern military practices limit most soldiers to rifles that will fire at most three round bursts. In a squad one soldier is equipped with a fully automatic Squad Assault Weapon (SAW). As I understand it, the soldiers use their rifles for precision, aimed fire, while the guy with the SAW uses his gun to lay down suppressive fire when needed.
I really hope we never see a time when our police lay down suppressive fire in an American city.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Universal Licensing--A Modest Proposal
It’s been awhile since I posted. Best laid plans…, press of work, laziness, yada, yada, yada. Oh well.
I made a statement in a post a couple of weeks ago that stuck in my mind. It was about “common sense gun safety.” In the second to last paragraph I mentioned that education is truly the key to gun safety. Unfortunately, that term has become a codeword for anti-gunnies meaning “no guns.”
I’ve been mulling it over and combining it with things anti-gunnies have mentioned. You’ve all heard the litany: Gun owners should be trained, you should have a license and a test before you can buy a gun, and so on ad infinitum. But when gunnies get training or practice through combat shooting competitions, the anti-gunnies claim that such sports prove gunnies are out for blood.
It kinda puts me in a rock and a hard place. You see, I’ve always believed that a person should be trained in gun safety. I’ve heard of gun tragedies caused by the lack of knowing basic gun safety rules. There are certain things that must be learned and no one is born knowing how to handle a gun safely.
Unlike gun grabbers, I believe that training can take many forms. Training could be offered by a paid professional trainer, it could be given by a scout master, or it could be a father teaching a daughter. The rule of thumb is basically someone who knows what they’re doing and passes that knowledge to someone else. You don’t absolutely need formal training and you really don’t need a gun license.
The problem with licensing and training is that gun grabbers would use it to, well, grab guns. After all, if you have a firearms license you very likely own a gun.
So here’s my idea of compromise with the gun grabbers. I’ll support training and a gun license on two conditions:
1) There will be no registration of any gun including Form 4473s that could be used as registrations;
2) That everyone in the country with no exceptions must receive training and a license that cannot be voluntarily surrendered to the authorities for any reason. Anyone with a license could buy a gun.
If we had a universal licensing and training scheme and if there is no registration, then no one knows who owns guns. I’m not going to muddy the waters here and talk about getting guns out of criminals’ hands, but there are ways that could be accomplished.
Talk about a win-win situation. People throughout the country would learn true gun safety and not be confused with anti-gunnies’ buzz words. The already small number of accidental shootings would get even smaller. Anti-gunnies would be introduced to guns and maybe understand that they are simply tools incapable by themselves of either evil or good.
Of course, this idea is a pipe dream. Anti-gunnies would complain that they are being forced to do something they fear and loathe. People would try for a religious exemption (to that I say, what’s wrong with shooting holes in paper, it’s little different from darts). Also, somehow having a universal license would backfire on gunnies because anti-gunnies would find a loophole and continue their lies and attempts to ban guns.
It’s who they are.
I made a statement in a post a couple of weeks ago that stuck in my mind. It was about “common sense gun safety.” In the second to last paragraph I mentioned that education is truly the key to gun safety. Unfortunately, that term has become a codeword for anti-gunnies meaning “no guns.”
I’ve been mulling it over and combining it with things anti-gunnies have mentioned. You’ve all heard the litany: Gun owners should be trained, you should have a license and a test before you can buy a gun, and so on ad infinitum. But when gunnies get training or practice through combat shooting competitions, the anti-gunnies claim that such sports prove gunnies are out for blood.
It kinda puts me in a rock and a hard place. You see, I’ve always believed that a person should be trained in gun safety. I’ve heard of gun tragedies caused by the lack of knowing basic gun safety rules. There are certain things that must be learned and no one is born knowing how to handle a gun safely.
Unlike gun grabbers, I believe that training can take many forms. Training could be offered by a paid professional trainer, it could be given by a scout master, or it could be a father teaching a daughter. The rule of thumb is basically someone who knows what they’re doing and passes that knowledge to someone else. You don’t absolutely need formal training and you really don’t need a gun license.
The problem with licensing and training is that gun grabbers would use it to, well, grab guns. After all, if you have a firearms license you very likely own a gun.
So here’s my idea of compromise with the gun grabbers. I’ll support training and a gun license on two conditions:
1) There will be no registration of any gun including Form 4473s that could be used as registrations;
2) That everyone in the country with no exceptions must receive training and a license that cannot be voluntarily surrendered to the authorities for any reason. Anyone with a license could buy a gun.
If we had a universal licensing and training scheme and if there is no registration, then no one knows who owns guns. I’m not going to muddy the waters here and talk about getting guns out of criminals’ hands, but there are ways that could be accomplished.
Talk about a win-win situation. People throughout the country would learn true gun safety and not be confused with anti-gunnies’ buzz words. The already small number of accidental shootings would get even smaller. Anti-gunnies would be introduced to guns and maybe understand that they are simply tools incapable by themselves of either evil or good.
Of course, this idea is a pipe dream. Anti-gunnies would complain that they are being forced to do something they fear and loathe. People would try for a religious exemption (to that I say, what’s wrong with shooting holes in paper, it’s little different from darts). Also, somehow having a universal license would backfire on gunnies because anti-gunnies would find a loophole and continue their lies and attempts to ban guns.
It’s who they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)