Posts tagged ‘assault weapons ban’

04/19/2013

Remember, gentle reader, that if you’re going to lose, lose big. And then be a total dick about it.

by wfgodbold

I got the bulk of my gloating in by quoting Conan the Barbarian, but I couldn’t let Bloomberg’s and Giffords’s post-gun-control-failure statements just sit there.

Bloomberg, the micro-managing tyrant of NYC, said:

Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington. . . . More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby. [emphasis added]

Gabrielle Giffords, who was tragically shot in the head by a lunatic and then granted supreme moral authority by the hard-core anti-gun crowd, said much the same thing:

I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending. [emphasis added]*

President Obama, of course, was not one to leave the special-interest-bashing to others, as the New York Times noted:

Standing in the Rose Garden next to former Representative Gabrielle Giffords and other victims of gun violence, Mr. Obama flashed anger as he said that the gun rights lobby had “willfully lied” about the legislation, and that Republicans and Democrats had “caved to the pressure.”

Bloomberg, of course, founded and bankrolls Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a notorious anti-gun organization filled with criminal mayors. Giffords similarly started her own super-PAC to push for strict gun control.

I’m not saying that Bloomberg and Giffords aren’t free to spend their money (or in the case of Giffords, donor money) to lobby for policy changes they support. Free speech and the right to petition legislators and the government for the redress of grievances are at the heart of our political system.

That said, it’s disingenuous at best, and damnably hypocritical at worst, to bemoan the grip that other special interests have on Washington merely because they defeated your special interests.

Gun control isn’t about guns. It’s about control. Control of you, gentle reader. I’ll leave you with an excerpt from Rudyard Kipling’s The Gods of the Copybook Headings:

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

*For a complete list of the various fallacies Giffords employs in her blatant attempt at emotional blackmail, check out James Taranto’s response at the Wall Street Journal.

01/21/2013

On arbitrary magazine capacity limits

by wfgodbold

Robert VerBruggen over at NRO highlights a major problem with New York’s new seven-round magazine limit: chiefly that most modern handguns don’t have seven-round magazines.

At all.

One commenter asked whether “high” capacity magazines gave an advantage in a gunfight, but not against unarmed targets, and I responded with this:

Increased magazine capacity confers an advantage when one is limited by magazine quantity. If one wears gear making it feasible to carry a large number of magazines (as the Aurora shooter did), then the capacity of those magazines does not confer so great an advantage.

In other words, if you’re ammunition-limited, magazine capacity doesn’t matter. If you’re magazine-limited, magazine capacity does matter. Mass shooters have generally been the former, and the law abiding the latter.

I don’t carry because I want to shoot someone, just like I don’t have a first aid kit in my car because I want to practice emergency medicine.

I carry (when I can) because should I need immediate protection, the government has no obligation to provide it.

07/23/2012

Tab clearing (Blood Dancing Edition)

by wfgodbold

Everyone has by now heard about the tragic shooting at the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, CO. I think this is the third mass shooting to occur since I started blogging (the other two being Loughner’s rampage in Arizona, and Brevik’s in Norway); James Holmes’s spree seems (at this point) to have more in common with the latter than the former, especially given how much planning was involved.

Of course, the usual suspects wasted no time in clamoring for an “honest conversation on gun control,” which means, of course, the same thing as “compromise.” That is, they get everything they want (more gun control), and we are left holding the bag.

Roger Ebert kicked things off, Friday, with his opinion piece in the NYT, in which he calls our gun laws “insane.” He talked about how no one at the theater in Aurora shot back, even though people say they need guns to defend themselves. Apparently Cinemark has a no guns policy. This policy was just as effective here as they were at Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, and pretty much everywhere else there’s been a mass shooting in the US. Ebert also mentions a guy he knows in Chicago who was carrying a pistol, and showed it off to Ebert and a mutual friend in a bar. That can’t be; guns are all but banned in Chicago, and carrying them is right out. Ebert even brings up the recent shooting in Toronto. Canada has stricter gun controls than the US (and has a de facto ban on carry), and yet those stricter laws didn’t stop that shooting.

For that matter, Australia has even tougher gun controls, and yet the violent crime rate there is greater than in the US. In fact, the gun crime rate increased after gun control measures were implemented.

Eliot Spitzer, the erstwhile governor of New York, who resigned in disgrace amid a prostitution scandal (he’d spent ~$80,000 on call girls while he was NY’s Attorney General and governor), felt the need to chime in, too. Apparently, the shooting was “inevitable,” and we shouldn’t be shocked given our lax gun laws. He hits all the Brady and CSGV talking points: we should ban “military-style assault weapons” and “assault clips holding more than 10 rounds,” and we should require microstamping. Unlike the federal Assault Weapons Ban of ’94, New York’s AWB had no sunset provision; standard capacity magazines and weapons that have more than one “scary” cosmetic feature are still banned there (unless you had them prior to the ban, in which case they’re just fine). Microstamping is infeasible; the cost alone is prohibitive, and it could be defeated by simply swapping the firing pin out. Even setting that aside, microstamping would have affected the shooting in Aurora not at all. The shooter was the only one armed, and he just waited for the police to show up. There’s no question what guns the casings in the theater came from. Spitzer wants “meaningful gun control,” like what other nations have put in place. Too bad the gun control those other nations have doesn’t actually make anyone safer (see above!).

Amy Sullivan joins Bloomberg in demanding an “honest debate about guns.” Of course, Bloomberg has made his disdain for the Constitution clear in the past (what with his very own anti-gun organization (MAIG), and his blatant, repeated, and institutionalized violations of the Fourth Amendment (stop-and-frisk)). Sullivan immediately starts blasting the NRA for opposing the UN Small Arms Treaty, since it wouldn’t supersede the Constitution, and would only apply internationally. Well, if that’s the case, why would she use the Aurora tragedy to advocate for this treaty? After all, if it’s only international and wouldn’t supersede the Constitution, bringing it up seems like a complete non sequitur. She doesn’t bring up any domestic gun control ideas at all (she feigns horror that Congress has done nothing in the two years since one of their own was shot in a similar mass shooting in Arizona); all she talks about for the entire last half of her piece is the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Even the New York Post gets in on the blood-dancing game. They do admit that this shooting is no reason to get rid of the Second Amendment, but they also say, “there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.” I know it might be hard to believe, but aside from New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Connecticut (I think that’s all of them), “high-capacity” magazines are perfectly legal. In fact, they’re not high-capacity at all; 20- and 30-round magazines are standard for the AR-15. As I understand it, Holmes did have a 100-round drum magazine (which don’t come cheap). For that matter, 15+ round magazines are standard for pistols (my P226 holds 18 rounds of 9mm in each magazine); I think the .40 S&W Glock models Holmes used both come standard with 15-round magazines as well. In fact, the large magazine the shooter used here backfired; it jammed (something similar happend during Loughner’s shooting; his 30-round magazines for his pistol were more unwieldy than standard magazines, and his fumbling them provided an opportunity for people to attack him (IIRC, anyway)). If Holmes had used standard 30-round AR-15 magazines, I doubt he would have had the problems he did with his 100-round drum magazine.

The New York Daily News puts the blood on the hands of Obama, Romney, and the NRA (and not, you know, on the actual shooter). The editorial board demands gun registration (how gun registration would have stopped Holmes, I have no idea; the worst thing on his record before this was a traffic ticket, I think). They talk about how street-crime shootings dwarf the big massacres (in terms of body count), and if only we had laws limiting access to guns, this would magically stop. They are shocked that Holmes was able to drive around with his guns (how else are you going to get to a gun range, or get home from the store where you bought your guns?). And, of course, they clamor for a reinstatement of the AWB at the very least. They even bring up the Columbine massacre. Of course, they don’t point out that Columbine happened in 1999, right smack-dab in the middle of the ’94 AWB. If an AWB were going to stop mass shootings, wouldn’t it have stopped that one?

Actor/comedian Jason Alexander went on a long rant about the Second Amendment and gun control, and how rifles like the AR-15 shouldn’t be in civilian hands. He quotes Alexander Hamilton and Merriam-Webster on militias. He doesn’t, however, quote George Mason, who said, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”  Alexander rants for a while, and trots out various canards, finally closing with this statement: “I’ll say it plainly – if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to “pry it from my cold, dead hand”, then they are probably planning on using them on people.” Now, the AR-15 is probably the most popular rifle in the US today; people use them for hunting, for target shooting, for home defense, for varmint control, and for shooting competitions. They buy AR-15s because they look cool, because they’re easy to use, because they’re modular, because politicians don’t want them to have them, and because it’s virtually identical to the rifles they used in the service. These rifles are rarely used in crimes (if you’re going to commit a crime, are you going to lug around a rifle, or are you going to stick a pistol in your waistband?).

Not all of the media coverage has been negative; CNBC points out that the forces agitating for gun control are now mostly impotent.

The shooting in Aurora was a tragedy. It was not, however, the nefarious work of the gun lobby, or the NRA, or politicians. It was the work of one man, who, in the words of Alfred, just wanted to watch the world burn.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

The anti-gunners, though, are just using this to try to drum up political support and donations so they can push their misguided views on the rest of us.

05/20/2010

I assume he came here legally

by wfgodbold

Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon, addressed a joint meeting of the house and senate today.  This gave him the perfect pulpit to use for his continued criticism of the Arizona immigration law (you know, the one that is exactly the same as our current federal immigration law (and the same as California’s obviously unenforced law)) and more repetition of the Mexican Gun Canard.

The now-lapsed 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not make possession of machine guns illegal.  Machine gun ownership has been regulated since 1934 (and civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured post 1986 is illegal thanks to the Hughes amendment; pre-1986 machine guns are perfectly legal).  The ’94 ban merely made certain combinations of features illegal; your AR-15 could have a pistol grip or an adjustable stock, but not both.  The aftermarket price of pre-ban magazines shot through the roof; possession of high capacity magazines manufactured post-ban was limited to the law enforcement and military.

AR-15 style rifles are extremely customizable; you can get one in any of a dozen calibers, and choose whatever grip, handguard, and stock you prefer.  They are making inroads into the hunting market, and are handy for home defense.  Any resurrection of the AWB is political suicide, and generally only popular in states that already have extremely restrictive gun laws (CA, NY, MA, IL).

Calderon should worry more about making sure his military doesn’t lose more weapons to the gangs than it already has; I imagine that is a much larger source of guns than the US is.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: