Posts tagged ‘AWB’

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.

04/18/2012

The Martin-Zimmerman case proves we need to reinstate the assault weapons ban!

by wfgodbold

Wait, what?

Nice to see Jesse Jackson is still crazy.

OTOH, if someone being shot one time is enough to justify an AWB, that gives us a nice idea of what the anti-gunners consider is reasonable.

One round is too many!

11/17/2011

The wailing and gnashing of teeth of gun banners is music to my ears

by wfgodbold

I’m looking at you, Josh Horowitz (of CSGC infamy).

He starts off his screed by defining “mass murder” as killing three or more. In typical Humpty Dumpty fashion, that’s not what mass murder is. According to the FBI, it’s four or more.

Horowitz goes on to whine about the evil NRA and how we’ll soon enter an era of forced reciprocity!

Just like we’ve had for driver’s licenses for decades, I guess.

In 2004, there were ~40,000 automobile deaths in the US. In that same year, there were ~10,000 homicides committed with firearms (not that you’re any more dead if you’re shot than if you’re stabbed, bludgeoned, suffocated, poisoned, exsanguinated, hanged, or electrocuted). So in 2004, 1/4 as many people were shot to death as were killed in a car accident; considering that there are roughly twice as many privately owned guns as there are cars, that doesn’t exactly paint the dangerous picture the gun banners want you to see.*

He then goes on to outright lie, saying, “. . . demented individuals like Jared Loughner and Nidal Malik Hasan continue to legally buy guns and carry them in our communities.”

First off, Loughner did not legally buy his gun. He committed a felony when he lied on his Form 4473. Similarly, Hasan did not legally carry his gun into Fort Hood; military bases are gun-free zones, and privately owned guns on base are required to be unloaded and locked for transport to/from the armory (when not actually locked in the armory) (as I understand it).

Tam is right (and so is Joe); we’ve come a long way since the the ’94 AWB.

It’s much easier to make your case when you don’t have to worry about telling the truth.

*Stats cribbed from google searches and wikipedia; caveat lector.

08/03/2011

At least the Washington Post is consistent.

by wfgodbold

Apparently because the Norway shooter used standard capacity magazines, we must ban them here (H/T Gabriel Malor). Left unsaid is whether this ban would be for the children or not, but it’s a safe assumption, I think.

I especially like the whining tone they take at the end of the editorial:

There was a brief period of sanity in this country when high-capacity magazines were prohibited as part of an assault weapons ban. That ban expired in 2004; aWashington Post review of Virginia records showed that the number of high-capacity magazines used in crimes jumped dramatically in that state after the ban lapsed. Legislation introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) to ban the sale of high-capacity magazines has been stalled since she introduced it shortly after the Tucson massacre. The terrible events in Norway ought to kick-start the measure.

Ah, yes, that “brief period of sanity … when high-capacity magazines were prohibited…”

Except they were never actually “prohibited.” The sale of new magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds was only allowed to law enforcement and the military, but as long as your magazines were made before the start date of the ban, you could have as many as you wanted. You could even sell them to other people!

No law was going to stop Brevik from perpetrating his massacre; he joined a gun club back in 2005, just in case his plans to buy black market guns elsewhere in Europe fell through and he had to buy his firearms in Norway.

And the UK, everyone’s favorite poster-child for gun control, still can’t stop people from getting automatic weapons. Handguns are banned. Automatic guns are banned. I suppose that makes automatic handguns double banned, and yet they still had one.

The Washington Post has never been interested in letting facts get in the way of shilling for their preferred policies.

06/28/2011

Quote of the Indeterminate Time Interval – Washington Post Editorial Board

by wfgodbold

We’ve actually got two quotes from two different editorials (one published the 26th and one published the 27th).

The WaPo board has some tips on how we can deal with the ATF Fast and Furious issue (H/T Uncle):

Lawmakers should give the ATF the tools it needs to fight illegal gun trafficking. They should enact stronger penalties for straw purchases and craft a federal gun-smuggling statute; close the gun-show loophole, which allows buyers under certain circumstances to purchase weapons without a background check; resuscitate the ban on assault weapons; and give the ATF the authority to collect data on multiple sales of long guns in border states. The Senate should move quickly to confirm a director for the long-leaderless bureau.

That’s right! The way to solve the problem of the government ignoring the law is to pass more laws! None of these suggestions would have helped; the ignoring straw purchases was the whole point to Fast and Furious; closing the so-called “gun show loophole” wouldn’t have stopped straw purchases; the AWB had nothing to do with anything, and its reinstatement is just more wishing on the part of the WaPo; the ATF knew these people were purchasing dozens of long guns at a time, because they WATCHED THEM ON VIDEO make the purchases; and while the bureau hasn’t had a permanent leader, it’s had an acting director, and is ultimately responsible to Eric Holder, the head of the Department of Justice.

And this time, via Radley Balko, the WaPo starts right off with the hysteria:

The California law is different because it dealt only with reasonable limitations on minors’ access to extremely violent games that even the video game industry acknowledges are inappropriate. The rights of minors are often justifiably curtailed in ways that would violate the Constitution if applied to adults. Take, for example, prohibitions against selling alcohol and tobacco products to juveniles. The California law did nothing to infringe on the rights of adults to purchase violent video games, and manufacturers remained free to create and market these videos. They could even sell them to minors — as long as a parent or legal guardian approved.

While it doesn’t surprise me that the WaPo would come down on the side of more government meddling than less, it’s a bit disingenuous of them to equate playing a video game with alcohol and tobacco. Both of those products have proven negative health effects, while gaming has no proven effects (IIRC, Scalia points this out in the opinion).

If realistic violence in video games causes kids to turn into violent maniacs, then where is the violence? The violent and property crime rates have been steadily dropping since the 90s; I’m sure that any minute now, all of us who grew up playing (and continue to play) violent games will snap, but until that happens, the WaPo’s argument is ridiculous.

Hopefully no one actually pays the Washington Post for their quality editorials; they’d not be getting good value for their money.

06/21/2011

And right on cue, the NYT is clamoring for gun control in the wake of Fast and Furious revelations

by wfgodbold

You stay classy, New York Times Editorial Board (H/T Uncle).

Calderon’s complained about the lapsed assault weapons ban before; I’m sure he’s still in favor of our reinstating the ban.

Mexico has extremely strict gun laws, but that doesn’t seem to stop the cartels. Over 40,000 killings in Mexico since their drug war started in 2006.

The NYT also repeats the false claim that most guns in Mexico are from the United States. To be fair, they’re not alone; the government is pushing this out and out lie as well.

Acting Director Melson is leaving the ATF after the Gunwalker hearings (and rightly so), and slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s family hopes that all those involved in the ATF’s criminal misconduct will be held accountable. I’d hope so too, but given the government’s penchant for looking out for its own, I’m not going to hold my breath.

And finally, Uncle saw this on facebook, and I thought it was an excellent analogy:

Imagine the DEA telling pharmacists to illegally sell oxycontin to known drug dealers or they would be shut down. Then imagine the DEA using the fact that more oxycontin was on the street (and hundreds of overdose deaths) as a pretext for making it harder for patients to get prescribed narcotics. This is essentially what happened with the ATF and Project Gunwalker.

Even the occasional gem sifted from the detritus of facebook isn’t enough to get me to use that vile social networking site. I can’t stand it.

04/12/2011

Fear the deodand and its awesome totemic powers!

by wfgodbold

Twenty-round "assault clips" of doom!

Or, you know, don’t.

The Brady Campaign’s so-called “assault clips” (Yes. Really. Thirty-seven years of trying to ban guns and they still can’t get the terminology right. (H/T Sebastian)) are common; aside from a handful of states that have their own state-level assault weapons bans on the books (NY, MD, CA, and a few others, I think; most states don’t), you can buy magazines (clips are something completely different!) of any capacity you desire.

