Category: Guns

A Minor Detail

If we have the determination to reduce the roughly 30,000 people in this country who are shot each year by firearms, to reduce that to zero, we can do it…it is within our ability to do that. We just have to adopt the registration requirement that has been so successful in Canada.
– Buford Scott.

I’m not going to address the ludicrous claim that we can reduce gun violence by any significant amount (let alone to zero) by registration. That’s just absurd.
Rather, I’m going to focus on part of his first sentence:

…people in this country who are shot by firearms…

Maybe I’m just being pedantic, but I’ve never heard of anyone being shot by a firearm. Rather, I’ve heard of people being shot by other people with firearms.
The Brady Campaign has a flyer along these lines where they state that “In 2004, guns murdered…11,344 [people] in the United States.” For the sake of the exercise, I’m not going to dispute the numbers, but I suspect that the guns alone didn’t do the murdering…rather, a person used a gun as a means of murdering someone else.
Last time I checked, guns are inanimate objects without any will of their own.
Indeed, Assault Weapon Watch has been closely monitoring an AR-15 for over four years, and it has yet to move, speak, dance, or commit acts of violent crime. It’s just quietly sat there for four years in the corner.
Perhaps it’s a clever ruse on the rifle’s part? Is it behaving as such simply to serve as a decoy, so we won’t pay attention to other guns going out and committing crimes on their own? Who knows?

Heller is Big News

While certainly the news of Heller has been widespread online and in gun communities, I didn’t really expect to see much reporting in “traditional” media like newspapers.
Not many other Supreme Court rulings get a lot of coverage in the papers (as most of them tend to be fairly esoteric and not something most people really want to read headlines about), and usually only get small blurbs on national TV: “The Supreme Court affirmed that the individuals have a right to own guns, and now to Ollie with sports…”
Well, Heller made front-page, above-the-fold news in today’s Wall Street Journal. While not the main headline, it was quite prominent.
Very cool.
Now I just need to see about getting one of those “Come And Take It” flags with the M16 on it. That’d be a fun thing to have on the wall. 🙂

CZ 75

Today I stopped at the local gun shop here in the SF Bay Area (“City Arms“, if anyone’s interested — excellent shop, good guys who run it, good prices.) with one of my gunny friends and perused their wares.
One handgun, in particular, stood out — the CZ 75 Compact (.40 S&W). It fit my hand like a glove, and pointed incredibly naturally. The heft of the gun was moderate (it’s all steel), but not too bad. The DA trigger pull was long and pretty hard, but the SA was shorter and much lighter.
I’ve fired some CZs before, and I’m wondering why I haven’t bought any yet. Oh well, something new to add to the list…only I’d prefer to get it in 9mm rather than .40, mostly due to pricing and the fact that I have gobs of 9mm at home.

Heller Affirmed!

From the opinion:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
[…]
The Amendment?s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause?s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Woot. This is Big News(tm). Big enough, in fact, for CNN to run a front-page story on their website. The BBC has the story front-page on their international news page.
The Brady Campaign site is amusing yet sad…the decision is reached, and they immediately start begging for money. The NRA, on the other hand, is business as usual, and has a one-line mention of the ruling in the “NRA Top News Stories” category on their home page.
I’m still reading the opinion, so I’ll post more later when I’ve read it. Other blogs I read (see the blogroll on the right) have a considerable amount of material on the subject, so check them out!
I’d have a celebratory day at the range, but I’m in San Francisco after a multi-week vacation to Europe so all my guns are in the safe in Arizona. I may have to talk to some of my California friends to see about celebrating.

Europe Update

I’m in Europe (Paris, to be specific), and have some internet access courtesy of the hotel where I’m staying.
Whilst in London, I observed the Changing of the Guard ceremony in Buckingham Palace and noticed something quite interesting: Singapore had a contingent of guards at the palace (they were relieved by what appeared to be members of the British Royal Air Force). The Singaporean troops were carrying chrome- or nickel-plated M16A1s, which struck me as a bit weird.

Does anyone know if these rifles could be functional if so plated, or if they’re only suitable for parades and whatnot?

Sixty-Four Years

To all those who waded ashore, parachuted, or otherwise arrived in Normandy, thank you.
In a week or two, I will be visiting the cemeteries and paying my respects to those brave soldiers who died there.

Guns and the Internet

One of the comments on this article stood out at me, and necessitated a reply.
The comment was:

Nut in Green Bay
http://www.gunsatcost.com/
He sold the guns used in two recent massares, over the net. He wants to make up for it by selling guns at cost so everyone can protect themselves.
Believe it or not, they featured him on the local news here with no comment, stating his case. As if he were a hero.
Mind boggling. There is no limit to the insanity of humans or the gullibility of mass media.
Did the bushies make it legal to sell guns over the net? How is this possible?
–amazingdrx

With very few exceptions (e.g. antique firearms), a non-FFL-holding individual cannot directly buy guns from the internet and have them shipped directly to them. This has been the case since 1968, and has not changed since then. Bush and his supporters have changed nothing.
One may purchase a gun from an online vendor like TGSCOM or a private seller on an auction site like GunBroker and have it shipped to their local Federal Firearms License holder (i.e. a gun shop). Next, the purchaser must go through the normal procedure of buying the gun from the dealer: filling out an ATF Form 4473 and undergoing a NICS background check. All state and local laws must also be obeyed.
There are several advantages to buying guns online:

  • Oftentimes online vendors have better pricing than a local shop.
  • Online vendors can often stock a larger variety of guns, often including unusual or uncommon guns, than a local shop.
  • Interstate purchases do not incur the cost of state sales tax.

Even taking into account the cost of shipping and the local dealer’s transfer fees, the lack of sales tax and better online pricing often results in a net savings of money for the purchaser.
In practice, this is absolutely no different than having the local gun shop special order a gun from a distributor, except that the buyer (rather than the dealer) initiates the transaction and has a greater choice of vendors than does the local gun shop.
Eric Thompson (proprietor of TGSCOM, who runs GunsAtCost.com and other online gun shops) did not sell the guns used in two recent massacres. Rather, he sold a single gun to one of the shooters, and some non-regulated parts (magazines) to another. He complied with all applicable laws: once paid, he shipped the gun to the buyer’s local FFL. The dealer complied with the law, ensured the appropriate forms and background check were completed, and sold the gun to the buyer. Everything was conducted in accordance with the law. The fact that the buyer later used the gun to commit a heinous crime is not the fault of Mr. Thompson or the local dealer. The fault lies solely with the murderer.
Mr. Thompson’s offer to sell guns at cost so that law-abiding citizens can afford to protect themselves is an honorable act, and I applaud him for doing so.