History and "Common Sense" Gun-Banners

How many times have we heard people say they want “common-sense gun control?” Of course, they define it anyway they want. Some people think registration and licensing are “common sense” others think outright handgun bans represent “common sense.” There are those, like me, who think gun control laws are ineffective and repealing almost all of them is “common sense.” There are those who believe its “common sense” to have gun laws at all.

So how do we make sense of all of these positions? Well, the proof’s in the pudding—bans don’t work no matter how many people think they’re “common sense.” For instance, a gun control city like Washington, D.C. has high crime rates while low gun control places like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Idaho have low crime rates. Gun crime hasn’t ended in Great Britain even while handguns were totally banned. Instead of facing reality, gun banners want to close their eyes and ears and continue supporting their “common sense” non-solutions.

Why can’t people learn from history? Take a look at Prohibition in the Untied States. We amended the Constitution to outlaw alcoholic beverages, but that didn’t mean we became sober as preachers.

Americans supported smugglers, turned to “medicinal” whiskey prescribed by doctors, made booze in bathtubs, and did everything else but stop drinking. The respect for law took a nose dive once people realized bootleggers bribed the cops that were supposed to arrest them The quality of alcoholic beverages was unregulated—just because the label said “Canadian Whiskey” didn’t mean you weren’t buying moonshine with a little coal tar added for color. (Click for an article on prohibition).

Take a look at America’s Drug War. No one can say it’s working and I don’t care if you get stoned every day or you won’t take aspirin. Look at the situation. Illicit drugs are freely available. People make methamphetamines out of cough syrup making it harder for valid users to buy over-the-counter medicine. Quality control is dependent only on the mercy of thugs. We have people who buy drugs from street-corner gangsters and figure out doses by trial and error. We’ve filled our prisons with often non-violent drug offenders and released violent criminals to make room for them. Even worse, law enforcement can’t stop it.

The same thing will happen if gun-banners get their way. Smugglers will pack in guns along with drugs. Police and military members will sell guns from arsenals to make a quick and large profit. Machinists will grind guns out of metal stock. Lawmakers and honest cops will try to stem the tide. They’ll institute licenses to buy certain kinds of metal, throw people in jail for possession of one cartridge (already true for people debarred from firearm ownership), and pass increasingly onerous laws.

People will find ways to buy guns at a local street corner much the way people buy drugs now. Quality control will suffer—who would you complain to if the gun blew up in your hand. Society would have no idea what was going on in the black market--anyone with cash would be able to buy. Gun banners will demand even more gun control while murder and gun violence rates rise.

This is not a society I’d like to live in, but it’s as inevitable as night following day. If there’s one thing history teaches it’s that prohibiting something that people want doesn’t work and only leads to many unintended consequences. As George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

A Range Day

As I mentioned Tuesday, I've had a relative staying for a visit and I took her to the airport this morning. She really wanted to learn how to shoot while she was here and with my help she accomplished it. She’s a 20-year old college student with a good head on her shoulders, but her immediate family is mildly anti-gun.

I think I had a good approach to the shooting session and plan on using the same model the next time I teach marksmanship to someone. On Monday night, I went over the safety rules and emphasized the top three. We gunnies know them, but repetition is our friend:

1) Never point a gun in the direction of anything you don’t want to destroy;
2) Keep your booger hook off the bang switch (and yes I used that expression but repeated it in less colorful terms);
3) Don’t load the gun until you’re ready to shoot.

I laid out the guns we'd be shooting the next day. As I mentioned these were a .22 Beretta Neos, a Smith & Wesson 9mm, and a Springfield Armory 1911 in .45acp. As I laid them out, I ensured that each action was open. Then I explained how each gun worked, where it’s controls were located, and what to expect in terms of noise and recoil when she fired the gun.

I had her grip the gun and taught her sight alignment. While ensuring the guns and area in front of us was safe, I had her dry-fire each pistol while teaching her about trigger control. I mentioned that when the moment the hammer fell should come as a complete surprise to her.

On range day, I lectured her again about safety, sight alignment, and trigger control. We checked into the range and began shooting. It was a major success. Her face lit up as she hit the target time after time. In fact, her very first shot ever hit the orange bullseye. We shot at five yards and then at ten primarily as confidence builders and for her to learn fundamentals.
She proved an excellent shot and her favorite gun was the 9mm.

She told me she wants a pistol for her 21st birthday (oh, what have I wrought?). I think it helped her to hear two sets of similar instructions on two different days. I also coached her while she was shooting. The most important thing though was she had fun and will continue to shoot.

Hitting a Milestone

Well, I see from the faithful site meter, Ten Ring has passed 50,000 visitors and in just a little under a year. Our first post was made on December 29, 2004. It's been good to know that 50,000 people (granted big bloggers get that in a day--probably) have read our words, commented on them, and enjoyed their visits. Here's hoping for another 50,000 by this time next year. Here's our first post if you're inclined to give it a read.

A little later I'll have more detail on my range trip with my young relative.

Still Here

Hi all, sorry for the lack of goodness here since Thursday. Bill and I are still alive and well in the great white north. We've had a couple of situations that have ate up our time--I can't even blame work for this slow bloggage.

On Friday, my job let me out early and I got caught in the middle of one of the worst snowstorms I've ever seen. I was driving up a freeway going about ten miles an hour with maybe thirty yards visibility. It was the first time I've seen people stopped in travel lanes to clear ice and snow from their windshields. The roads had been plowed and treated, but the plows couldn't keep up with the snow fall. My commute home is usually about 50 minutes, but on Friday it took me 2 and a quarter hours to get home. Because I was so snow-frazzled, no gunnie goodness was posted herein.

On Saturday, I picked up a relative who's here for a "snow" visit. She lives in Florida and she's had serious temperature shock. I've been reliving old times with her, shopping and having fun.

Today, I took her shooting for the first time in her 20 years of life. You can believe me when I tell you that we have a new member of the Nation of Riflemen. And, even better--she's a natural.

I started her on a .22 Beretta Neos, then moved to a 9mm Smith & Wesson 6904, and finished the day with a Springfield Armory 1911 in .45 acp (naturally). I worked with her before the range trip and taught her safety rules, sight alignment, trigger squeeze and grip. At the range, she put it all together and was hitting a large bullseye. She even had groups rather than isolated shots all over the paper. It's enough to make an aunt proud.

She's leaving on Thursday, so regular bloggage will resume. Also, Yosemite Sam (Bill) is working on a couple of posts. See you all later.

Katie Couric and Ignorance

By now everyone’s heard that Federal Air Marshals killed a man, Rigoberto Alpizar, in Miami. He ran down the aisle of a plane probably saying he had a bomb in his bag and ran into the jetway. Marshals shot him several times when he refused to follow their commands and then reached into his bag. It turned out that Alpizar didn’t have a bomb and was simply deranged.

Given the facts before them, the marshals could’ve done anything differently, but there are always people who question life-and-death situations. They wonder if an unarmed man really needed to be killed, they question officer training, and they debate why law enforcement shoots to kill. Invariably, law enforcement people (current or retired) explain that cops shoot to stop and the debate continues.

This morning, Katie Couric of NBC’s Today show argued that air marshals could have just incapacitated Alpizar with a perfectly placed shot. She may be watching too much television, but I think her statement is born of pure ignorance coupled with a certain fiction law enforcement tries to maintain.

First let's talk about Couric’s ignorance, which is born from a willful lack of experience. I don’t know if she’s ever shot a gun, but I doubt that she’s ever mastered one. If she had, she would have fired at different rates of speed—everything from very deliberate bullseye-type slowfire to a fast shot out of a holster. She might have fired under different levels of stress—anything from no stress, to competition-caused stress, to combat training’s induced stress. If she’s had such experience, she’d know how difficult it would be to incapacitate someone with a quick shot to a shoulder, hand, or wherever.

Couric’s ignorance is hers alone, but she’s in a position to share it with millions of people, many without any real experience with firearms. They’ll listen to her and demand “reforms” of law enforcement policies until a cop is killed trying to “shoot to incapacitate,” or a bomber sets off his bomb, or more likely cops and their departments get sued for trying to shoot to wound and hitting a bystander.

But, law enforcement is not merely a victim of public opinion drummed up by Katie Couric and her compatriots. Too many people in law enforcement, particularly at top levels, foist an attitude that only they have the training to deal with criminals, that only they are trained well enough to carry a gun in public, and that “regular” civilians can’t be trusted with firearms. After awhile, the public starts believing the police can do anything and wonder then why they would kill people when they could simply incapacitate.

Is it any wonder then that willful ignorance coupled with law enforcement’s belief in its own specialness confuses most people?

One From the Vault

OWA Pocket Pistol
I’ve mentioned several times that I like mouse guns. I’m not saying they’re the best things for self-defense, but when you can’t carry anything else a mouse gun can’t be beat. I’d call a mouse gun anything that can fit into a jeans pocket without making your jeans fall to the ground (embarrassing and not to say slow on the draw). The OWA Pocket Pistol certainly fits that bill.

