Category Archives: Guns

Shooting Irons!

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

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

Here’s a lesson for sporting-goods retailers:  Don’t be a Dick’s.  Excerpt:

Dick’s Sporting Goods may no longer sell hunting-related gear and products.

The CEO for the sporting goods retailer said Thursday that the company was doing a trial run in 10 locations, pulling all hunting merchandise and replacing it with other items.

“Though it’s too early to discuss performance, we’re optimistic these changes will better serve the athletes in these communities,” Dick’s CEO Edward Stack said in a conference call, as reported by JSOnline.

The reason for the new approach may be because sales in that department have plummeted across all of Dick’s 732 stores.

“Specific to hunt, in addition to the strategic decisions made regarding firearms earlier this year, sales continued to be negatively impacted by double-digit declines in hunt and electronics,” said Lee Belitsky, chief financial officer.

Dick’s sadly underestimated the impact of their support of gun control laws, and their virtue-signalling policy changes in not only removing but destroying semi-auto rifles in their inventories.

I’ve purchased precisely one gun from Dick’s, long before any of these shenanigans started up.  They had a sale with a really good price on new Browning Citoris, so I bought my 12 gauge Satin Hunter from them.  That was in 2007, I haven’t set foot in a Dick’s since, and never will.

There are plenty of folks out there like me.

Alienating a key constituent in your target market rarely ends well.  Heard much from the Dixie Chicks lately?  No?  Well, now Dick’s is apparently following the Dixie Chicks model.  Piss off a big part of your target market and see how it ends up.

As my grandfather used to say, you can teach ’em, but you can’t learn ’em.

Rule Five Mass Gun Confiscation Friday

The idea of a massed, forcible confiscation of guns has been kicked around here in these virtual pages.  It’s entertaining brain-fodder, as certainly a significant proportion of gun owners would not comply.  Here, from author and pro-gunner Larry Correia, is one of the better dissections of this issue I’ve seen to date.  A few excerpts follow, with my comments.

So today I’m writing this for my left leaning friends and readers, in the hopes that I can break down the flaws in this argument. I’m going to try not to be too insulting. Accent on try… But I’ll probably fail because this is a really stupid argument.

So, bear in mind, Mr. Correia is directing the comments that follow to the would-be gun-banners.

First, let’s talk about the basic premise that an irregular force primarily armed with rifles would be helpless against a powerful army that has things like drones and attack helicopters.

Like, say, the Viet Cong.

This is a deeply ironic argument to make, considering that the most technologically advanced military coalition in history has spent the better part of the last two decades fighting goat herders with AKs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seriously, it’s like you guys only pay attention to American casualties when there’s a republican in office and an election coming up.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama launched over five hundred drone strikes during his eight years in office. We’ve used Apaches (that’s the scary looking helicopter in the picture for my peacenik liberal friends), smart bombs, tanks, I don’t know how many thousand s of raids on houses and compounds, all the stuff that the lefty memes say they’re willing to do to crush the gun nut right, and we’ve spent something like 6 trillion dollars on the global war on terror so far.

And yet they’re still fighting.

And:

Let’s be super generous. I’m talking absurdly generous, and say that a full 99% of US gun owners say won’t somebody think of the children and all hold hands and sing kumbaya, so that then you are only dealing with the angriest, listless malcontents who hate progress… These are those crazy, knuckle dragging bastards who you will have to put in the ground.

And there are 650,000 of them.

To put that into perspective, we were fighting 22,000 insurgents in Iraq, a country which would fit comfortably inside Texas with plenty of room to spare. This would be almost 30 times as many fighters, spread across 22 times the area.

And that estimated number is pathetically, laughably low.

But here’s the real kicker, when it comes to how just a small percentage of the population – with the help, almost certainly, of a not-insignificant portion of the military and police – could do a lot with a little to fuck things up for everybody:

The scariest single conversation I’ve ever heard in my life was five Special Forces guys having a fun thought exercise about how they would bring a major American city to its knees. They picked Chicago, because it was a place they’d all been. It was fascinating, and utterly terrifying. And I’ll never ever put any of it in a book, because I don’t want to give crazy people any ideas. Give it about a week and people would be eating each other (and gee whiz, take one wild guess what the political leanings of most Green Berets are?).

Similar dinner conversation once, with a bunch of SWAT cops from a major American city, talking about how incredibly easy it would be to entirely shut down and utterly ruin their city, with only a small crew of dedicated individuals and about forty eight hours of mayhem and fuckery. (And guess what their political leanings were? Hint, most of them were eager to retire because they’d been treated like shit by their liberal mayors, and take their pension to someplace like Arkansas).

Read the whole thing, by all means.  Now, don’t think for a moment that the gun-ban advocates haven’t thought of these things as well; if they have three IQ points to rub together they’d have to know what kind of hell they’d be unleashing by even trying.

But there are other ways to deal gun owners a death of a thousand cuts, and you’re seeing some of those in the works now.  Like the “red flag” proposals, which give local law enforcement the power to confiscate guns by force from anyone who they have reason to believe presents some danger – anyone think that this will never be abused?  Anyone worried about enabling government at any level to strip someone of a Constitutionally recognized natural right based on hearsay?

How about a punitive tax on ammo, powder and primers?  Gun-banners have already started talking about going after ammo – after all, guns aren’t much use without ammo – and hell, they wouldn’t have to ban ammo, all they would have to do is find a way to make it horribly expensive to make primers.

There are easily a thousand ways to tax, regulate and annoy the gun-owning population to the point where a fair number of them will just give it up as a bad job.  That will dry up the pool of people who care about the Second Amendment, which will allow for even more onerous regulation and legislation…

…See where I’m headed with this?  I’d almost rather they try to just ban guns outright.  At least then we’d get the damn thing over with quickly.

Animal’s Hump Day News

Happy Hump Day!

Tomorrow being Thanksgiving, we’ll have a placeholder post.  Regular posts will resume as usual for Rule Five Friday.

Short post today, as family pre-Thanksgiving activities beckon, but here’s a happy ending for you.  Excerpt:

Tan Ho, the owner of Spokane’s Hai’s Mini Mart, told KXLY he stays ready to defend himself, keeping both a handgun and a machete at close reach under the counter.

Ho, who told reporters he had previous experience scaring off an armed robber about a year ago, refused to be a victim when confronted last Tuesday at the shop when facing off with a man holding a knife and demanding money.

“I pulled out my gun — like this — and I pointed it right at him, and he ran,” said Ho. When prompted, he showed off his handgun, which looks to be an IWI Jericho 941 that he keeps in a leather thumb break holster attached to the counter.

There’s video:

I love a happy ending.  Happy Thanksgiving, True Believers!  We’ll catch you all on Friday.

Rule Five Service Rifle Friday

The Army is examining a revolutionary new type of rifle, one that was designed and built in a Colorado Springs garage.  Excerpt:

The Army adopted its battle rifle in 1963 and has spent 55 years looking for a replacement for the M-16 and its variants.

They might have found it in Martin Grier’s Colorado Springs garage. Grier, a self-described inventor who has worked at a local bed and breakfast, built the new “ribbon gun” with a hobbyist’s tools. It looks like a space-age toy drawn by a fifth-grader.

But goofy origins and cartoon-looks aside, this could be the gun of the future. The Army is studying Grier’s gun and has ordered a military-grade prototype.

The specifications are incredible, four 6 mm barrels cut side by side within one steel block. New ammunition blocks fired by electromagnetic actuators that could theoretically give the weapon a firing rate of 250 rounds per second.

And then there’s the feature no soldier would turn down. “It’s called a power shot,” Grier said.

That’s the shotgun feature of this sniper-shot, machine-assault gun that can send four bullets simultaneously whizzing toward an enemy at more than 2,500 mph.

Now:  Color me skeptical.  Here’s the pros and cons of this admittedly fascinating new design.

Pros:

Four bullets with one shot; that’s cool.  Not sure how useful it would be, but it’s cool.

The ammo blocks look like they’d be pretty good heat sinks; the advantage of brass cases, one that military testers learned in playing with caseless ammo in small arms, is that they carry excess heat away from the weapon.  These would do that even more.

Cons:

Electrical actuation.  What happens if your battery goes dead and supply is out of replacements?

Ammo block.  From the photos in the article, the four-round blocks look considerably heavier than four rounds of conventional ammo.

EMP – maybe?  The weapon would have to be EMP hardened, which isn’t impossible but adds to cost and design challenges.

All in all, I’d give this one a pass.  Inventor Martin Grier rightly points out that weapon design hasn’t changed much in a long, long time (even the M-16’s design plan goes back to the late Fifties) but there’s a reason for it; modern firearms designs are robust, practical, and they work.

This rifle is interesting and I’d welcome the chance to play with one, but carry one in combat?  Hard no.

Animal’s Daily Gun Advertising News

In California, a certain class of legally operating businesses selling a perfectly legal product were prohibited from advertising that perfectly legal product.  No longer.  Excerpt:

Back in 2014, four California gun dealers sued the the woman who was then acknowledged by presidential proclamation as the nation’s best-looking attorney general over a law that prohibited gun stores from displaying images of guns. On their stores. Or their signs.

Now, according to a press release from the Calguns Foundation, a federal judge has ruled that California’s law is a violation of the gun dealers’ First Amendment rights. Here’s that press release:

SACRAMENTO, CA (September 11, 2018)­­­­­­ – Today, federal Judge Troy Nunley ruled that a California law banning licensed gun dealers from displaying handgun-related signs or advertising is unconstitutional and violates their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit, Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Becerra, is supported by Second Amendment civil rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) as well as industry association California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL).

California Penal Code section 26820, first enacted in 1923, banned gun stores from putting up signs advertising the sale of handguns — but not shotguns or rifles. “But,” the court held today, quoting from the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s landmark Second Amendment 2008 opinion in D.C. v. Heller, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”

Imagine that.  A judge determined that states (and, presumably, other levels of government) can’t just wave away a Constitutionally-defined right by passing a law.

It’s important to note that this is a First Amendment case, not a Second Amendment case, but that doesn’t make it any less significant to gun owners.  Would-be gun controllers aren’t above chipping away at the edges of the Second Amendment, and stupid laws like this one do precisely that, by singling out gun retailers over all other legal businesses for special government-imposed restrictions on their right to advertise their legal wares.

California Penal Code section 26820 was of a piece with laws singling out firearms manufacturers for legal liability for the use of their wares in a crime, an onus placed on no other manufacturer of legal products, anywhere.  The anti-gun crowd sells this as “exempting gun makers from product liability,” which is a pernicious lie; gun makers are subject to precisely the same liability for faulty products as any other manufacturer.  What the gun banners is the equivalent of allowing families of people killed by drunk drivers to sue General Motors.  It’s stupid, it’s wrong, and it’s an attempt to curtail the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

So was California Penal Code section 26820.  This was a bad idea and a bad law.  It’s a travesty that it remained on the books for 95 years.   But it’s gone now.

Animal’s Daily When You’ve Lost NPR News

When the would-be gun-banners have lost NPR (well, sort of) they’ve lost big.  Now, I’m sure NPR as an entity hasn’t abandoned its left-leaning positions, nor have they suddenly become Second Amendment advocates, but in this case, at least, they have shown that facts matter.  Excerpt:

How many times per year does a gun go off in an American school?

We should know. But we don’t.

This spring the U.S. Education Department reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, “nearly 240 schools … reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.” The number is far higher than most other estimates.

But NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened. Child Trends, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization, assisted NPR in analyzing data from the government’s Civil Rights Data Collection.

We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.

In 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn’t confirm one. In at least four cases, we found, something did happen, but it didn’t meet the government’s parameters for a shooting. About a quarter of schools didn’t respond to our inquiries.

In other words, the data stinks, and nobody really has a good grasp on how many school shootings happened.  And, honestly, in a nation the size of the United States, that isn’t at all surprising.

Here’s what doesn’t seem to be happening in the data-gathering:

  1. The questions asked are not consistent.
  2. Definitions are not clear and concise.  (What, precisely, constitutes a “school shooting?”)
  3. Ambiguous responses are not followed-up.

In other words, the data gathering technique was crap, and therefore, the conclusions drawn were crap.  The Dept. of Education, who commissioned the study, should be terribly embarrassed when not only NPR but Everytown for Gun Safety questions their results.

This is the anti-gun Left, folks.

Meanwhile:

Animal’s Hump Day News

Happy Hump Day!

Oops.  Excerpt:

Thieves in Paraguay have stolen 42 powerful rifles from the police armoury.

During an inspection, officers found that the FN FAL battle rifles had been replaced with wooden and plastic replicas.

The inspection had been ordered after the rifles started appearing a year ago on the black market, where they can fetch up to $10,000 (£7,785).

The rifles had been put into storage but were still in working order.

Some of them are thought to have ended up in Argentina while others are believed to have been smuggled to Brazil.

Neighbouring Brazil has long complained that many of the illegal weapons seized there have been smuggled into the country from Paraguay.

Paraguayan media posted photos of the replicas and called it the “most embarrassing scandal” in the history of the country’s police force.

That last statement rates an enormous “no shit.”

Not only is this a major embarrassment to these Paraguayan cops, it should serve as an object lesson for would-be gun-banners, not that they’ll pay attention to it; bad guy swill always find a way to get guns.  In this case, they laid hands on several full-power military main battle rifles, and did so cleverly enough that the theft was not noticed until the rifles started appearing on the black market in three different countries.

Crimes committed by thugs with guns are at high levels and increasing in much of Central and South America, in spite of gun control laws that exceed the wildest wet dreams of the American left.  A fundamental rule of cause analysis it that a tool can never be a cause; but the knee-jerk reaction of blaming the sword for the hand that wields it seems to be all too widespread.

Goodbye, Blue (NJ) Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to Pirate’s Cove and The Other McCain for the Rule Five links!  This Monday finds us in (ugh) New Jersey, from where we’ll be posting for a while.  Expect some… pointed cultural observations.

But before we get into criticizing the state in which our temporary lodgings reside, let’s talk about bears.  Specifically, bears who attack people, and the most effective way to protect yourself against such attack.  Excerpt:

On the Internet, and in print, many people claim that pistols lack efficacy in defending against bear attacks. Here is an example that occurred on freerepublic.com:

“Actually, there are legions of people who have been badly mauled after using a handgun on a bear. Even some of the vaunted magnums.”

OK, give us a few examples. As you claim “legions”, it should not be too hard.

I never received a response. I believe the claim was made in good faith. There has been much conjecture about the lack of efficacy of pistols for defense against bears. A little searching will find a plethora of fantasy, fiction, mythology, and electrons sprayed about the supposed lack.

I engaged in a search for instances where  pistols were used to defend against bears.  I and my associates have found 37 instances that are fairly easily confirmed. The earliest happened in 1987, the latest mere months ago. The incidents are heavily weighted toward the present, as the ability to publish and search for these incidents has increased, along with increases in bear and human populations, and the carry of pistols.

The 37 cases include one that can fairly be described as a “failure”.

The pistol calibers, when known,  range from 9 mm to .454 Casull. The most common are .44 magnums.

What I found surprising here is that the 9mm Parabellum, not a round recommended for bear defense, was surprisingly successful.  The preferred ammo for bears would seem to be full-metal-jacket rounds, unlike those recommended for defense against smaller, less muscular thin-skinned critters like, say, humans.  Penetration, rather than expansion, would seem to be the order of the day.

Note also that several of the defensive uses happened after the failure of the bear pepper sprays that are advocated in some corners.

The summary would seem to be this:  If you’re traveling on foot in bear country, pack along a good sidearm with good ammo, one that you can shoot well.  That seems to matter more than the gun or the cartridge.

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to Pirate’s Cove for the Rule Five links!

Chalk up another one for a Good Guy  (Gal, technically) With A Gun.  Excerpt:

Robeson County Sheriff’s Office Maj. Anthony Thompson told local media that James Dority, 39, of St. Pauls, was discovered by deputies after a call about 6:40 p.m. last Friday in reference to a person being shot.

Authorities say that Dority had been shot five times with a .22-caliber handgun by an unidentified 68-year-old woman after she arrived home to find the man hiding in her storage building and he lunged at her in “an aggressive manner” when confronted.

Personally I’d recommend something a little more substantial than a .22, but a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .45, and it’s important to use a handgun you can shoot accurately; since this was a 68-year old lady, she may have chosen properly after all.

And, when push came to shove, she sure got the job done.

If, as I suspect, some of your True Believers grew up in a rural/semi-rural environment as I did, you’ll probably have similar memories that home invasions and occupied-structure burglaries almost never happened.  Why?  Because in Allamakee County Iowa, at least, one of the surest way to end up shot would be to kick someone’s front door in when they’re at home.

That’s as it should be, frankly.  The criminals, not law-abiding citizens, should be the ones fearing for their safety.

 

Animal’s Daily Parking Space Shootout News

It has finally happened.

Background:  One of the utterly predictable retorts from opponents of shall-issue concealed-carry was the “OMG THERE WILL BE SHOOTOUTS OVER PARKING SPACES, RHEEEEEEE” argument.  (And I use the word ‘argument’ in the broadest possible sense.)

Now, in Florida, we finally have an honest-to-gosh shooting over a parking space.  As far as I know, this makes one.  Excerpt:

Thursday’s shooting at the Circle A Food Store at 1201 Sunset Point Road near Clearwater started about 3:30 p.m. when Jacobs, 25, parked in a handicap spot while McGlockton and their 5-year-old son went inside to buy snacks and drinks.

Drejka, 47, confronted Jacobs about why she was parked there without a permit, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. The two started arguing heatedly. McGlockton, 28, caught wind of the confrontation.

He left the store, walked up to Drejka and shoved him to the ground with both hands. Drejka pulled out a handgun and shot McGlockton in the chest. McGlockton was soon pronounced dead.

Gualtieri said the next day that he was precluded by law from arresting the shooter and seeking charges against him, saying Drejka told deputies he was in fear of further attack.

Now, there are only two people who know exactly what happened here, and one of them is dead.  But we do know a few things:

  • The incident began over a car illegally parked in a handicapped parking spot.  Full disclosure, Mrs. A depends on those spaces, and I have asked people move out when they are illegally parked.  Most people apologize and move.
  • When Drejka engaged Jacobs, who was sitting in the car, her boyfriend, the ironically-named McGlockton, engaged him by attacking and shoving him to the ground.  McGlockton clearly and inexcusably initiated a physical confrontation.
  • Drejka, on the pavement, drew his handgun, at which point McGlockton backed away.  Drejka then fired the fatal shot.

On the surface, whether charges were filed or not, I’m hesitant to call this a good shoot; it looks to me in the grainy, no-sound video like McGlockton was backing away, thereby disengaging.  It looks to me like a case where just the appearance of the firearm ended the incident.

But hindsight is always 20-20.

It’s important to note that there was no audio presented.  Was McGlockton shouting as he backed away?  If he was shouting “get me my gun, I’m gonna shoot this motherfucker” or even “I’m gonna kick your ass into next week” that would put a whole different slant on Drejka’s threat assessment.

This is probably a case where we’ll never know the whole story.  The local DA knows as much as anyone, and he has declined to press charges, but judging from the beginning of the RHEEEE from other parties, it doesn’t look like it’s over yet.

Thoughts?