Anti-gunners have never been inclined to let the facts get in the way of their cause; even the UN’s data correlating civilian gun ownership with various indices (freedom, suicide, homicide, corruption, and economics) doesn’t jive with their gun control goals.

But who cares about that! There’s blood in the streets, and it’s not going to dance in itself!

An Evil Black Rifle and 30-round "assault clips;" run for the hills!

In addition to the twenty-round magazines above, I also own several thirty-round magazines (at left).

And yet somehow I have managed to resist the mind-control rays emitted by these plastic boxes and metal springs; my “clips” have “assaulted” no one.

I mean, I guess you could really do some damage if you took a full thirty-rounder and beat someone with it; even then, the villain wouldn’t be the magazine. I’ve never shot anyone; I’ve never even pointed one of my guns at anyone (and I hope never to have to).

Hell, I’ve never even been in a fight!

Now, you might say, “But Jared Loughner used thirty-round magazines assault clips in his pistol! That’s completely different!”

Fine.

Handguns and rifles are completely different. If someone were so inclined, he could wreak far more havoc with a rifle; they have longer range, and are more powerful than handguns by a significant margin. Of course, rifles are almost impossible to conceal; that’s why Loughner and Cho and the more recent mass shooters have chosen to use them. After all, if you’re going to illegally carry a gun into a victim-disarmament zone, someone might notice that rifle you’ve got slung over your shoulder.

Oh noes! Eighteen-round "assault clips!" They're everywhere!

Don’t worry, though; I have assault clips for my pistol, as well! Sure, they’re not thirty-round magazines like I have for my rifle, or like the extended magazine Loughner used in his Glock, but eighteen-rounds is still nearly twice the arbitrary ten-round limit the anti-gunners have set their sights on.

Banning “assault clips” won’t prevent nutjobs from snapping and going on a rampage; the Rio shooter used a pair of six-shot revolvers and killed twice as many people as Loughner did with his evil assault clips.

The right of self-defense can’t be abrogated by act of congress, or executive order, or even by popular vote.

Amending the Constitution to remove the second amendment wouldn’t abolish the right to bear arms or the right to self-defense, either.

Guns are the most effective method for defending oneself yet invented; like Weerd Beard says, “they’re the greatest force multiplier you can get.”

Firearms allows smaller, weaker people to defend themselves against larger, stronger criminals.

Like the saying goes:

“God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal.”

03/31/2011

Thirty years have gone by, and still they cavort in the blood…

by wfgodbold

James Brady met with President Obama on the 30th anniversary of Hinckley’s failed attempt at assassinating President Reagan.

“I wouldn’t be here in this damn wheelchair if we had commonsense legislation,” Brady said Wednesday at a Capitol Hill news conference, joined by his wife, Sarah, and lawmakers in calling for gun control legislation. The Bradys head the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The Bradys were joined on Capitol Hill by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., who have introduced bills to ban the kinds of large-capacity assault clips used in the January attack in Tucson, Ariz., that killed six and wounded 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who’s recuperating from a bullet to the brain.

Common sense legislation? Why, common sense is one of Weer’d Beard‘s favorite things!

Like, say, outlawing large-capacity assault clips?

Well, Hinckley used a .22 caliber six-shot revolver.

Like the Brady Bill?

Well, Hinckley lied on his forms when he bought the revolver he used on Reagan; that was a felony then, and it is a felony now. Wikipedia doesn’t say that Hinckley had ever been adjudicated mentally incompetent, so he wouldn’t have been disqualified by that condition; from what I can tell, he wouldn’t have been disqualified by any of the seven provisions of the Brady Bill.

Then surely like the ’94 Assault Weapons Ban? It’s expired now, but renewing would definitely be common sense, right?

Well, “It was also noted that should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence would likely be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement due to assault weapons rarely being used in gun crimes even before the ban.

For that matter, the Columbine massacre occurred right in the middle of the ban’s lifetime, and yet the ban did nothing; “The two perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began.”