First a little history. Austria today is a quaint country that’s the end of Western Europe and the beginning of Eastern Europe. At one time though, Austria led a huge empire including the Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary, most of what once was Yugoslavia.

World War I started when the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated in Sarajevo. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, an ally of Germany, fared badly in the war and worse in the peace. It was carved up and its Imperial family sent packing. It was demilitarized and forced to pay war reparations although not as severe as Germany faced.

Of course an Empire has an arsenal and something had to be done with its gun makers. The Imperial arsenal was partially turned into a business called Oesterreichische Werke Anhalt or OWA.

OWA made a pocket pistol beginning in 1920 and exported an unknown number to the United States marking them "Made in Austria." In the first picture, you can see that the pistol is small. I can cover it with one hand. It’s 4 and 5/8" long and 3.5" high. At its thinnest, it is only a half-inch wide although the maximum width is 7/8". They stopped making them in or around 1926.



The pistol relies on the recoil to blowback the slide and chamber another round. It’s chambered in .25 ACP (or 6.35mm). It’s a technically fascinating gun.

Almost every thing about the pistol is backwards. It’s almost like its Austrian engineers found a technological backwater and steamed up it as fast as they could. As you can see, it has a tip up access to the bore:



but, you can’t load it this way. It was advertised as an "easy to clean" feature and it’s easy to fieldstrip; I‘ll give that to those long-dead engineers.

Another backward feature is the magazine catch located on the bottom of the grip. Many European guns have magazine catches in this location. But, in this gun you operate the catch by pulling it towards your fingers (as you hold the gun) instead of pushing it towards your palm.

In my final picture, you’ll notice another technological backwater.



The recoil spring is located on top of the barrel. It’s right behind that little screw. And yes, you are looking down the bore. (Note: I took the picture with the action open and at no time did my head or hands cross the muzzle, although the camera was at slight risk.)

My particular gun is an early model and was probably made in 1922. It’s slab-sided above the trigger guard and the grip models are marked OWA with the umlaut (two dots above the O) outside the letter O. Most importantly my gun is marked "Patent Angemeldet" meaning "Patent being sought." Later versions had a notice stating it was "patented in civilized nations." Most of these guns had a jeweled slide, but mine is plain. I’m not sure if that was typical for an early gun or was done to cut the retail price.

My gun also bears Austrian proof marks. Ironically one mark is "NPv," which is found on Austrian-made Glocks today. An Austrian eagle is also stamped on the frame.

I haven’t shot this gun yet, but one day I will. I don’t trust the safety on it since it’s a mere hint of a hammer block. The rest of the gun is built as solid as a safe. The trigger-pull is heavy and Its sights are typical for pocket pistol of the day, that is, almost non-existent. I don’t expect much accuracy, but then it wasn’t built to be a target pistol.

For me, a mouse gun from the roaring Twenties suggests flappers and men wearing straw boaters. My OWA suggests the same things, but with a little Central European style and an interesting technology.

Fighting for Gun RIghts in San Francisco

You know something’s wrong in San Francisco when the San Francisco Chronicle writes a story that sympathizes with gun owners. San Francisco voted to ban continued possession of handguns. In other words, “turn ‘em in” on April 1, 2006 when the law goes into effect.

San Francisco’s “turn ‘em in” law is scaring at least two lesbians who seem to be politically liberal. Marilyn Hurst and her partner B.C. like to shoot guns and know that their guns and their gun skills could save their lives. They have a couple of handguns and a long-gun or two secreted in their home. They’ve thought through a number of scenarios in which getting to a gun may be the difference between life and death. The two women practice regularly and they’ve become responsible for their own safety.

They describe themselves as, “…exactly the kind of people that should have weapons.” Such a description is especially true in gay-friendly San Francisco. However, Hurst and B.C. joined the National Rifle Association because they like its literature and possibly because they hope NRA will help protect their gun rights.

The story itself is surprisingly friendly to these gun owners although it’s not entirely free of bias. The reporter included gun crime statistics and interviewed one of the asshats who pushed for the gun ban, Bill Barnes. He states that the women can find another way to defend themselves, but he doesn’t even begin to explain what that might be. Instead he falls back on a red herring fearing that their guns might be stolen and that would lead to gun violence.

Hurst and B.C. hope that their city’s law will be struck down in an NRA sponsored lawsuit. If not, they plan to abide by the law (my one argument with them as gun owners, but everyone has to make their own decisions). They say they’ll take their handguns to friends living outside of the city and buy more long guns for their apartment. They’ll not disarm.

It’s really too bad that voters in San Francisco can’t be as wise as these two gun owners. It’s too bad that voters believe that women like Hurst and B.C. somehow threaten them. And, in a city known for tolerance, as they define it, it’s too bad that a majority of voters think they can decide how other people should live their lives.

I’m going to slip into rant mode here: I’m tired of GFWs (gun fearing wussies) who paint gun owners as violent yokels. I’m tired of reading purposefully skewed stories and statistics trying to show that a gun in the house will one day hop right up and shoot its owner. I’m tired of GFWs thinking they’re more “evolved” than gun owners.

I’m tired of GFWs trying to vote away my rights and trying to tell me how to live my life. I’m tired of Boston reporters and politicians trying to tell New Hampshire to institute gun control.

Most of all, I’m tired of fearing that one day I’ll read about a new national law that says “turn ‘em in” like they did with Hurst and B.C. I fear it because I won’t “turn ‘em in.”

Why Do We Even Try?

I was away on a business trip for a couple of days and really didn't keep up with gun news. When I got back I read some very discouraging news. Alphecca links a New York Times story telling how an anti-gun judge has ruled that a lawsuit can proceed against gun companies despite the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act.

You might remember the act, it says that courts will no longer hear frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry. Many gunnies could see how anti-gunnies would use lawsuits filed in anti-gun jurisdictions, heard by anti-gun judges, to cripple the firearms industry. Even Congress could see where such suits were headed and took action. But when you have anti-gun judges in sympathetic jurisdictions why let law stand in your way?

This particular case is being heard by Judge Jack Weinstein who is biased against guns. He presided in a 1999 trial that awarded damages to a plaintiff for negligent marketing--the only successful one of its kind. He must have cried himself to sleep when Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act.

Judge Weinstein agreed with plaintiff lawyers that their suit fit one of the Act's exception (maybe we should even use a Brady Campaign word--loophole). The exception said that a person could sue gun companies if their marketing violated state or Federal laws.

The plaintiffs argued that gun company marketing in other states allowed a surplus of guns to be available for illegal shipment to New York City thus violating a nuisance statute. Because an anti-gun judge agreed with them, this suit will continue unless the decision is reversed on appeal.

Once again several gun companies including such famous names as Beretta, Browning, Colt, Glock, and Smith & Wesson are paying lawyers to defend themselves in court for selling a legal product legally. No wonder guns are so expensive. And no wonder I'm feeling discouraged; why even pass laws if activist judges will find torturous paths around them?

If you think you don't have a horse in this race here's a quote from the City's attorney:

"Probably the most sweeping lawsuit against the gun industry is now poised to go to trial," Mr. Elkin said, "and if we're successful it will have wide-reaching effects on how guns are marketed and sold."

Weinstein's decision cannot stand.

Rumblings on the Left

Clayton Cramer points us to a post on Democratic Underground that you must read to believe. The person who posted it, Watcher, is fed up with conservatives. He or she calls them sub-humans and every other name one can use to insult other people. Watcher's tone is basically calling for a civil war, though Watcher says he/she will only become violent if conservatives invade his/her space.

The rhetoric is terrible and there's more vitriol in Watcher's screed than I can stomach. It’s too long to quote adequately, but here’s a sample:

I can no longer peacefully co-exist with these people. They are accessories. They are co-conspirators, willful or ignorant, misguided or fearful, it matters not. They are ALL Guilty. I cannot have these people around me. I cannot have them in my personal space. I do not have children, but if I did I would not accept them being around my children.

They are filthy, degenerate, and LOST. And I no longer find their very existence acceptable. They are aiding in the destruction of this country, and as individuals they have absolutely NOTHING to contribute to the progression of the human species. NOTHING. I deeply hesitate to use the word "Useless Eaters", because of the negative connotations behind it, but I no longer care.

Even worse is that many commenters (any many jumped on the thread) agreed with Watcher. A few pointed out that such screeds have led to genocide and fascism in the past. These words of moderation were condemned. Interesting that the "party of peace" shall we say harbors so many haters.

What personally struck me about Watcher's rant was not the vitriol or commenters who agreed with Watcher. What struck me is Watcher’s wish to be left alone. You see, I sometimes conclude my posts with a lament to anti-gunnies. I tell them to leave me alone and let me enjoy shooting and collecting guns to my heart's content. I'll certainly leave them alone.

But, there's a big difference between Watcher and me. Watcher wants to see the left rise and create a utopia, but “Bushies” are preventing it. That utopia, if created, would be a nightmare for most Americans and probably for Watcher as well. It would be a world of high taxes, no guns in civilian hands, enforced veganism. In this vision, politically correct definitions will rule over common sense. It would lead to a country that none of us would recognize as America—it would be worse than Europe because we Americans never do things in halves.

Watcher's hopes are why I stopped being a Democrat (I am not a Republican either even though my family had been Democrats since before anyone can remember). Watcher is an example of what fervent moonbattism could bring about--a dystopian world enjoyed by only a handful of our "enlightened betters." It's worth fighting these totalitarian snakes in our midst.

A Conversation with an Anti-Gunnie

Most of my co-workers are very anti-gun. Many of them were born and raised in Massachusetts and have sucked down recent anti-gunism philosophy with unquestioning gusto. The only one who surprises me is a woman who was born and raised in Texas, who lived on a ranch, and now hates guns. I have no explanation other than it must be in the water.

I had an interesting conversation with one of my co-workers today who learned I'm a gun owner and avid shooter. Since he's a new employee, he hadn't met a gunnie before (that’s me a rare bird). He asked me a few questions and then asked why I wouldn't support firearm licensing and registration.

He carted out all the usual arguments. He compared guns and cars, how police could track guns, how bad guys wouldn't be able to buy guns. You've heard them all before and they’re all bunk. I tried to explain why to him, but he continued to push the argument. He finally said something to the effect, "Well, I know you're reasonable, so if you designed a gun licensing and registration system what would it look like?"

I hadn't heard that one before, so I had to get back to him. Here's what I came up with. First, I'd never support any kind of registration—that's out of the question entirely. I explained that even if I trusted today's crop of politicians (which I don't), who knows how such records would be used in the future. Someday, someone will use them to confiscate once legally owned firearms.

He didn't have an answer for that one, so I moved to licensing. I told him the only firearm license I could support is a "universal" license. That is, everyone must get a license unless society thinks they are a danger to others based on objective criteria. (Note: I think felons should get gun rights back after they prove they can re-enter society and not resume criminal behavior. I suppose there are a few out-and-out violent bastards and mentally ill people who shouldn't have guns, but why they're not in prison or a hospital is a question for another time.) Since everyone must get a license, there would be no way for authorities to know who actually bought a gun assuming the NICS check was put out of business.

My co-worker sputtered for a minute and said, "Well that would mean I’d have to get a gun license, too." And I said "damn straight there, chief"—or words to that effect. Then he observed that it still wouldn’t mean people were "qualified" to own a gun. I observed back that if you really wanted to be certain you could have gun classes and shooting lessons for everyone, including him.

He revealed his true colors and said that my scheme would coerce everyone into being a gun nut and he couldn’t shoot one of those things even if he were forced to. Then, I said, "I don’t have the right to coerce you into getting a gun license and maybe even firing a gun. But, why do you think you have the right to coerce me into getting a license for a Constitutional and human right? Why should I go to great lengths, which I did to get a Massachusetts gun license, that potentially marks me as a ‘suspect’ citizen?" No answer.

Of course, even if I could implement a universal license I wouldn’t. The government shouldn't have that much power. But, I found it interesting to turn the tables on an anti-gunnie and maybe make him realize that ideas he supports are just as onerous to me as my idea was to him. Then again, I probably just wasted my time.

Self Evident Rights

Via The Bitch Girls, we have this letter to the editor of a Mississippi paper from a former British subject. The writer feels that we Americans value our right to bear arms too fervently and should become more civilized, perhaps I suspect more in line with his former country.

Here is the most relevent portion:

Do I want the government to have a monopoly on force? You betcha! Those we elect and appoint to protect us need to hold all the cards. The time at which officialdom might abuse such a monopoly is miniscule when compared to the daily slaughter of Americans by Americans throughout the land.

I am a relatively new American, having migrated from Britain in 1965, and becoming an ardent American citizen in 1976. I realize that the desire to bear arms is a matter going back to the founding of the nation and is deep in the soul of most Americans in a way which I cannot feel or understand. This right will not be changed easily or overnight. But it must change in the fullness of time. The presence of semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the public and the general ease with which current gun laws are circumvented is counter productive to a people seeking public safety and mutual respect.

John Paul

Jackson

Bitter thinks he might feel more at home in a less freedom loving state like New Jersey or Massachusetts. I would concur, but add that maybe he would be happier moving back to where he came from, namely Britain, a country who's government no longer seems to believe in inherent rights.

To become a citizen of the United States, you have to study the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. John Paul must have read those documents at some point. Obviously he read them but understood nothing.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --


In today’s language: We are born with Rights that are a fundamental part of our humanity. Everyone has those Rights whether or not they or their government choses to recognize them. People in North Korea, New Hampshire, Great Britain and Iraq have those Rights. They are part of what makes us human beings. Part of what it means to be an American is the ability to recognize those Rights. One of those fundamental rights is the Right to Bear Arms which was iterated by our founders in the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers recognized this Right to be so important and vital that it was one of the ten they thought needed to be listed for posterity.

If a person who has been a citizen of this country for nearly 30 years cannot understand this fundamental aspect of what America is all about and in fact wants to change this nation into one that no longer recognizes the right to bear arms and probably other fundamental rights, I would argue that that person should leave this country and seek citizenship in one that better suits their belief system. His home country of Great Britain seems to be an ideal choice since the current government seems to be hell bent on ignoring the ancient rights that even Henry the VIII accorded to his subjects. Rights like double jeopardy and the right to confront ones accusers, as well as the right to bear arms.

More "Advice" on Self-Defense

Why does anti-self-defense sentiment rear its head in states like Maine? What is it about today’s police and society in general that discourages people to defend themselves?

Yesterday’s Boston Globe discussed a training program in Maine for pharmacists and their assistants. Law enforcement officials laud the proposed training which Maine’s pharmacy association will sponsor. The program’s gist is: avoid any confrontation, do what the robber wants, be a good witness.

In other words, they want us be good sheep, to bleat, call 911, and wait to give a police officer a description that will fit thirty percent of the population. And we wonder why crime is so high.

I’ve seen such advice before and I’m writing about it now because it was to pharmacists. My father, now retired, was a pharmacist who owned his own store in a small western city. He was aware of security even 30 years ago (despite the quote a Maine pharmacist gave saying that he didn’t worry about security when he entered the business 28 years ago). My dad’s store had an alarm including a daytime panic alarm, a safe for narcotics, and other security features. And, he and his assistant pharmacist kept guns in the store.

My dad believed in self-defense. He is also a wise man who once explained to me that getting shot over a bottle of pills or your wallet is not a good idea, but that you can’t trust a criminal. You don’t know if that criminal will shoot even if you cooperate. My dad also once said that dignity is worth defending.

Like him, I believe in self-defense. I have problems with “be a good witness” advice. It doesn’t work and I believe it actually increases crime. Here’s why I don’t like it;

1) Most people are not observant enough to give a description that will lead to an arrest unless the robber just barely exited the store and had no time to get away. And the longer the time between the offense and capture, less likely an arrest will be made based solely on description.

2) A criminal can change his or her appearance with a change of clothes, putting on or taking off a hat or jacket, re-combing hair, etc. One doesn’t need to be a master of disguise to alter one’s appearance.

3) There’s not enough difference between us humans to really describe someone (the famous description of “he was medium height, build, medium complexion, medium colored hair” comes to mind).

4) A cooperative attitude makes robbery easier causing more people to commit more robberies. There is little risk to robbing people.

5) People have been convicted of crimes based on eyewitness testimony and then were found innocent later. One could have a slight resemblance to a robber and end up doing his time.

6) If a robber does go to prison based on good eyewitness, that robber will be released some day. In the likely event that he returns to crime, he may decide it’s in his best interest to eliminate eyewitnesses. Thus, current law enforcement advice may actually be escalating violence levels.

So, what’s my answer? Be armed whenever possible and practical. Practice often and realistically. Keep your weapon in good working condition. Don’t allow yourself to be disarmed at all costs. Don’t be a sheep, but be smart and don’t get killed over property. If a robber is already pointing his gun at you, cooperate because you can’t outdraw his trigger finger. If you have a chance to go for your gun, do it. Have a plan and always be aware of your surroundings. I’m not paranoid and I don’t fear leaving my house, but I am careful. (Remember I’m not a lawyer or self-defense expert so the above is only my personal advice and you can follow it or not as you choose.)

Happy (Belated) Thanksgiving and Update

Bill and I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving. We had a fairly busy Thanksgiving, or at least I did. I made a traditional Thanksgiving feast even though Bill and I were they only people at the table. We had turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie--the works. That meant I spent a few memorable moments with my hands up a turkey's ass, but it's all good. By the time I finished, the kitchen looked like a mini-tornado that had taken everything out of cabinets, dunked them in old food, and dropped them all on the counters.

This is not the first Thanksgiving dinner we have by ourselves. Bill's family lives in Texas and mine lives in Idaho and that's a little too much "over the river and through the woods" for us to do on a four-day weekend. Even though we miss our families, we do enjoy each other's company a lot.

I've been quite busy at work this week, but here's the good news; my project is winding down and this week I put finishing touches on my deliverables. I've already received a performance award for my work. You can bet at least part of that award will find itself into a gun or lots of ammo.

