I was walking to my GF’s apartment late one night when a thought occurred: who wouldn’t want to carry a gun? Sure there are times when packing heat seems a bit, well, silly. But there are times when you can almost hear horror movie music playing in the background. A gun on my hip gives me the same reassurance I get from carrying a credit card: I’m ready for an emergency. Only more so. I carry a boat anchor disguised as a Commander-sized 1911, but it’s no big bother. And there are smaller guns, too. All of them as safe as houses. So why not carry? Seriously. Give me three good reasons NOT to carry a gun.
That bar on the right of the graph represents projected FBI background checks for “Black Friday” gun sales. The Fibbies estimate “a huge total for November 27, spokesman Stephen Fischer tells The Trace. Bureau forecasts show this Black Friday shattering the single-day record with an estimated 190,000 background checks run in a 24-hour period — or slightly more than two background checks every second.” Oh the irony! The Truth About Guns quotes Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitprop propagators The Trace for a story revealing that Americans are tooling-up as never before. And why is that? (The buying spree, not punking The Trace). One reason stands out . . .
I’m originally from New York City, but spent 12 years of my adulthood in Colorado where I amassed a significant gun collection. Northern Colorado, though, was no great haven for gun owners, and in the county where I lived, residents weren’t going to come by a CCW permit or any NFA goodies with any ease. To make matters worse, in 2001 I had to move back to very gun unfriendly NYC. I was forced to leave my gun collection behind to be retrieved at a later date when I could plot my next move. When the time came, I chose a state that was not only warm year round, but had friendly gun laws — Florida . . .
There was apparently a bit of a dust-up yesterday involving L-3 – -manufacturer of the EOTech holographic weapon sight system and the U.S. Government. The Feds had been investigating some problems with L3’s claims about the accuracy and reliability of their devices in low temperature and high moisture environments (i.e., a large block of ice). Apparently, not only did EOTech discover the problems during their own testing, but they then failed to disclose the results . . .
“From a human security perspective, civilian possession of SALW [Small Arms and Light Weapons] poses a threat to individuals’ human rights. There is a strong correlation between levels of firearms ownership and death rates, and vulnerable parts of the population, such as the poor, children and women, are often victims of firearms, and this not only in conflict situations. SALW proliferation can also become a significant obstacle to development as it usually strongly disrupts economic, political and economic situations, such as health care resources. It is also crucial to stress the harmful influence of pre-existing or emerging cultures of violence in societies, which are both a cause and an effect of firearms availability.” – Regulation of Civilian Possession of Small Arms and Light Weapons [via smallarmssurvey.org, sponsored by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]
None of the gun laws detailed in TTAG’s post on French gun control prevented the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. The legislation failed to deter the Islamic extremists and helped create a large pool of defenseless citizens upon which the terrorists could prey. As in slaughter. Bottom line: the prevalence of “assault rifles” amongst French bad guys is no longer a secret. And if the Paris attacks weren’t enough to expose this grim reality, here’s a post-Paris story [via dailymail.co.uk] that makes that point perfectly clear . . .
People who seek to degrade Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms love to play silly buggers with stats. They cherry pick data to make the argument that civilian ownership of firearms is a bad, bad thing. The key principle to keep in mind: correlation does not equal causation. When they assert that “states with lax gun laws have a higher rate of firearms-related homicide” (or a similar statistical fallacy), remind them of that. By sending them here. That is all.
A previous post talked about stance, suggesting that new shooters consider the pros and cons of the bladed or Weaver Stance and the isosceles or triangular stance before choosing one or the other. Just a quick reminder: the isosceles stance is not a bad (i.e. inherently unstable) stance (remembering that ANY stance is acceptable in a gunfight, where you might have to shoot from an awkward position). In the demo above, the instructor knocks TheRykerDane off-balance when he adopts the isosceles stance. That doesn’t have to be the case . . .
Over the last few weeks I’ve been playing a lot of Fallout 4. Like, a lot. An unhealthy amount, even. Despite the random crashes and glitches (seriously, how do you get the mayor’s elevator back down?) it’s still a fantastic game. One of the really cool features is the ability to customize your weapons, and for those wandering in the Commonwealth as well, I want to give you one word of advice about that: don’t bite off more scope than you can chew . . .
The question that arises every time there’s a terrorist attack or mass shooting is one of how to stop it from happening again or minimize the casualties. The common response from gun control activists and the media is always to ban guns and further restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, relying purely on a emotional response and lacking any scientific evidence. One study out of Purdue University is seeking to put some actual science behind the question of whether concealed carry or any armed defense would reduce the impact of a terrorist attack like the one in Paris. Their results: yes, guns would save lives.
“If they mean to do harm to myself or my family, I’ll do anything I can to prevent them from doing it. If it means taking their life, fu(k ’em. They’ve chosen their path.” That’s the answer Josh, an Operation Enduring Freedom sniper, offers when asked when it’s OK to take a life outside the military. Lonnie, a Vietnam infantryman, however figures killing is never justified away from the battlefield. Those are just two of the takes on killing and its effects from people who know – veterans who’ve done it . . .
There has been a lot of chatter in the last couple days about individuals on the “Terrorist Screening Database” (or simply “Terrorist Watchlist”) being able to purchase firearms in the United States. The usual suspects from Senator Harry Reid to activist news organizations have begun a campaign for banning individuals on this list from being able to own firearms, and while there seems to be support for that idea from the usual gun control activists the reality of the situation is that it is an amazingly dangerous precedent to set using a hilariously awful and unreliable database.