Gun Entheuists vs Reality

So, I see the following pic on my Facebook news feed :

While I support the 2nd amendment and am not anti-gun, I am not obsessed about guns any more than I am obsessed about hammers, digital cameras or computers.

The above meme image has some very inaccurate information.  For one, the PICTURED top gun IS more dangerous than the PICTURED bottom gun.  It has, IN THE PICTURE, a 20 round Magazine.  The bottom gun only has 5 rounds.  Using basic math, the top gun can kill or damage 4 times more things than the top gun. (Oh, and don't call a 'magazine' a clip, which is what they were called until rather recently when terminology freaks started using the difference to call people stupid.  I remember when gun magazines - the monthly publications for reading - advertised "banana clips", curved, high capacity 'magazines' for various guns.  Okay, so maybe my experience is a bit out of date... like I said, not obsessed with guns.)

They claim that a pistol grip, higher capacity magazine and, it looks like the top gun has a heat dispersal mod and a flash suppressor on the barrel, are just cosmetic.

Lets stop and define the word cosmetic. 

: not important or meaningful
: not substantive :  superficial <cosmetic changes>

Any HONEST police officer or SWAT officer will tell you that the grip changes a LOT about how the gun handles.  It changes the ergonomics and mechanics of shooting.  The shaped stock improves shoulder contact.  Having a pistol grip will allow more accuracy when firing in rapid succession.

Even the MANUFACTURER (Ruger) calls the top version a "tactical rifle" and the bottom one is the "ranch rifle" model.  They are DESIGNED for completely different applications.

According to the specs, the Tactical has a shorter barrel by a little less than 2 inches, shorter overall by 4 inches, a tiny big heavier and $80 more.

Saying that the differences are only cosmetic - not important nor meaningful - goes against all of my logic and reason.  It seems an affront to physics, mechanics and ergonomics.

But the idiots jumped my case, called me ignorant and said all kinds of nasty things about me because I dared to point out that blatant lies do nothing to help any cause.

The poster below is a bit more accurate. 

It uses "mostly superficial" instead of "only cosmetic."  It also points out they can both accept the same magazines of different capacities.  However, they are not the same gun.  They are different models of the same gun.  Using the Tactical Rifle to go hunting is like taking a Nascar vehicle to do the grocery shopping.  I'm sure it will get the job done, but it is not what it was made for.

Of course, with our roads, I'm not sure the racer could make it to the store without bottoming out and getting stuck in a pothole.

When I found a youtube video of a guy demonstrating the differences a pistol grip makes, they called HIM an idiot too.

I have found a blogger who knows about guns...

"The pistol grip affects a few things in reference to your relationship with the rifle.  The shape and angle of the grip affect how the rifle carries and how it shoots, which encompass most of the things you might do with your rifle."

"The reason is that vertical grips make shooting easier."

and part 2...

(with a pistol grip there is) "No contorting necessary.  I can just grasp it normally and the finger ends up pretty close to where I want it.  I find it odd that a rifle could just fit so easily."

Doesn't seem like it is 'just cosmetic,' but they would probably call him ignorant as well - his knowledge doesn't fit with their meme and talking points.

I was looking at reviews of the Mini-14 Tactical and one of the best quotes I saw in comments was from a Trooper :

"Accuracy? Well sports fans, it was never meant to be a benchrest rifle but it will reliably kill a man at two to three hundred yards all day long, which was the whole point."

A different article has a good quote regarding the pistol-grip design on the AR:

"Many famous firearms such as the Thompson submachine gun and several WWII-era German designs used similar grip-to-receiver angles for the same reason it’s endured more than five decades of AR service: It is conducive to effective combat shooting. The AR grip is most natural in-hand when shooting upright (standing, kneeling, etc.), but is likewise well suited for prone work and patrol-type activities. Traditional stock designs lack in one or more of these areas, but thanks to Eugene Stoner, today’s ARs are pretty darn comfortable guns."  (note: the AR has a pistol grip)

It is fairly clear that the reason for a pistol grip on a rifle is to make it an effective Combat Weapon.  Therefore making the change not just for looks.  The standard stock is better for long-term carrying and carrying in wooded and brush areas - less stuff to get caught on the brush and poke into body parts while being carried.

Not 'just cosmetic' differences

Mostly Superficial differences

I made a picture from Ruger's website.  The top is still the 'tactical' model and bottom is still the 'ranch' model, but the differences AS PICTURED are, in fact, mostly superficial and neither is 'more dangerous.'

All I'm saying is have a little more accuracy when trying to do a meme!!  And when called on the bullshit, don't defend it.

One more thing about the 'arguments' is that they used school-yard bully tactics.  They focused on one, insubstantial part of a statement and over-emphasised it to discredit me and distract from the substance of the argument.  Since they can't argue on the facts, they have to draw attention away from valid points by any means necessary.  I hate that - and that is one reason I don't keep firearms within reach.  :)

I have no experience with firing those two configurations one after the other.  I, however, hunted and shot quite a bit growing up.  I was (successfully) squirrel hunting with a revolver when I was a teenager. 

The only way to fully settle this would be to do a side by side test at a firing range with the two guns AS PICTURED.  Firing once for speed, once for accuracy.  With a non-biased judge collecting the stats of each test, the speed, the accuracy, the accuracy during the speed test and the speed during the accuracy test.  Probably at least two or three testers with various experience levels.

Fire 5 rounds as fast as possible with each, time speed and accuracy of both rifles.
Fire 20 rounds as fast as possible with each, time speed and accuracy of both rifles.
Fire 5 rounds as accurately as possible, time speed and accuracy of both rifles.

1. Would you expect a difference in the two rifles performance?
2. Would you expect a difference in speed and/or accuracy due to the stock/grip?
3. What was the actual experience regarding performance and the stock/grip?

If Ruger would loan me the rifles to test, I am sure that I can get a gun range to host the testing.  My office is full of people who won't stop talking about guns, load their own ammo, etc. Even a guy with his own range.  So I can get some volunteers to help test.  I'd be a tester, of course.  Probably have to bring our own ammo though.

I wonder what the engineers who designed the Tactical Rifle would say to all their additions being 'just cosmetic.'  Or what all the designers for military applications whose designs are basically being called complete failures - as they make no difference other than looks?

I guess there is a possibility that they are just cosmetic and change nothing significant about the gun.  That would make those wishing to ban the weapon because of it's looks seem very silly.  It would also make those who want to own that style weapon, who would suffer great emotional distress if they had to settle for the standard version, very, very silly people.

If it turns out there is no difference, then I'd have to say, "I came into this thinking that they should not be banned.  Now, why not?  There is no functional difference in the two, no reason to want one over the other, so, why not put the scary looking one away to make a lot of people feel better?  Its not like they'd be taking away any combat advantage or anything.  All sides of the argument are stupid and a waste of time."

One small side effect to this encounter is that I am now considering getting the Mini-14 Tactical instead, or perhaps in addition to, the CZ75-b that I have been looking at getting. But I know, realize and admit that I am not getting either one to go hunting for food nor just for target practice.  Its all about the Zombie Apocalypse!

The Founders, Guns, Rights and Me

Gun violence, mass shootings and other senseless tragedies are occurring on an increasing basis in the United States of America.  I do not agree with the 'do nothing' approach.

I worked through my thoughts and research in a previous post.  Here, I am going to solidify my (current) views on the subject - re-using some of the previous post.

The much talked about Second Amendment states :
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The NRA and others kind of ignore the first part or try to dismiss it as not meaning what it says.  They focus only on the second part - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  But, lets agree that we don't need any new laws about who can own what kind of gun and where they can carry that gun.  We may need to take a few of the existing ones off the books, just to simplify things.

Now, lets go look at the first part of the Second Amendment - A Well Regulated militia.  So, what does "well regulated" mean?  I'm fairly sure it doesn't mean highly controlled by legislation and restrictions.  Some have suggested that it meant "well supplied or equipped," but that doesn't seem to hold up.

"Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training."

It seems fair and accurate to me to state that "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment means "Well Trained and Disciplined."

The Founders and others have left us some quotes on how they saw the matter:

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

It is clear, from reading many more quotes and letters than those I have linked to, that the Founders did, in fact, intend for all able bodied men to be armed and prepared to go to war.  Those last two quotes above, among others, make it very clear that the founders never considered the might and power of current military and military weapons. It is also clear that the Founders did not intend for the United States to have a standing, active military.  Citizens were to be trained and well armed and called into service in an army only in times of need.  So if your measure of what should be done is what is in the constitution and what the Founders intended, then we have to disband all branches of the military.

The times, technology and environment has changed drastically from what the Founders knew and envisioned.  Solutions must be allowed to consider the whole environment of the problem.

My current proposal to actually do something constructive to help prevent mass shootings and suicide by cop killing sprees is as follows:

1. The Federal and State governments should enact a high tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition. (Please breathe and continue reading)

2. The State governments should formulate and offer an extensive training course that covers all aspects of owning and using a firearm.  They should provide this course free of charge to anyone over the age of Twelve years.

3. Having passed the course, you receive a card (photo ID, valid for voting) or an endorsement on your drivers license that greatly reduces the Federal and State taxes on firearms.  This reduction may or may not be tied to the score achieved in the course.

4. The State governments should have several gun ranges set up so that people can test their marksmanship.  If people achieve a certain score indicating that they can hit a target more times than not, then they get a "Gun Control" card, which greatly reduces or eliminates the Federal and State taxes on ammunition.  Again, this reduction may or may not be tied to the score achieved in the test.

The taxes collected would be used to fund the courses and to provide for law enforcement to arrest and prosecute those who commit crimes with firearms.

I think the course should be done in segments.  Maybe a week for each segment?  Three days?  The details will have to be worked out, naturally.

I believe the first part of the course should be some kind of psychological preparedness class.  Something like :

• Gun Responsibility
• Guns are used to Kill
• Regional and Local laws regarding Firearm Possession, Open Carry, Concealed Carry and the use of deadly force
• When to use a gun and when not to
• Living with Taking a Life
• The Social responsibility of Owning and Carrying a Firearm
• Using a gun to commit a crime
• Your gun used by someone else to commit a crime

The next class would focus on the basics of gun ownership.  Like :

• Gun Ownership
• Storage and Security
• Cleaning and Maintenance
• Transporting
• Gun Handling ( At the Shooting Range training )
• Safe Carry
• Aiming - sights, scopes and accuracy
• Before you Squeeze the Trigger
• Shooting - Squeeze the Trigger
• After you Squeeze the Trigger
• Cleaning and Maintenance (yes, again)

The final class would focus on the physical aspects and combat readiness.  Like :

•  Keeping your head in a Stressful Situation
• Gun use in self defense
• Gun use in combat
• Avoiding gunfire
• Triage for Gunshot wounds
• You've been Shot!
• Paintball Field Exercises!!

Once all three segments of the course are completed to satisfaction, the Course Certificate is issued.  There should be some kind of continuing education to keep the certification up to date.  One class per year or the whole course every five years or some such timing to keep things fresh.

Also, owning a combat style rifle and passing the course would make you eligible to be called up to defend our nation in times of need.  A true Militia.

What do you think?

Guns, Rights and the Balance between them

I've tried, on Facebook, to ask for some sensible solutions to help curb some of the senseless violence using guns.  Within moments the replies like "stop stomping on constitutional rights!" came pouring in.  Even though I started the post out with "banning military style guns and high capacity clips is not right."

So, new gun laws, banning any gun or magazine being off the table - NO NEW ANTI GUN LAWS.  Keeping the second half of the second amendment completely sacred, what are some workable solutions to the obvious problem of violence using guns?

It seems that people can't supply any real solutions beyond "second amendment!" or "personal responsibility!"  Well, there are those out there that have no sense of personal responsibility and suffer from an extreme lack of good judgement.  Some people do NOT need to have a gun.  The innocent victims' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness FAR outweigh any shooter's right to own a gun.

I have proposed a Swiss style approach - everyone gets training.  Now, the Swiss require military service from every male for 12 years.  I don't think that is exactly a great idea, although I would like to see mandatory gun training for everyone starting at age eighteen and going on through until they are deemed unfit to possess a firearm.  Perhaps just everyone who wants to own a gun has to go through the training every 5 years or so.

Let me make my proposition clear.  I propose that at an early age - whenever we can agree kids might start using guns, maybe 12 - the government provide training in the use, care, cleaning and responsibility of owing and using firearms. (see new post with more info)

The content of the training is important too.  I went through National Hunter Safety Training before I could get my first hunting license.  I don't think that course covered enough for all-purpose gun safety.  The National Gun Training course that I've suggested would have to consist of a lot more than just hunting.  Perhaps something like :

1. Gun Ownership
1. Storage and Security
2. Cleaning and Maintenance
3. Transporting
2. Gun Handling ( At the Shooting Range training )
1.  Safe Carry
2. Aiming - sights, scopes and accuracy
3. Before you Squeeze the Trigger
1. Spent cartridge ejection
4. Shooting - Squeeze the Trigger
5. After you Squeeze the Trigger
6. Cleaning and Maintenance
3. Gun Responsibility
1. Guns Kill
1. Guns are not toys
2. Guns are used to kill for a reason
3. Living with Taking a Life
4. Regional and Local laws regarding use of deadly force
5. When to use a gun and when not to
2. Using a gun to commit a crime
3. Your gun used by someone else to commit a crime 
4. The Social responsibility of Owning and Carrying a Firearm
4. Keep your Head in a Stressful situation
1. Gun use in self defense
2. Gun use in combat
3. Avoiding gunfire
4. You've been Shot!
5. Triage for Gunshot wounds
6. Paintball Field Exercises!!

Now that would help create the Well Regulated Militia the second amendment talks about first.

So, what does "well regulated" mean?  I'm fairly sure it doesn't mean highly controlled by legislation and restrictions.  Does it mean "well supplied"?  Probably not.

"Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training."

It seems fair and accurate to me to state that "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment means "Well Trained and Disciplined."  The claim that the 2nd Amendment requires more gun regulations may not be completely full of holes.

"no person’s sport is worth another person's man’s life. There is no logical reason that anyone should have to fire dozens of shots without reloading – unless intending to deprive that many people of life and limb. The US government must make the distinction between a weapon of war, and one that could be legitimately used for sport or self-defense."

Now for some quotes from the founders on what THEY thought they had set up :

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

Those last two quotes make it very clear that the founders never considered the might and power of current military and military weapons.  There is no way that any citizen militia could stand up to the U.S. Army.  Even with all other branches standing on the sidelines.

The link also has many quotes which make it clear that we were never meant to have a standing army in a time of peace.  The Founders intended no standing Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines.  Citizens were to be trained and well armed and called into service in an army only in times of need.  So, do we disband the military?  ... If we ever end the state of constant warfare that our government has created that is.  What do you think that would do to the unemployment numbers?

Of course, there is also the argument that the only thing the second amendment does is limit the Federal Government from disarming citizens, allowing the states final control.

The times, technology and environment has changed drastically from what the Founders knew and envisioned.  Solutions must be allowed to consider the whole environment of the problem.

What I have proposed is no limitation on gun ownership.  In fact, I have proposed that the government provide substantial training to those who want to own guns.  I think the training required for owning guns which I propose would also help reduce the use of guns in violent crimes.

Maybe requiring the free training for owning a gun might irritate some people, so perhaps it should not be required to own a gun.  Perhaps it should supply a higher legal standing to those who go to the training regularly.  A deep discount on the price of each firearm? Lower cost hunting licenses?  Put a higher tax on firearm sales and eliminate or greatly reduce the tax for those who have gone through the course?

The course would go a long way to helping prove legal use of a firearm in court - "Mr. Defendant has high marks in all aspects of the National Gun Training courses and has attended the course regularly over the last twenty years.  He is a responsible, well trained and conscientious gun owner."

Maybe the NRA could do an ad campaign.  "Guns are not the Answer"

Woman Shoots at Family vehicle turning around

Another option would be to have a high tax on guns and ammunition and offer a "Gun Control" card for those who come in and demonstrate shooting skill.  Gun Control is hitting what you aim at, so the majority of the skills demonstration would be hitting targets.  If you score high enough, you get the Gun Control card, with your score printed on it.  Presenting this card reduces your tax rate on guns and ammunition.  That way, the people who refuse the training - or can't pass it - contribute to cleaning up their messes and prosecuting them if necessary.

(see new post with more info)