With the end of my major project, I can concentrate a little more on the blog. You will soon see a few changes and better housekeeping; a few additions to the blogroll, a few more photographs, and other stuff we hope will make Ten Ring better.

So, thanks for sticking with us for about 11 months now. We've gotten a lot out of it and we hope you have too. Now, I gotta go and tackle that kitchen.

Ammo Day

Today is National Ammo Day--one day of the year when gunnies stage a buycott of ammo. Each year, more gunnies adopt ammo day as a day to add to our supplies, to raise awareness of the shooting sports, and to support our local gun dealers.

This year, several bloggers and forums added a twist and said to buy ammo at Wal-Mart. They even added a certain time. Their arguments convinced me and I decided to buy ammo at our nearest Wal-Mart and at our favorite gun store. We hope to raise a spike in Wal-Mart's sales records and convince them that we are an excellent market that they better make happy.

Here are our purchases:

The Winchester white boxes are from Wal-Mart. We bought 4 boxes of .223 ammo (40 to a box for a total of 160 rounds), and we bought three boxes of 9mm ammo (100 to a box for a total of 300 rounds). The subtotal is 460 rounds.

At our local gun shop, State Line in Mason, NH, we bought two boxes of .308 Winchester and two bricks of .22 long rifle ammo--one is CCI Standard Velocity and the other is Eley Sport. Eley makes the best target ammunition in the world, and they have a line of inexpensive practice rounds. National Ammo Day gives me an excuse to try it out. That's a sub-total of 1,040 rounds and a grand total of 1,500 rounds.

We hope your Ammo Days were at least as productive and we hope you have a lot of good, safe fun using up those brand new cartridges.

A Tale of 54 Guns in Pennsylvania

I haven’t talked about the shooting in Pennsylvania. An 18 year old man, David Ludwig, killed his 14-year old girlfriend’s parents and then he and his girlfriend took off. They were captured in Indiana and police officials aren’t sure, or they’re not telling, if the girl was involved with the murders or if he kidnapped her.

I’m a little surprised that anti-gunnies haven’t made more of this story. It has all the elements they need to twist it into a tight little ball of gun-hatred:

*The young man had access to firearms;
*He is a hunter;
*He was home schooled in probably a Christian family, and;
*He seemed like a nice guy until he went berserk with a gun.

Jeez, could gun-banners asked for anything more. Well, if they did, they got their wish.

There are two news articles this morning that make a great deal about finding 54 guns in the teen’s home. A court document lists three AR-15 “assault weapons” and, gasp, “Several rifles and shotguns, some pump-action….” Of course, the family had “…numerous rounds of ammunition….” The guns were removed from the house. I don’t know why they were removed since there are no allegations that Ludwig’s family had anything to do with the murders.

The stories don’t say who the guns belong to. My guess is most belong to Ludwig’s father who is a commercial airline pilot. They might be owned by several family members. Who knows?

I don’t know if these guns are a collection in the sense of historically interesting guns, or an accumulation a gunnie might build up over the years. After all, different guns have different purposes and if family members were active shooters in more than one discipline, they would have similar guns for different sports (i.e., an accurized AR-15 rifle for Service Rifle competition and a M4-type AR-15 for plinking).

The Lancaster story (second link above) includes reader comments. Be sure to skim them. Many people think the report is sensationalized and others call for more gun control—in various ways (“…how many guns does one need to hunt?”). There are also attacks on home schooling.

The article sensationalizes the number of guns found in this home. Its author, Janet Kelly, knows (even if she wouldn’t admit it) that when gun haters read her article, they will take a collective gasp. They wonder why people could own so many firearms. They imagine such owners to be troglodytes with too little education to understand the error of their gun-accumulating ways. For them, one gun is too many, but 54 guns put the household beyond society’s pale.

An event such and the fact the murderer’s family owned so many guns gives gun-banners the truths they need to twist into lies. They will use it to try to pass “arsenal” laws while hoping to reduce gun ownership in general. Ludwig’s actions are inexcusable, but so are gun-banners’ soon-to-come attempts to use this tragedy for their political ends.

Bill and I own a lot of guns—I won’t say how many. We also have numerous rounds of ammunition. We like to shoot a variety of guns and I collect historically and technically significant firearms.

When I see stories like this, I can only imagine how a reporter could spin our collection into something evil. But it’s not. Our collection and shooting are our avocations and our guns have never hurt anyone while we’ve owned them. We take gun safety and gun security seriously while still enjoying owning and using them. And yet, someone could twist our stories into something we wouldn’t recognize.

We’re not rednecks or troglodytes even though we hunt. Like Ludwig’s father, Bill and I are responsible professionals with three college degrees between us. I own a sizable book collection, primarily literary fiction. Bill owns a matchbook collection. One big difference is that we don’t live with a love-sick foolish young man. However, if you ever see a story about an arrest of two people in a home full of guns, ammunition, matches, books, and one cat, please send bail.

Notes on Posting about Wal-Mart

Sunday night, I wrote a post on buying a little ammo at Wal-Mart and ended up with more comments than I've got on a single post in a long time. I might have got fewer comments if I said I'd decided to drink "blended puppies" like Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds.

I thought I had explained that Bill and I only occasionally buy ammo at Wal-Mart and we've never bought a gun there. In fact, we strongly prefer supporting our local gun dealers.

That said, what is it about Wal-Mart that inflames liberals and conservatives alike? I read books and magazines on both sides of the culture war. Many on each side simply hate Wal-Mart. Certain conservatives hate it because it buys overseas now despite Sam Walton's original vision of "Buy American." Liberals hate it because of its resistance to labor unions. Both sides hate it because it's too big.

I have to admit I view Wal-Mart with a certain degree of mistrust because of its size. In the comments to Sunday's post, "Doug in Colorado" mentioned that Wal-Mart could put the small gun stores out of business. Then, for whatever reason, they could pull the plug on its gun department and leave many communities without a gun store. Certainly, Wal-Mart has put a lot of small hardware stores out of business. I don't know if they've put any gun stores out of business yet, but it's a legitimate concern.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart and most gun stores are not really in competition. Wal-Mart grabs certain cream parts of the market like .22 long rifle ammo, 9mm pistol ammo, 12 gauge shotgun ammo, cleaning kits, and related. They carry no handguns (anywhere in the country to the best of my knowledge) and only a few shotguns and rifles.

A fully stocked gun store is your source for all of the above and for more esoteric cartridges like .32-20, 7.62 x 25, and others. Then, there's your local gun store’s wide selection of rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Certainly a local gun store will give you more services and have more knowledgeable employees than will Wal-Mart. As “Seth from Massachusetts” points out, Wal-Mart won’t mount a scope for you.

All this is true, but here is why I plan to buy a couple of hundred rounds of ammo from Wal-Mart this Saturday. I really like the idea of having many outlets for ammo and guns. When I was growing up, you could buy ammo at Sears, any hardware store, and some grocery stores. Do we really want to concentrate all ammo sales in a few stores that zoning boards could force out of town? Wal-Mart will stand up to zoning boards if it is in their interest.

Further, Wal-Mart is under pressure from anti-gun groups to stop selling guns and ammo. Wal-Mart must see customer support or it will walk away from the business. Do you really want the gun-grabbers to win?

National Ammo Day Plans

As you can see by the graphic, Bill and I support National Ammo Day. Each year, we've bought ammo on or about November 19--at least since it started.

A familiar gun blogger who is now anonymous started National Ammo Day. He chose November 19 because it was his birthday. His first year included statistical reporting that quickly became impossible for one person to do. After that, he began only advertising the idea. Other gun bloggers picked it up and now, well I wish I could say the rest is history, but the idea is growing.

I think it's a good idea to spike sales on a given day or week. This year several bloggers, including Smallest Minority, and some members of AR15.com plan to buy ammo from Wal-Mart at the same time on November 19.

Normally, Bill and I buy our ammo at our local gun stores. We rarely buy ammo at Wal-Mart although we've made exceptions. This year, we'll make another exception and visit our local Wally World. We plan on buying several boxes of .308 Winchester, maybe 9mm, and other select calibers.

I don't know if gunnies will spike Wal-Mart's ammo sales and I doubt if they would announce it (competitive edge and all that), but it may do good in other ways. Most stores of Wal-Mart's type don't sell ammo or don't sell handgun ammo. If Wal-Mart sees a little kick in their profits, it will help them decide to stay in the ammo business. And, given that you can find a Wal-Mart almost anywhere in America open almost any time of the day, that ain't bad at all.

So, if you've ever thought about joining a "buy-cott" come to your local Wal-Mart at 4:30 Eastern Time. Let's buy 'em out. Besides, it's not like Bill and I would just let that ammo sit around. We've shooting to do.

A Respectful Veteran's Day

I wish all of our readers in uniform, those who've been in uniform, and those who support our military a very good Veteran's Day.

I get Veteran's Day off. Ironically I am not a veteran, but Bill is and he has to work. Every year for the past four or so, I do the same thing. I go to the range by myself and I make sure that I am shooting at the 11th hour of the 11th day of this 11th month--the time and date of the Armistice that ended World War I.