Look, I understand that James Brady is pissed about getting shot, and that he and his wife still hate Hinckley for the havoc he wrought upon their lives.

That doesn’t change the fact that what Hinckley was doing was already illegal.

Hinckely committed a felony when he bought his revolver, just like Loughner committed a felony when he lied on his Form 4473 and bought his pistol. They then committed more felonies when they attempted murder/committed murder. Harris and Klebold committed several felonies before even getting started on their rampage.

If someone is dead set on murder, mayhem, or misanthropism, passing a law isn’t going to stop them; even without guns, men have been ever creative in their methods for killing each other.

Banning guns won’t stop the violence; it didn’t work in Japan or China, and it won’t work here.

03/03/2011

If you want to “curtail the weapons … traffic,” to Mexico

by wfgodbold

Then the first step ought to involve reining in the ATF; they’ve done more than their fair share of getting guns across the border themselves.

Calderon has complained about what he sees as attempts by the US to meddle in Mexican domestic policy; that’s quite the statement, considering that not even a year ago he addressed Congress and told them they ought to reenact the ’94 Assault Weapons Ban.

The root cause of the violence at the Mexican border is the illegal drug trade; we had the same problems (violence-wise) during Prohibition, and it turns out that prohibition still isn’t effective.

01/19/2011

If at first you don’t succeed, do the same thing again, only with feeling!

by wfgodbold

Carolyn McCarthy (oh, I hope her district is removed when NY loses their seats) has finally revealed her latest attempt (H/T Uncle, more at Sebastian’s) to regulate so-called “high-capacity” magazines.

Apparently the arbitrary number (beyond which a magazine is too big) is ten; like Tam says, only the 11th victim is important.  Joe Huffman made an excellent short video demonstrating how quickly one can reload; even if Loughner had used three ten round mags instead of one thirty round mag, it would have only taken him an extra three or four seconds (at most) to change magazines.

While laws limiting magazine capacity might pass constitutional muster (though with the sunset of the Clinton AWB, magazines that were “high-capacity” are now just standard capacity, so they might be invalidated because they’re now in common use), I don’t think that a ban is politically feasible.  McCarthy and her gun control pals don’t have the votes, and Boehner isn’t going to waste time on gun control when he can grandstand with Obamacare repeal votes.

That said, most of the magazines I own are standard capacity; for my AR-15, they are all either 20 or 30 round mags, and for my P226, they’re all 18 round magazines (though the .22 LR conversion only has 10 round mags, I could upgrade them to 15 easily enough).  If a standard capacity magazine ban were to pass, I would buy up as many extra magazines as I could afford; just because I think that the law could be found unconstitutional doesn’t mean that I won’t stock up.

This proposed law does differ from the AWB in one major way; during the AWB, you could still buy and sell “high capacity” magazines as long as they were manufactured prior to the ban; I’ve read about magazines going for many times their retail price.  The new bill, on the other hand, would prohibit transfer of standard capacity magazines (I guess they *can* learn after all!).

Anyway, the only real way to enforce bans like these is to go around and go through everyone’s possessions to make sure they aren’t hoarding them (a sure 4th amendment violation).  Even then, there’s no guarantee that all of them would be found (sorry, officer, I lost all my guns and magazines in a tragic boating accident!), or that new magazines wouldn’t be made.  You can make entire guns in a machine shop (easily!), and as long as you don’t do it with the intent to sell them, it’s perfectly legal.  A magazine is just a box with a spring in it (no, officer, these aren’t magazines; they are pez dispensers for entire packages of pez!).  The gun genie is out of the lamp (and he’s been out for a while; the 1911 turns 100 this year, and it’s the progenitor of most (non-revolver) handgun designs even today), and you can’t put him back.

Uncle was right last year, when he said that “need” isn’t a factor at all.  You don’t need a fast car, or a private plane, or a sailboat, or sci-fi books, or video games, or just about anything else, but that doesn’t mean that the government should step in and tell you that you can’t have it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: