Category Archives: Guns

Shooting Irons!

Rule Five Lying Journalist Friday 2.0

A while back, I chronicled my thoughts on sack-o-crap Gersh Kuntzman of the New York Daily News, lying about having fired an AR-15.  Now this week we saw another sack-o-crap, Christine Lavin of the San Francisco Chronicle, lying about owning a Glock.  Excerpts follow, with my comments.

I had come to Oakland from Texas, where having guns was part of the culture. When you go to a church or a bar in Texas, you usually see a sign saying “Leave your guns outside.” I bought mine at a gun show, with no background check, just cash on the barrel, so to speak. I took a gun safety class and started to target-shoot for a hobby. I got pretty good. Eventually, I became an instructor in gun safety and taught classes on weekends.

A couple things; I haven’t spent much time in Texas for quite a few years, so any True Believers from that state, enlighten me; have you ever, ever seen a church with a sign stating “Leave your guns outside?”  Unless someone tells me different, I’m calling bullshit on that one.  Also, the buying of the gun at a gun show?  I suppose she may have bought one cash on the barrelhead from another private party, but this stinks a lot like a backhanded swipe at the whole “gun show loophole” horseshit.  In other words, I ain’t buying it.

But here’s the real knee-slapper:

I opened my glove compartment, took out my Glock 17, and flipped off the safety. It was the first time it had ever come out of the glove compartment for any reason other than target practice. I rolled down the driver’s window and held the gun in front of my chest in both hands, as I’d been taught.

Let that sink in for a moment.  Ready?  When I read that, my initial thoughts were these:




For those who may not be familiar with Gaston Glock’s designs, the Glock 17 – indeed, any Glock – has no external safety.  This is, as was Kuntzman’s column, pure horseshit.  Ms. Lavin does not and never has owned a Glock of any kind.  She made up, out of whole cloth, the entire damned story.

Is it any wonder that journalists don’t exactly enjoy the unqualified trust of the American people any more?  Why the hell would Ms. Lavin put out such a transparent, easily disprovable lie?  What was she trying to prove?  What point was she trying to make?

I guess it’s unfathomable to people who, you know, don’t lie to try to make a point.

You know, those of us who actually know something about firearms have of late been accused of “gunsplaining” when confronted with would-be gun-banners who generally don’t know the difference between ass and face where guns are concerned.  That’s been the case for a long time, and we’re kind of used to it.  But when someone writes what seems to be a sort of pro-gun article for a liberal paper, and stuffs it with horseshit like this, that’s just baffling.

Animal’s Daily Good Guy With Gun News

Thanks again to The Other McCain for the Rule Five links!

Speaking of good news:  I love a happy ending.  Excerpt:

An armed civilian took down a shooter after at least two people were shot Sunday night at a Washington state Walmart, police said.

Tumwater police said the civilian, described by officers as a good Samaritan, shot and killed the suspect at the scene.

The shooting happened just after 5:30 p.m. at the Walmart Supercenter in Tumwater, about 65 miles south of Seattle.

“I heard two bangs. It sounded like gunshots to me,” witness Robert Berwick said. “I looked down the aisle and saw a person running.”

That’s when Berwick ran, too. There was chaos in the parking lot, and he said the shooting suspect tried to carjack another man. That’s when the suspect was shot.

“I thanked him for saving my life,” Berwick said of the attempted carjacking victim who shot the suspect. “He didn’t look like he had any regrets. I hope he doesn’t have any.”

Another witness to the shooting, Megan Chadwick, said her husband saw the civilian take down the shooter.

“He said he watched him (the shooter) take his last breath,” Chadwick said. “There were three civilians going after him (the shooter) to shoot him and two of them had their guns up — and then the third guy shot him through the window of the car.”

Chadwick said her husband was armed as well.

Note that the linked story goes to a local news station.  You won’t hear much about this from the legacy media; it doesn’t fit The Narrative.  In the aftermath of recent mass shootings where the perp was made into an instant celebrity, you hear would-be gun-grabbers whining that “good guys with guns never stop crimes.”

Well, here’s a good guy with a gun – one of four on the scene, it seems – who stopped a crime.  What’s more, due to his good marksmanship, the taxpayers are spared the expense of a trial.

I’d call that a good outcome.

Animal’s Daily Gun Ban Averted News

Well Armed.

Chicago gun-banners were just handed a setback.  Excerpt:

On June 13, the anti-gun ordinance passed by the Chicago suburb would have gone into effect. It was essentially a gun ban, and there were no exceptions. It’s either you turn them over, move, or risk facing a $250-$1,000/ day noncompliance fee. Yeah, the AR-15 and other rifles the anti-gun Left finds scary were banned, but it also included scores of handguns. Magazines holding 15 rounds are not uncommon. Luckily, a circuit court judge blocked this law 24 hours from going into effect. And yes, legal challenges were filed against this grossly unconstitutional law (via Vice News):

A judge blocked a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines in the small town of Deerfield, Illinois, less than 24 hours before it was meant to go into effect.

The decision, handed down Tuesday evening in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in Lake County, Illinois, is a small victory for gun rights groups, who sued the Chicago suburb in April after it became the first municipality to ban assault weapons following the Parkland high school shooting. The Deerfield ordinance was passed unanimously by all six board members on April 2.

Gun groups, including the National Rifle Association of Illinois, requested a temporary restraining order against the ban while the lawsuit proceeded.

Here in Colorado the People’s Republic of Boulder passed a similar ban, seemingly defying our state’s pre-emption law.  Oregon has a similar ‘turn ’em in’ law proposed as a ballot initiative.  Thus the trend of blaming the sword for the hand that wields it continues.

At least one judge saw reason.  Here in Colorado, there’s already a lawsuit against the Boulder ban; we’ll see how that goes.

For decades the Left used the courts to jam through agenda items they couldn’t get through various legislatures.  It’s high time the Right tried fighting fire with fire.

Goodbye, Blue… Tuesday.

Goodbye, Blue Tuesday!

And thanks as always to Pirate’s Cove and The Other McCain for the Rule Five links!

Last week we had one of those “good guy with a gun” moments that the Brady Bunch would have us believe never happens.  Excerpt:

A man “opened fire” Thursday in an Oklahoma restaurant, leaving at least four people injured, before he was fatally shot by a bystander, police said.

The gunfire unfolded at about 6:30 p.m. local time at Louie’s on the Lake in Oklahoma City, Fox 25 News reported.

The unidentified shooter entered the restaurant and fired his gun, Oklahoma City Police tweeted, who later added that four people had been injured.And:

The man, police said, “was apparently shot-to-death by an armed citizen” outside the restaurant and there was “no indication of terrorism.”

I love a happy ending.  This is a likely would-be mass shooter stopped by an armed citizen who, apparently, put one right in the ten ring and stopped the incident cold.

This isn’t an isolated incident.  Look here and you’ll see quite a few more examples.

Now, I’m generally not a fan of utilitarian arguments for gun ownership; the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, and that’s the best and final argument.  But it’s been demonstrated that defensive uses of firearms in the United States outweighs the criminal use of firearms, and these are good data points to have when… discussing… the issue with would-be gun grabbers.

In any case, kudos to this as-yet-unnamed Oklahoma citizen.  He was in the right place at the right time to stop what may have been an unspeakable act by a criminal scumbag.

Animal’s Daily Stupid Ideas News

Forget all day.  This will probably be the dumbest thing you’ll read all week.  Excerpt:

After the deadly school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas on Friday, former Obama-era secretary of education Arne Duncan said it would be a good idea for students to stay out of school until gun laws are reformed.

“This is brilliant, and tragically necessary. What if no children went to school until gun laws changed to keep them safe?”

Duncan said his own family would be willing to participate if it was possible to make it happen.

“My family is all in if we can do this at scale. Parents, will you please join us?” He said.

This guy was Secretary of Education.  Furshlugginer Secretary of Education, and obviously his grasp of elementary logic is about at the 4th grade level.

Allow me to illustrate an absurdity by using another absurdity:  Let’s suppose Mothers Against Drunk Driving wanted to come up with a highly visible boycott to protest the numbers of drunk driving deaths in the U.S., which deaths, by the way, vastly outnumber deaths in school shootings.  Let’s suppose they decide to protest drunk-driving deaths…

…by staging protests at car dealerships.

“Now, Animal,” you might say, “that’s just ridiculous.”  Well, so is holding your kid out of school to protest school shootings – which is only a tiny bit more insane that protesting the NRA.

But former Cabinet-level Imperial appointees, it seems, aren’t required to pass any exams to gain their positions.

Rule Five CDC Lies By Omission Friday

Familiar with the concept of lying by omission?  Here’s a definition:

Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception. In the case of the former, an example of this would be a car salesman claiming a car to have amazing fuel economy while neglecting to mention that it has no engine and is completely immobile. In the case of the latter, it could be a situation in which a misconception exists that the claimant is aware of but fails to correct, such as a person who wanders around a hospital dressed as a doctor, offering treatment while failing to mention that she is in fact just getting a kick out of pretending to be a doctor.

Turns out that the CDC has been doing this for a good long while now.  Surprised?  Excerpt:

You wouldn’t know it, but the CDC actually collected data on defensive gun use for three years (in 1996, 1997, and 1998) in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys. This data collection was not discovered until Kleck came across it looking for data on another topic. He is analyzing that data and comparing it to his own, but…something is amiss.

For 20 years, this data went unnoticed. Like some buried treasure, (Criminologist Gary) Kleck stumbled across this data. He wasn’t looking for it because, like the rest of the world outside of the CDC offices, he had no idea it existed. It was not discovered until 20 years after the fact.  Given how often questions about defensive gun usage come up and the wide range of estimates (from around 116,000 per year to millions, depending on the source) as well as the CDC’s clear interest on the topic, one may wonder why this data was never acknowledged.

Perhaps it was simply forgotten, by however many people worked on the BRFSS over the span of three years writing the survey, collecting the data, formatting the data, analyzing the data, and presumably presenting it to someone at CDC. Maybe it was misplaced. Maybe it was lost in a flood.

Maybe. Or perhaps the CDC didn’t report the data because the findings weren’t convenient.  It is hard to advocate banning firearms when the evidence shows a sizeable number of Americans using firearms to defend themselves every year in the United States. Is that more or less likely than a team of researchers forgetting they collected data on a hot-button topic?

It’s hard to come up with an innocent explanation for this, other than the obvious one:  The CDC’s results didn’t fit the agenda, so the results were ignored.

That’s not how science is done, True Believers; that’s how politics is done.  The CDC is supposed to be doing science.  And when the CDC does research on a hot-button issue of the day like this, and when they do it with taxpayer dollars, then the taxpayers damn well have a right to know what the findings were, agenda or no.

They are spending our money, after all.

It’s easy to assume that the CDC was attempting to duplicate the deeply flawed Kellerman study.  But the CDC’s portfolio is supposed to be science – and in science, actual science using recognized scientific method, you make a hypothesis and then gather data and/or do experiments to verify that hypothesis – and if your data contradicts your hypothesis, you change your hypothesis.  CDC did not do this; they just ignored and, worse, hid the inconvenient findings.

This is inexcusable behavior for people supposedly doing research on the public’s dime.


Rule Five Second Amendment Friday

This is a good, thoughtful piece from the American Thinker’s Robert Curry:  How to Defend the Second Amendment.  Excerpt:

On one side of the debate, there is the left.  The Founders’ understanding is certainly not to be found there.  The left rejects the thinking of the Founders and is determined to take the Founders’ republic down.  On the other side, the defenders of the Founders do not even use the language of the Founders – and do not seem to realize how far afield they have wandered.  James Madison, who drafted the Second Amendment, would be astonished by this strange post-constitutional, even post-American, debate.  

How would any of the Founders have made the case for the Second Amendment?  Why, in terms of unalienable rights, of course.  The concept of unalienable rights is the key to understanding the American Founding.  The Declaration of Independence declared that we have unalienable rights.  It went on to declare that securing those rights is the very purpose of government – “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”  According to the Declaration, any government that deviates from the noble purpose of securing those rights is illegitimate.


Now, let’s consider the First Amendment before moving on to the Second.  Please notice how it begins: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press[.]”  The very first words of the very first amendment are “Congress shall make no law.”  No rights are here granted to the citizen.  They cannot be because those rights are unalienable, that is, already possessed by the citizen. 

The First Amendment follows the logic of the Constitution as a whole; it restricts what the federal government – in this case, Congress – can do. 

So does the Second: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  That “shall not be infringed” is strong language and perfectly clear.  To infringe is to trespass, to intrude, to encroach.  “Shall not be infringed” in plain language means “No Trespassing.”  And it is the government that is warned to keep out.

I’ve used practical, utilitarian arguments myself in arguing against various legislatures, city, state and Imperial, wasting their time and my money with gun control laws.  Such laws have been largely ineffective at reducing crime rates or preventing mass-casualty situations; indeed, in the United States the opposite has been shown, as gun ownership and concealed-carry are at all-time highs, while the violent crime rate has dropped to a near-historic low.

But, as Mr. Curry points out, the Second Amendment, which very plainly puts forth the intent of the Founders, should be all the argument we need.  But the argument he makes, and its comparison to the First Amendment, has one flaw:  There are those among the Left who don’t much care for the First Amendment, either.  Take a look at the various “hate speech” proposals, or just take a gander at any left-wing protest and note the “hate speech is not free speech” placards.

We are in a time when basic freedoms and basic rights are very much under attack.  I’m afraid it’s going to get worse before it gets better.

Animal’s Daily Second Amendment Scholar News

Forewarned is forearmed.

Here’s a bit on the background of the landmark Heller decision I wasn’t aware of.  Excerpt:

In the hours after February’s school massacre in Parkland, Fla., Joyce Lee Malcolm watched the response with growing annoyance:

“Everybody seemed to leap upon it, looking for a political benefit, rather than allowing for a cooling-off period.” As a historian, Malcolm prefers to take the long view. As a leading scholar of the Second Amendment, however, she is also expected to have snap opinions on gun rights, and in fact she often has engaged in the news-driven debates about violence and firearms. “Something deep inside of me says that people never should be victims,” she says. “And they never should be put in the position of being disarmed by their government.”


At a time when armies were marching around England, ordinary people became anxious about surrendering guns. Then, in 1689, the English Bill of Rights responded by granting Protestants the right to “have Arms for their Defence.” Malcolm wasn’t the first person to notice this, of course, but as an American who had studied political loyalty in England, she approached the topic from a fresh angle. “The English felt a need to put this in writing because the king had been disarming his political opponents,” she says. “This is the origin of our Second Amendment. It’s an individual right.”

There are all kinds of practical arguments for the Second Amendment; the general failure of gun-control laws to have any meaningful impact on crime rates (you could in fact argue just the opposite, holding up some of our major cities as examples) as well as the increase in American gun ownership set against the near-historic low violent crime rates nationwide.

But while all those articles are useful, it’s Heller and the Second Amendment that is our strongest argument.  We are either a free people or we are not; the primary measure of liberty is the degree to which the people are armed.  The armed citizen is the bulwark of liberty.

Dr. Malcolm, hardly a right-wing agitator, understands this.  It would be great if some of our pols would heed her words.

Animal’s Daily Savage News

No, not that kind of savage.

Readers of these virtual pages will know from long acquaintance that I have a fondness for old guns, especially those that are icons of American gunmaking.  The Savage 99 is one such.  I’ve been watching for a good example for the gun rack here, preferably an older version in .300 Savage, .308 or .358 Winchester.

Introduced in 1899, five years after the better-known Browning-designed 1894 Winchester, the Savage had two key advantages over the Browning-designed rifle:

  • The striker-fired 99 has a faster lock time than the hammer-fired Winchesters – lock time, for those not in the know, is the time between the moment the trigger releases the sear and the moment when the firing pin hits the cartridge primer.  A faster lock time means less time for the rifle to wander off target once the trigger pull is completed.
  • The husky Savage action allowed for more powerful cartridges to be used; the original versions of the 1894 Winchester and its counterpart, the 1893 Marlin (which later morphed into the 336) were limited to lower-pressure rounds like the .30WCF, while the Savage would handle rounds like the .308 and .358 Winchester.

The old Savage is a neat old rifle.  This gun was also one of the introductory arms for the .250-3000 Savage cartridge, the first commercial rifle cartridge to break 3000fps velocity (this the name) but if I do procure one of these, I’ll probably go for the more common .300 Savage, which packs nearly the punch of a .308.  The proprietary Savage round seems appropriate for this iconic old Savage rifle.

I’m keeping my eye on the various auction sites.  There are still a few open spaces in the Casa de Animal gun racks.

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to Pirate’s Cove and The Other McCain for the Rule Five links!

Moving on: When first I cast my optics on this piece, I thought it had to be a gag; but no.  Someone really has made an M1 Garand in the .458 Winchester.  Holy crap!  Excerpt:

Back in early 2000’s, McCann Industries (known for their M1 Garand Gas Trap Adjuster) manufactured an M1 Garand in .458 Winchester Magnum. Not made anymore after the passing of McCann’s primary gunsmith, the rifles are a fine example of ingenuity and practicality applied to big-game hunting.

At first, I flinched just thinking about it, but the few videos of it shooting shed some light on how this big-game cartridge is tamed. While the base rifle was identical, McCann added an aggressive muzzle brake and a mercury cylinder to the stock to absorb and deflect the recoil.

While I haven’t heard of any catastrophic failures of these guns, I’m a little concerned about the conversion of a gun specifically designed for one and only one cartridge, that being the time-honored old .30 USG, Model of 1906.

Having messed with a few military Mauser conversion – my favorite hunting piece, Thunder Speaker, is one such – I know the issues that can arise when converting the standard Mauser/.30-06 case head to a magnum case head in an action.  It involves removing metal from the bolt face; such conversions also involve removing metal from feed ramps and sometimes even receiver rings.

I’m not up enough on the M1 action to know what this conversion entails.  But boy howdy, would I want to be careful with one of these.  It would no doubt make an impressive thumper, and I stand by my conviction that you can shoot little stuff with a big gun but you can’t shoot big stuff with a little gun.

But holy crap.  Holy crap.