I don't turn my range session into a ceremony and I don't make a fuss about it. But, I believe exercising my Second Amendment rights in a country that our veterans helped make free is a fitting tribute to them. After all, gunfire is used as a salute and with it I mentally salute our veterans.

So thanks to all you veteranss and soldiers for winning and protecting our rights.

A Notice to Gun Banners

I was reading various things about San Francisco’s new gun ban. Alphecca has a post on it with many comments. I even cruised over to Democratic Underground to read fevered rantings.

Here’s a sample if you can stomach it, “They only stopped at handguns. They should have banned every type of weapon from handguns, rifles, shotguns, to bows 'n arrow. They are only used to kill or inflict injury to animals and people. This ain't Dodge City, and we don't need a bunch of Wyatt Earps running around! Today San Francisco, tomorrow, the world!” (posted by Hogwyld on 11/9/2005 at 4:06pm).

I need to rant on this topic so bear with me; it’s going to be a bumpy ride. First, I want to thank NRA for their rapid response. They are already filing suit to stop this April Fool’s joke (the ordinance becomes effective on April 1, 2006).

Second, I want bitch about people who want to change our way of life by eradicating gun ownership. San Francisco’s ban aims to do exactly that and its author called it “sensible gun control.” So, because total bans are deemed sensible; even the most political ignorant gun owner now understands what sensible really means.

When we argue with these anti-freedom idiots, we often mention self-defense. Guns are after all the best defense tool we have. But, there’s more I want to tell these gun bigots. I want to tell them about the sheer joy of owning and shooting guns.

Most gun-banners refuse to see that shooting is a wonderful source of fulfillment. They tell us to get a new hobby as if that were a valid choice. They forget that a hobby is also called an avocation: that is, an occupation separate from one’s employment that brings enjoyment. What gives them any right to tell us how to use our time and money?

Gun-banners don’t want me to enjoy shooting and owning guns. They want me to feel guilty about actions taken by criminals, murderers, gang-bangers, and suicides. They want me to “realize” that my sport and hobby (said with a dismissive sneer) is an issue of public health. They want me to bow before their gods of “the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few” and the community is more important than the individual.

I have news for them. A community is made up of individuals and anytime you take away one person’s rights you diminish that community. Each community is made up of groups: gun owners, gun haters, gays, straights, whites, blacks, liberal, conservative. Each group must respect each other and learn to compromise in order to live together.

Gun banners don’t want to live with gun owners and their idea of a compromise is a total ban. They call us cowboys, trigger-happy rednecks, and so many other kind terms. Granted we respond in kind—I sneer a little myself when I type gun-banner, but we didn’t attack them first.

Banners want to change my way of life, because they believe they know how to live my life better than I do. They want to ban my guns, or ban certain guns they don’t like, to tax ammo, to ban hunting, or whatever scheme excites them at the moment.

Despite gun banners’ best efforts, I don’t feel guilty about owning guns. I don’t feel guilty when a criminal kills someone with a gun anymore than I feel guilty when a criminal kills someone with a kitchen knife. My rights are not subject to something a mutant does with an object.

Gun-banners want me to give up my so-called hobby. Well, I ain’t going to do it. I love shooting guns. I love the challenge of putting a small object into a ten ring at 200 yards with a rifle or 25 with a pistol. I love hitting a flying clay bird with a column of shot.

I’m not good at other sports and never have been. But, shooting is my sport and I love it and I’m damn good at it. I also love collecting guns and I’m as good at that as my pocketbook allows. My enjoyment of my sport is harmless.

Understand this you gun-banners. Your laws make my life harder. I moved out of Massachusetts largely because of your stupid gun laws. I once lived five minutes from work and I now live an hour away in New Hampshire. I made that move and many other compromises to live my life as I see fit. But you want to spread your poison further. You want the entire world to live your way—as Hogwyld said above.

Further if you ban my avocation and try to confiscate my guns you must realize that my love of guns and shooting is part of me. If you take that away, you diminish me and change who I am for the worse. I won’t let that happen and neither will the millions of Americans who join me in my sport. So leave us alone and we promise we won't make you own a gun.

My View on Samuel Alito

I don’t do much political blogging. Bill (Yosemite Sam) does that task around here—when he posts, which isn’t often enough. Friday, he lamented that bloggers won’t be considered “journalists” for McCain-Feingold and thus subject to very unconstitutional rules infringing on our right to free speech. We won’t let our rights be curtailed.

In that post, frequent commenter, Seth from Massachusetts, asked how we felt about Samuel Alito’s nomination to the US Supreme Court and I decided to answer. First, I’m glad that Harriet Miers got the boot. Being good friends with the president is not suitable qualifications for a Supreme Court justice.

Alito seems very well qualified, so that’s gratifying. My chief concern is Second Amendment rights—at least in my blogging life. Even outside of Ten Ring, gun rights are a huge issue for me. I’m not sure about Alito’s views on the Second Amendment. He dissented in US v Rybar stating that Federal law couldn’t prevent someone from owning a machine gun if that weapon was not involved in interstate commerce.

For that decision, the Brady bunch disparaged him as “Machine Gun Sammy,” but its not a pro-gun decision anymore than Clarence’s Thomas’s dissent in the Raich Medical Marijuana case was a pro-drug decision (the court ruled that Federal drug laws still pertained in a state that legalized medical marijuana even if the pot was never involved in interstate commerce).

Alito’s argument was for a limited application of the Commerce Clause and I like that. This clause has been used to support big government and it’s time its put to pasture or at least curtailed. But, I’m not convinced that Alito is pro-gun any more than John Ashcroft was pro-gun. You see, Ashcroft stated that there was an individual right to own guns, but subject to “reasonable restrictions.”

That’s a conservative anti-gun philosophy that bothers me. We know the liberal anti-gun version all too well (“Guns are bad, they kill, they must be banned, and then we can achieve Kumbaya”). The conservative anti-gun philosophy can be more insidious than outright bans. Basically, you can use a reasonable test to infringe on almost all gun rights if the test stops short of an outright ban.

For instance, a politician may say that it’s reasonable to restrict handguns since they are used in crime. But, that politician could recognize a so-called sporting purpose for handguns in target shooting. That could lead to a right to own a handgun suitable for target shooting only—and the politician and his cohorts could decide what that gun might look like. I could imagine a twelve-inch barrel, a bulky wood grip, and other items that would make it hard to carry concealed.

Similarly, another politician could argue that it’s reasonable to curtail “assault weapons.” Whoops, that’s already been done and we saw how that turned out.

Given that I don’t know Alito’s philosophy on gun ownership, I’m still concerned he could be one of those “Law and Order” conservatives who think “Project Exile” is wonderful even though logically it could be used against any gun owner. I wonder if he would argue for “reasonable restrictions.”

Lest you think I’m overly thinking this point, remember that the founder of Handgun Control, Pete Shields, was a California Republican. Sarah and James Brady took over and renamed the organization. James Brady was Ronald Reagan’s press secretary and presumably Sarah shared her husband’s philosophy.

I’m glad that Alito is not the nominee a President John Kerry (shudder) would have picked, but he will bear watching.

As Paris Burns

Denise and I have been paying a lot of attention to the nightly riots in Paris, which have recently spread throughout France. We traveled in France in 1999 and transited the banlieus on the way into Paris from Charles De Gaulle airport. They are comprised of block after uniform block of high-rise Socialist apartment buildings. Small wonder that people living there are completely alienated from French society. They then often turn to radical Islam to find some meaning to their subsidized existences.

If you haven’t already, please read this excellent article by Theodore Dalrymple, The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris. The French have done a lot to create this problem and I find it rather hard not to partake in a little schadenfreude.

I also can’t help wondering that if the French had firearms rights, like we have here in New Hampshire, that these riots might have been nipped in the bud. Somehow we don’t seem to have all that many riots in New Hampshire, Texas and other areas that believe in a strong Second Amendment.

But before we get too smug about the situation the French find themselves in, it might behoove us to realize that we are well along the path that the French have trod for us. Many in this country bow down to the twin gods of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness and if we are not careful, we could be in the same boat as the French. Massachusetts is more than half way there already and there are many among us who think that the French way is an example we should emulate.

First Principles

The Gun Guy, in a recent post, discussed his reaction to the recent defeat of a bill in the House of Representatives. This bill (H.R. 1606) sought to exempt online free speech from the effects of the McCain-Feingold Law in the same way mainstream journalists are protected. The gist of the Gun Guy’s post was “Damn the Torpedo’s, full speed ahead”; he will continue to exercise his free speech rights, law or no law, regardless of the potential consequences.

We at the Ten Ring wholeheartedly concur with The Gun Guy's attitude and will continue to write about what we see fit. We will not allow a bunch of two bit politicians, who are not fit to shine the shoes of our country's founders , to decide who has Constitutional Rights and where and when those rights are to be exercised.

We realize that the powers that be have been chipping away at the Constitution for many years, at the Second Amendment in particular, as we have discussed over the past year. But in our opinion, this infringement is the final straw. We will not be silenced, pre election or post election.

We find it interesting that Congress, in its infinite wisdom, only sees fit to dole out free speech rights to those in big media, comprised of huge conglomerates that the founding fathers could never have imagined.

We suspect if Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin could be around today, they would think it more important to guarantee the free speech rights of bloggers, who are much closer to the people who printed bills in colonial days, than the free speech of huge media corporations that have their own agendas and know or care little about the lives of ordinary citizens who work and struggle from day to day.

History has shown that the free speech of the powerful and well connected (as the mainstream media is) is never really much in jeopardy, but the rights of the ordinary man or woman must be vigilantly guarded and exercised. Denise and I are ordinary people and we will exercise that right.

Traveling Again

I just got back from my Western Massachusetts trip and now I am traveling to our headquarters office in Maryland. I'll be there for three days (including today). I'll try to post something and maybe Yosemite Sam (Bill) will post something.

I've had to do more travel these past six months than I've had to do in the last two years. Business travel is not my cup of tea, but one has to do it when one must.

A Massachusetts Photo Essay

Well, I made it out of the People's Republic of Massachusetts. Bill came and rescued me. That is, I was there on a work retreat and he came and stayed with me the final night. My colleagues and I finished our work by noon and Bill and I had the rest of the day ahead of us. Here is a little of what we saw in Western Massachusetts proving that there is scenic beauty and even a sense of humor left in that anti-gunnie state.

A Colonial Inn

Some Scenic Beauty

More Scenic Beauty

A Little Massachusetts Humor (seen near Charlemont, MA)

Stranded in Massachusetts

Sorry for the limited posting. I'm stranded in Stockbridge, Massachusetts at a "retreat" and work session my boss set up. We have limited access to computers and I grabbed this one the first chance I got. I don't even have cell phone coverage here. I feel so cut off.

Most importantly, this is in Massachusetts and I don't have a gun. Not even in my suitcase. One can't get caught here with such a useful tool. If hotel management would find it and if they called the cops, I could conceivably lose my gun rights on a Federal level. Massachusetts' laws and punishments are that draconian. It's one reason I left the stupid state.

Unfortunately, I have to work in Massachusetts and all my co-workers except one lives in this benighted state. Almost all of them are anti-gunnies and don't understand that a gun is a tool and can do nothing on its own. For these benighted people, a gun is a talisman that equates to all evil. Oh well, I need to find a job in New Hampshire. Easier said than done in my profession.

Well, I'd better run. Talk to you all later.

A Blog Meme and Weekend Fun

I've never done a meme yet, but there's always a first time. I saw several blogs with the "How much is your blog worth" link and tried it. Now I can buy that .50 Caliber semi-auto Barrett and ammo. Woo Hoo. What no loans, no buyers?! I feel cheated.

My blog is worth $18,065.28.
How much is your blog worth?

Seriously, this weekend Bill and I finally did some gunnie stuff. We checked out parts of southwest New Hampshire in preparation for the muzzle loading deer season. We found one spot full of deer crap, rubs, bedding areas and hoof prints. I think we might be hunting there next weekend. Unfortunately, there's only one way in and if the wind is behind us, we might see nothing more than weeds and trees.

We sighted in our muzzleloader and I was consistently putting a 300 grain .45 caliber bullet (wrapped in a sabot) in the ten ring at 100 yards. I think it's ready.

I shot my new Savage Model 11 in .308 Winchester. I'm still getting the hang of the Savage adjustable trigger. I'm getting shots in and around a 4 inch Shoot-N-See at 100 yards, but I think my rifle and scope is capable of a mono-hole. I will need to readjust its trigger. I might have it set just a little too light. At this point, it's a matter of practice and more practice, but I'm closer to having an accurate rifle than I was two weeks ago.

Finally, Bill and I shot our Mauser K-98. I bought it over six months ago and never got it to the range. It's a S/42 marked rifle built in 1937 with clear Weimar markings. It is extremely accurate and has surprisingly little recoil. I really liked shooting this gun.

I earned a sore shoulder, breathed a lot of Pyrodex smoke, jammed my hand once on the front sight while loading the muzzle loader, got cold when a front moved in, got wet with rain, but I had a glorious weekend.

Had to Listen to an Anti-Gunnie

I was driving to work this morning, minding my own business, listening to the radio, when my ears got assaulted by an anti-gunnie. Came close to putting the car in the median and screaming.

Seriously, “This Morning” on WRKO hosted by Scott Allan Miller did a segment with John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence.

They were talking about the passing (yeah) of the law that limits gun makers and gun dealers liability if a third party misuses an otherwise legally sold handgun. Rosenthal claims to be a gun owner and that he loves skeet shooting. I have no doubt that he does, although a caller disagreed. Too many gun owners think they own “good” guns while maroons own “evil” handguns, so-called assault weapons, and fifty caliber rifles.

Rosenthal certainly epitomizes such a gun owner. I can imagine him on the skeet field with his fine over/under shotgun. Yet, he’s created an organization to ban handguns. He pays for a giant billboard in Boston that calls for gun banning. With friends like this….

Miller made one mistake that led to a rancorous interchange. Miller stated he knew that you could not buy a machine gun. Rosenthal corrected him, but Miller argued with him. Later Miller corrected himself by saying that you could not walk into a gun store and then out with a fully automatic weapon. It takes a grueling licensing procedure and a lot of money.

There’s one thing that Rosenthal said that we gunnies need to look out for. He argued that guns and tobacco are the only products not regulated for public safety and that this has led to selling “dangerous” fifty caliber rifles that are advertised as being able to shoot down planes (that’s what he said, the big fibber).

Miller pointed out that guns are regulated by a host of other laws and that Rosenthal stretched the truth when he argued guns were not safety regulated. It’s true that guns are not regulated by the Consumer Products Safety Commission, but such regulation is something that Rosenthal and his ilk want.

Guns are dangerous by design. They are weapons even if designed only for target or skeet shooting. There is nothing that can be done to make them “safe” in the sense that you can make a toy safer by banning small parts.

Gun banners have failed now to bankrupt the gun industry. They’ve failed in public opinion with more people buying guns than ever before. Let’s make sure they fail in trying to make guns a “consumer product.”

Thoughts After seeing Serenity

Bill and I saw Serenity this weekend and blogged a little about it before we saw it. I’m not going to review Serenity and I’m not going to compare it to "Firefly." Suffice it to say that both are separate creations even though Serenity stemmed from "Firefly."

What I will do is lament what might have been. Joss Whedon is known for creating story arcs and complicated characters. His TV show, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," had seven (actually six and a half) glorious seasons.

I enjoyed "Buffy." It was smart, funny, tender, and other good things. Most of all, its characters developed over time. Buffy started out as a teenage girl worried about little more than making a cheerleader squad.

By the end of the series, she had the world on her shoulders. You saw exactly what that meant, as she grew older. You saw the toll slaying vampires and demons took on her and those around her. But, she and her cohorts accepted their responsibilities and became better persons for them. Despite its otherworldly premise, you knew that the vampires and demons were metaphors, but Whedon never hit you over the head with allegory.

"Firefly" was supposed to be another "Buffy." It had a story arc and great characters. Fox Network never understood Whedon’s genius. They shuffled episode order making it impossible to follow the story arc. They insisted on character changes. They changed its time slots and pre-empted it for sports. They finally killed it after showing only 11 of the fourteen episodes Whedon made.

If Fox had trusted Whedon’s creation (and if fans had followed it) we would now have about 70 episodes of "Firefly." We would have seen characters change and grow. We would have seen loyalties rewarded and treachery punished. Now we have 14 episodes and Serenity, a two-hour movie. It feels like starting a long, rewarding novel and realizing that its last 50 chapters are missing.

Whedon didn’t give up on his show and fans bought "Firefly" DVDs—enough so that Universal decided to release Serenity. The movie has done okay in the box office, but not as well as one might expect with a built-in fan base. It could mean there will be no more "Firefly" or no movie sequels. Such a shame.

Where else will we see freedom-loving characters who think government only gets in the way? Where else will we see a mare’s leg Winchester used with Zoe’s grace? Where else will we see a crew of cranky libertarians on a creaky ship sticking their fingers in the government’s eye?

I’d like to see more of these characters. I told Bill I’d like to see the movie again and I might even buy an extra seat. Maybe you should too.

NYT on Immunity Bill--A Fisking

I don’t do many fiskings, but every now and again something comes out that begs for one. And, who am I do deny a beggar its due.

Today’s post involves The New York Times; the Grey Lady of Herald Square, the newspaper of record, the bastion of what’s right in journalism is our subject (of course I’m being sarcastic, the Times has repeatedly revealed itself to be little more than a mouthpiece of urban, liberal, metrosexual, white, latte-sipping, elite snobs—but I digress).

On its op-ed page, the Times (NYT) put up an unsigned editorial meaning it’s the editorial board’s view. Its board is outraged that the US House of Representatives is about to pass a bill that would protect gun makers and dealers from frivolous lawsuits. In the interest of fair play, I support the bill. I’d rather live in a world where such a law wasn’t necessary, but lawyers and their anti-gun clients are out to bankrupt a necessary industry and therefore that industry must be protected.

As expected, NYT splashes the blood of innocents while obscuring truth. Here’s their opening sentence:

Three years ago, the nation's capital region lived in fear of a pair of snipers who killed 10 people and wounded three in random attacks with a Bushmaster XM-15 .223-caliber telescopic rifle - a gleaming civilian version of the Army's basic M-16 assault rifle popular with recreational shooters.

Here’s what’s wrong (and I will pick a couple of nits). The Bushmaster is not gleaming. It has a matte-black finish. It’s not a telescopic rifle. They mean it’s a rifle fitted with a telescope. More seriously, it is not an M-16 assault rifle. At no point does the article point out that the Bushmaster is semi-automatic like many classic hunting rifles and not capable of full auto burst-fire like an M-16.

Then NYT states that:

In the aftermath, the rifle was traced to a shoddy gun dealer who claimed he somehow "lost" that war weapon and some 200 other guns to the underground market. Victimized families sued in grief and outrage and won $2.5 million in a settlement that most Americans - except Congress - would pronounce proper.

First, a Bushmaster is not a "war weapon." Second, the settlement included Bushmaster which settled because its insurance company insisted on it. Bushmaster had done no wrong. It sold to a licensed dealer though a licensed wholesaler. It couldn’t know the dealer had inventory-retention problems. Further, I’ve seen reports that many of the 200 guns were located in the dealer’s paperwork, but that the dealer was a shoddy record keeper so it took a while to figure out what was sold and what was stolen. And, no I don’t think it was a proper lawsuit, especially where Bushmaster was concerned.

Now we move to the heart of the matter:

The House of Representatives, in callow disregard of cause and effect in the nation's harrowing gun carnage, is about to take aim at the Bushmaster settlement by voting what is expected to be final approval of a bill to grant assault-proof protection from damage suits to the gun industry, from manufacturers to dealers.

You've got to love the language sprinkled with sonorous emotion-laden words like callow, harrowing, carnage, and assault-proof. Further, who says the House is disregarding “cause and effect” of gun violence. There’s no evidence that guns by themselves cause crime. Granted, people use them in crime, but suing gun makers into oblivion won’t stop gun crime (see my last earlier earlier post about a man in China using homemade guns to shoot school children).

There’s an expected slam on the National Rifle Association of which I am a member:

This extraordinary shield, written to the diktat of the National Rifle Association, is so sweeping that it would have barred the D.C. sniper settlement and other valid negligence claims, according to legal experts stunned that any industry could ever win such blanket immunity.

Yeah, the evil NRA once again proves that it is able to deliver what its members want like protecting gun makers and dealers from silly lawsuits. The editorial also misleads. The bill limits lawsuits, but doesn’t end suits that truly deal with negligence. If a maker’s gun blows up, then one can still sue them. If a dealer sells guns illegally, he can still be sued. What it does end is novel legal theories that makers can be sued if a criminal steals a gun from a home and uses it in crime and similar inane ideas.

Now, NYT really gets rolling:

With all the critical issues on the national agenda, from the Iraq war to hurricane recovery, the House's eagerness is obscene as the gun lobby herds lawmakers from both parties behind a bill to deny victimized families their fair day in court.

First, it’s not a fair day in court. Court cases have been introduced that obviously dealt from a stacked deck. Makers of and dealers in legal products have been dragged into court for making or selling legal products even though they followed strict laws. They’ve paid exorbitant fees for lawyers to defend themselves for simply being in business. If these suits were “a fair day in court” for both sides, there would be no need for this legislation.

Let’s read another insult shall we:

The bill goes beyond barring lawsuits to shielding black-market dealers from administrative loss of their licenses without near impossible burdens of proof.

“Black-market” dealer is a contradiction in terms. No truly black-market dealer has a license. If a licensed dealer breaks the law, then he or she can be prosecuted, which is a lot more serious than an administrative loss of license. Further, I thought we were innocent until proven guilty. A dealer should not lose their livelihood unless there is proof and that should be a high test indeed.

Finally, we have a bit of Bush-bashing:

President Bush talked favorably about the assault weapons ban as a candidate but was notoriously mute when the Republican Congress let the ban expire last year. Surely he would not compound the nation's gun scourge by signing the immunity bill.

I don’t want to get into the assault-weapons ban: that’s old news. In fact, I wish Bush had simply said it was an abomination and he would never sign an extension, but that’s just me. Bush will sign this immunity bill and I’ll cheer him on—despite the other ways he’s disappointed me.

Now that I’ve cleaned out the bile, I can breathe a little easier.

Another School Shooting--But Not in America

Ten Ring is not really a newslinks blog--there are many other sources for that--but every now and again Bill or I see a bit of news that we must share.

The other day, there was another school shooting. It's the most recent violence in a long string of school stabbings and shootings. Yet our media has been silent on it. I stumbled on the story in the BBC. It happened in China.

China has had a real problem lately with people killing or injuring school children with knives. The story's sidebar mentions a horrific knife attack that left eight children dead. In two attacks on the same day one madman hurt 28 children and another hurt 24 children the same day (I don't have enough information to discuss the number of deaths).

In this latest attack, a man entered a school and began shooting children with homemade guns despite increased school security. He wounded sixteen children. A passerby helped chase the man off, although the gunman hit him with one of his homemade guns (maybe the shooter was out of ammo). The perpetrator escaped and police are looking for him.

I have several feelings about this story. First, there's the horror that anyone would attack children especially since there are so many attacks recently. Second, there's the curiosity that it would happen in a police state like China. Third, there's a realization that there's a lesson here for gun banners.

China has gun control and yet a man was able to make his own guns and carry out an attack. There's not enough detail to know how sophisticated his guns were, what kind of ammunition he used, or how he got the ammunition and raw materials. It's conceivable that his ammo was also homemade.

Gun control doesn't stop knife attacks--that almost goes without saying. Gun control doesn't prevent a lunatic from attacking school children. A corollary is simple, guns don't cause school shootings and guns don't cause knife attacks. People carry out these attacks using tools available to them.

Here's another lesson for would-be gun banners. Even if guns are banned or tightly controlled as they are in China, people will get guns. They will make them at home, or organized crime will make or smuggle them to supply a black market.

A simple gun is an easy thing to make; a nail, some tubing, a spring, and a shotgun shell is all it takes. Someone with access to machine tools and experience can make a very good firearm.

My advice for gun banners out there: give it up. Guns aren't the problem; bad people are the problem. Society needs a way to identify these people and police are necessary for security. But, even in a police state, the police cannot be there to protect you. People must be able to defend themselves when evil ones attack. The best tool for self-defense is a gun. Quite a conundrum for gun banners isn't it?

Now That's a Gun! and Firefly/Serenity

Sixteen-inch Guns of the USS Massachusetts

Bill and I managed to get away from it all over Columbus Day weekend despite rain every freaking day. Bill set our agenda which included a trip to Battleship Cove in Fall River, Massachusetts where we found the largest collection of historical naval hardware in the world (that's what they say, who am I to argue).

We climbed all over a World War II destroyer, a battleship (USS Massachusetts), submarine, Soviet missile cruiser, looked at PT boats, and other ships, boats, and planes. We saw some really big guns that make a dreaded .50 caliber single-shot bolt-action rifle look like a BB gun.

USS Joseph P. Kennedy

I found touring the ships a glance at a culture I respect, but never shared. Bill, who served in the Air Force, understands military life better than I do, but felt awed at the "floating city" aspect of a battleship. If you ever have a chance to visit Battleship Cove or other naval displays you should take it.

We did other fun things over the weekend including losing a little money at Foxwoods Casino (only a very little and only what we budgeted--I won half my budget back after losing most of it [is that a win or an incomplete loss?]), and a visit to Mystic Aquarium to say hello to Beluga whales, penquins, and other creatures.

We are now caught up in watching Firefly. We missed it when Fox briefly showed it and prematurely cancelled it. We heard about its phenomenal DVD sales. Then we saw trailers for Serenity, the movie that continues the series. We both like science fiction and thought we'd like to see it. When various bloggers discussed its libertarian and pro-gun aspects, we knew we had to see it, but wanted to watch the series first on DVD.

We've been trying to watch one or two episodes a night and plan to see the movie this weekend. We've really enjoyed Firefly so far and hope the movie is just as good. I like the futuristic yet familiar guns used on the series. We saw "Jaynestown" last night and one character had a sawed-off pump shotgun. He racked the slide, but when he pointed it one hears an electrical whine. It makes you wonder how they work.

The series is also full of freedom-loving, and self-defense supporting messages. I particularly liked one line (best of my recollection), "If someone tries to kill you, well you just try to kill him right back." Words to live by.

When Coyotes Attack

Jeez, sometimes I hate being right. I’ve been coyote blogging for a while (go to the Google link above and enter coyote). I’ve warned that one day a coyote would soon attack someone in Massachusetts; a heavily-populated state with severe gun and weapon control and a growing number of coyotes.

Well, it’s happened. Arthur Cole (click here for a longer version) is a seventy-six year old grandfather who took his four-year old grandson for a walk in suburban woods near his retirement development in Northborough, Massachusetts (just outside of Boston’s outer beltway).

Suddenly a female coyote jumped on Cole’s back. He fought the coyote possibly saving his grandson’s life. Cole sent his grandson for help. Cole’s son rushed to the scene to find his father wrestling with the coyote. Fortunately, the elder Cole had got on top of the animal and pinned her. The younger Cole tried to help, but could do little. Police and fire personnel arrived roughly fifteen minutes after the initial attack to find Cole still pinning the animal.

A fire fighter snared the coyote, but police couldn’t get an angle to shoot her since Cole’s arm was pinned under her. They strangled her to death and her body will be tested for rabies. Arthur Cole suffered a number of bite wounds, but is expected to recover. His grandson was unhurt but will always have the image of, in his words, “…a wolf got Grammy.”

Throughout Cole’s brave struggle, I’m sure he must have thought; “I wish I had a gun.” I’m sure his son wished the same thing or wished he had grabbed one on the way to the trail. Maybe they both wished they had knives, pepper spray, anything but some innate wrestling ability.

That’s the problem with a state disarming its citizens even if the citizens want the state to do so. Someday a person will need a gun and won’t have one or know how to use one. A gun is like a seatbelt or a spare tire in that you probably will not need either one on this trip, but one of these days you’ll be damn glad you had one around you or in the trunk. To take the example further, what good is the spare tire in your trunk if you don't know how to change a tire?

I’m the first to admit that even if Cole had had a gun he might not have been able to use it. If the younger Cole had grabbed a gun from home or his truck he might not have been able to use it just like the police officers couldn’t use theirs. But, are you willing to wrestle a coyote for fifteen minutes? Are you willing to suffer animal bites while you do it? Are you willing to choke an animal to death?

Let’s look at what happened to the coyote. What a terrible way for her to die. A bullet would have been a kindness compared to slow strangulation. That coyote died possibly because she was defending pups (a guess from police) or because she saw a handy meal in an old man or a child. In any event, she was doing what nature intended for her to do; protect her young or prey on the preceived weak.

We humans don’t want to remember that we’re both predators and prey. We’ve forgotten that we created clubs, knives, and guns to get food and to protect ourselves from four or two-legged predators. We’re still part of nature and nature hasn’t forgotten that fact.

You can bet I’ll have a gun on me during my next walk in the woods.

NOTE: After doing the rough draft, but before posting I saw that mAssBackwards covered the same story. Now go read his take.

One From the Vault

Luger P08

Because I’m discussing two Luger P08s made over twenty years apart, I suppose I should retitle my post “Two from the Vault,” but in the interest of consistency, I’ll keep it the way it is.

Lugers are interesting guns. They certainly have one of the most recognizable shapes of any pistol partly because of its unusual toggle-action (in the picture below one gun has an open toggle). A toggle is an almost Rube Goldberg invention of hinges, slides, grooves, and pins. It’s part of what makes Lugers unique and collectible.



Lugers were invented in the early years of the 20th Century. Georg Luger invented his eponymous pistol, but he based on it a reworking of an earlier pistol, Borchardt Pistol C93. Hugo Borchardt’s pistol was the first commercially successful autoloader despite its bizarre design. Today, a Borchardt pistol in good condition sells for the price of many cars—way out of my collecting league.

Luger’s company, Loewe, asked him to redesign the Borchardt. After several tries he came up with what we can recognize as a Luger. His employers changed their company name to Deutsche Waffen und Munitionfabrik (DWM) and eventually earned Luger military contracts in Germany and Switzerland.

The German military adopted it in 1908 and gave it an official designation of P08 (Pistol 1908). It remained Germany’s sidearm until 1940 when the Walther P38 was named the official sidearm. Lugers were still made and issued to officers and other soldiers. In fact, public culture such as movies and books usually associate Lugers rather than P38s with German soldiers.

Mechanically Lugers are models of German engineering. There are almost 40 (depending on how you count them) finely machined parts. Workers machined the frame out of a solid block of steel and cut numerous grooves, holes, and channels. Lugers were expensive to make and required more than a little hand fitting to get them to work properly. That’s why most of its major parts have the last two digits of the serial number stamped on them. If an armorer had more than one gun disassembled on his bench he could identify parts by serial number and install them easily.

The complicated machining made the gun less than reliable for military use. The left side of the gun has a partially exposed sear. Dirt in this area can cause the gun to not fire. This exposed sear adds another strange fact about Lugers. If you cock the gun and then take the slide off the frame and press on a certain part of the sear, the firing pin will trip even though its trigger assembly is not connected to its slide. Here's one more reason to never leave a round chambered when working on or cleaning your guns.

Despite these flaws, the gun is reliable for target shooting and even home defense. Its distinctive grip shape makes it very pointable and comfortable when shooting. The toggle absorbs a certain amount of the recoil and it moves so fast that it’s not a distraction while aiming.

Enough generalities, let’s talk about my guns.

The upper gun was made in 1942 by Mauser. It doesn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it; instead it has a letter code “byf.” The Nazis valued never letting the right hand knowing what the left hand was doing. The Army Weapons Office, the Heereswaffenamt, assigned these and other codes. They also performed proofing and other tasks.

The Heereswaffenamt inspected guns and an inspector left proof marks on the right side of the frame. The proof marks at the time were three stick figures of the German eagle. Underneath it was a number assigned to an inspector. On my gun that number is 135. I have no idea who 135 was.

The Mauser plant that made my gun was in Oberndorf, which was given several codes such as S/42 (also seen on K98 rifles and byf was used on rifles too). Mauser used byf from 1941-1945.

During its production run (almost a half-century), Lugers had three different magazine types shown here. Original Luger magazine bases were carved from wood as seen in the picture. Makers later used plastic and aluminum (in the picture, the plastic base is in the upper gun and the aluminum is next to the holster). The bases, except for plastic ones, were numbered with the gun’s serial number and pistols were issued with two magazines, a holster, and a takedown tool. The spare magazine was also marked with a + sign showing it was the spare.

You can see the holster and takedown tool in the picture. Each is authentic. My aluminum magazine’s serial number doesn’t match my Luger. For collectors, that’s the only numbered part that doesn’t have to match because so many were separated from their guns (a gun with one or especially two matching magazines however does command a better price). All other part numbers match.

Wartime production caused certain shortcuts. While parts still fit excellently, finish was sacrificed in wartime. Holding the guns side-by-side will reveal certain small liberties taken in machining. Also, the earlier Lugers had a case-hardening process performed on various parts (trigger, safety lever, etc.) causing them to have a straw color (called strawing among collectors). The WWII Lugers parts weren’t strawed just blued.

I’ve shot this gun and though mechanically accurate its trigger pull is too heavy (about 8 pounds) for really good shooting. Personally I have a problem with Lugers and other older guns because their front sights are just too narrow and their rear sights are mere notches. My fifty-year old eyes need more generous sight pictures. But, with care I can still line them up and find a ten ring or two.

My second gun, lower in the picture with the toggle open, is a 1920 police rework. Makers took WWI pistols and rebuilt them for issue to police officers. I am not sure when the frame was built. It was made and rebuilt by Deutsche Waffen und Munitionfabrik (DWM) and bears the maker's distinctive logo on the toggle. It has all matching serial numbers (except for the wooden magazine) and has some strawing left. It shows more holster wear than my byf-marked pistol, but is at least 22 years older.

It’s more fun to shoot than my other Luger because it has a better trigger with a four-pound pull. The sights are just as small though.

Those are my two Lugers. Lugers have attracted dedicated collectors because of the wide variation of types, makers, and marks. I don’t plan on acquiring any more, but you never know what may come down the pike.

Jack and Jill Postal Match

I'm home today. I took some sick leave since I'm doing my best to fight off a lousy cold. This gives me a break from my big work project and I can actually get something posted. How 'bout that.

In my previous post, I mentioned that weekend before last Bill and I shot Mr. Completely's "Jack and Jill" postal match. Part of the challenge was to ensure you have a person of the opposite sex shoot with you. That's never a challenge for Bill and I. We both used .22 target pistols. We have to get ready for our winter's bullseye league.

We did okay, but I thought I'd score higher than I did. The match had these dime-sized bulls on each corner worth 25 points apiece. When I shot from a rest I tried to get two of them. Almost got one, but I decided I was wasting my shots so went up to the larger bull and shot it. As Mr. Completely said, "These bonus bulls are definitely 'High Value -High Risk'." They were for me--risk that is. Oh well, it wouldn't be worth trying if it were easy.

Here are our scores:
Combined Total: 345
Denise Total: 171 (rest target was 79 since I missed the two high risk bulls, offhand was 92--see I should have know better)
Bill Total: 174 (rest target was 84--it had one flyer--offhand was 90).

And, without any further ado here are our targets:

Bill's from a rest


Bill's Offhand


Denise's from a Rest


Denise's Offhand