The Minuteman » Tag » Firearms

Tag Archives: Firearms

Another Compare and Contrast

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on Another Compare and Contrast

via Uncle comes this story.

There were two big developments Monday in the case of a motorist who was shot and killed along Greenwell Springs Road Friday after a fight with a police officer.  Investigators say an autopsy shows the deadly bullet was fired by a bystander, not the officer.  Police also announced that no charges would be filed in the case, either against the police officer involved or the bystander who fired the fatal shot into the head of George Temple.

The other kicker is the following:

According to Col. Greg Phares, "[Mr. Stevens] orders Mr. Temple to stop and get off the officer.  The verbal commands are ignored and Mr. Stevens fires four shots, all of which struck Mr. Temple."

There is also this assessment of the NYPD shooting from the Balloon Goes Up.  If you haven’t read it yet, I suggest you do.  Of significance is the behavior of Officer 1 versus Officer 2.  It gets better though because Joe found something I saw a while ago but couldn’t remember where I found it.

A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.

Sit back and let that sink and and absorb into your brain.  Remember that one of the arguments against concealed carry is that lawful carriers are more likely to shoot innocent bystanders.  The problem is the facts do not support this and there is a serious reason why.

Sit back for a second and think about your job, odds are your job provides you extra training from time to time relevant to your specific field.  For instance I once or twice a year attend classes specifically on power systems and power protection, paid for by my employer.  I am also regularly evaluated on my performance, including my ability to apply skills as well as learn new ones.  That said, while I do occasionally study power system material on my free time, that is a rare occurrence.  I do often study up on software design, as well as write my own applications.  I went into software and EE because I love the subject, so studying it doesn’t really bug me as it’s something I enjoy… That is until I start getting a headache from trying to follow some of the math.

Many officers however carry a gun because it is a part of the job.  They attend merely the mandatory training and leave it at that.  Luckily for a majority of officers this is not a problem until such time as they require the use of that skill.  Officer Doughnut though doesn’t want to spend his own money and off time practicing a skill with something he doesn’t inherently enjoy.  There is no incentive for him to do that.  Unlike me, where I love to shoot, it is my choice to carry a firearm, and I love learning new skills.  I have no problem spending my own money or time on such an endeavor, many within this culture have no problem with that.

We do have a problem with mandatory training requirements because as a wise man once told me, “You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.”  Officers of the law are no exception to this rule.  Just because they went into law enforcement doesn’t mean they enjoy firearms.

This closing comment from Ron in his article on the Empire State Building shooting I think drives the point home sufficiently well.

But that is the power of video’s like this! It allows us, with a clear head, to review the actions that occurred and learn from them. If you don’t think about how you are going to respond and just think you will rise the occasion, you are wrong.  You will default to your level of training.

The Empire State Building shooting is a chance for us to learn what went wrong and what we need to do better.  On both sides of the fence.

A Compare and Contrast Exercise

By | | , ,
2 Comments

Lets look at exhibit A:

The results?  15 rounds, 9 innocent bystanders wounded.

Exhibit B:

Result, no innocent bystanders shot, 2 perps wounded and found in the hospital.

So can someone please explain to me again why concealed carriers are so dangerous?  Especially given the following information:

–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

I really should spend some time aggregating the stats for the number of innocent people shot by officers during an engagement versus the number of innocents shot by a concealed carrier while defending themselves.  I hate spending my time doing that because I already know the answer and I know there was a study on it, my Google fu just can’t find it again.  I have a feeling though it may be buried and I will probably end up doing it.

Intrepid readers, if you find it, please let me know!

Quote of the Day – @JeremyAllan (8/24/2012)

By | | , , , , , ,
3 Comments

@barronbarnett @linoge_wotc I want her disarmed, yep. I don’t want her to be prey.

@JeremyAllan – Tweet
August 24, 2012

[Those two statements are mutually exclusive and I tried multiple analogies.  He also couldn’t understand how group punishment wouldn’t serve any purpose and is unfair.

That “conversation” on twitter was long and drawn out in the end three things were blatantly obvious.

First he suffers from Peterson Syndrome.  He would gladly have a higher overall crime rate for fewer “gun deaths”.

Second he cannot comprehend that disarming the law-abiding public makes them prey.  To most illustrate this point here was his final tweets:

@GunFreeZone @barronbarnett @linoge_wotc I truly hope you’re never in a position where you would feel the need to use your guns for defense.

@GunFreeZone @barronbarnett @linoge_wotc Because I don’t wish you or any of your loved ones harm. The opposite. Rather, prosperity.

Yet he admits he would prefer my wife who has a physical disability to be disarmed unable to effectively defend herself.  How can you be prosperous when you’re dead because you weren’t able to effectively defend yourself?

This also completely ignores the analogy I made for group punishment for alcohol and holding everyone who drinks responsible for the actions of others.  He dodged the question at first.  Then when he came back around, he said he would give it up if the law told him to.  Except history says that prohibition doesn’t work and any attempts to outlaw “insert noun here” always fail.  His solution was to say that didn’t matter and my argument was invalid.

Lastly he lives in a world of complete denial.  How warped is his denial, I linked to the Harvard study I talked about yesterday.  This was his response:

@barronbarnett @linoge_wotc @dthurstonHarvard is not infallible. This is propaganda.

When presented with facts and evidence, that has been peer-reviewed mind you, his response is to dismiss it as propaganda.  When someone is so ready and willing to dismiss any facts brought before them without a second thought what else is there?

I will add that throughout that entire debate, Linoge, Miguel, and I were the only ones backing our statements with examples and evidence.

All they offered was that guns should be banned and that would solve the problem.  What they don’t realize is that option has been examined, and the conclusions have been proven false, and the adults in the room have moved on in the conversation.  Their solution is to bring new people to the debate to scream for the same old thing as if some how doing it again, this time only harder will work.

I have some bad news to our opponents though.  No matter how badly you outlaw guns, people will have them.  Especially when it’s as easy as pressing the print button.  The debate is over, we’re merely still here because you’re currently grieving. -B]

Denial – It’s their current state…

By | | , ,
3 Comments

Via Tango I came across this wonderful study done by Harvard in 2007.  Lately I have reiterated more and more that our opponents are living in a serious state of denial and this is yet another nail in their coffin.

The money shot from the conclusion:

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of  evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.  To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

(Emphasis mine.)  Even more entertaining though was this comment after that shot.

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding[s],  so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand‐guns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.

Are you grinning yet?  If not you should be because remember this is coming out the liberal bastion of Harvard.  Not to mention the comment made about a study done by the University of Washington, another liberal bastion out of the Peoples’ Republic of Puget Sound.  Back to Harvard though, this is the same Harvard who said the following about the 4th of July in 2011.

 “Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from Harvard.

Even 5 years ago Harvard saw the writing on the wall and indicated the burden of proof is on the anti-rights cultists.  Further often as of late we see the following across twitter from our opponents how gun ownership is at its lowest rate ever.  That guns are not being bought in record numbers, yet the facts clearly state otherwise.  Again, some of it comes right out of their own back yard such as this piece out of a New York CBS affiliate:

Statistics show a new trend — an increasing number of gun owners are now women.

For reasons ranging from sport to protection, the number of females buying guns has seen a spike in the last few years, CBS 2′s Ann Mercogliano reported.

Yet remember, gun ownership is at an all time low.

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is on pace to beat its own record of 1,114,700 firearms produced in one year, set in 2011. On August 15, 2012 Ruger produced its one millionth firearm of the year, a Ruger® SR1911™ pistol which will be hand-engraved by Baron Technology, Inc. and auctioned off to support the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.

Yet remember, gun ownership is at an all time low.  Not to mention “fewer and fewer people are interested in owning firearms”.

So I have a question.  If ownership and interest is at an all time low, who pray-tell is buying all these firearms?  Where are all these firearms going.  I know the ATF bought bunches of them and were sending them over the border to Mexico, but that little hole has been plugged up for a while now.

Our opponents do not understand their logical fallacies.  They cannot grasp that just because there are fewer gun deaths they’re not actually safer.  They cannot comprehend that violence is violence no matter the tool.  The honestly believe that you’re safer with more crime as long as guns are used less often.

Denial is a stage of grief and honestly this abundance of Peterson Syndrome is a symptom of their grief.  They have lost and not just by a bit either.  We dropped a 105mm Howitzer in the middle of their happy parade and have exposed them for the evil bigots that they are.  The worst part about those evil bigots though is they prey upon the fact that many people honestly want to do good and help people.  They then spread their lies, misinformation, and logical fallacies corrupting good people.

Honestly though, I wouldn’t mind if a majority of our opponents forever remained in the first stage.  If they do progress I want them to rapidly progress to bargaining and skipping over anger.  Given their propensity towards violence, especially when on the losing side, it would be a very bad and dangerous thing.  Doubly so if they started trying to engineer failure in an attempt to “aid” their cause.

Denial, it’s not just a river in Egypt.  It is the current home of our opponents and will remain so for the foreseeable future.  I can live with that.

Repeat After Me…

By | | ,
8 Comments

If I carry a concealed weapon, I will not be a dumbass and will use a holster unlike this individual.

A Flagstaff man accidentally fired his gun inside a crowded McDonald’s into a wall, which ended with debris hitting fellow customers, police said.

The 24-year-old man had the firearm in his waist band, the police report states, and when he leaned against the back wall, the weapon discharged.

Young man, tell me you aren’t a sports fan because you should have learned from Plaxico’s mistake.  This is not how responsible people carry firearms.  We use a good sturdy holster.  Not that cheap nylon crap from Uncle Mike either.  It should be in a real freaking holster.

You were aware of the mass shooting and you did not want people freaking out about your gun, yet you couldn’t be bothered with using a real holster?  Tell me, how did that negligent discharge work for keeping it all on the down low?

I would like to point out however this is yet another example of the hole in “training requirements” assuming boy wonder here had a CCW, which he probably is, obviously satisfied the training requirement but evidently he skipped class on buy a holster day.*  The bottom line is there are many people that live in states that have no training requirement and they don’t do this type of crap.  Then within states with the training requirement you still have people who do.  Maybe it isn’t as much the training but the attitude of the person carrying the gun.  You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink.

My guess on what happened given the description is that clothing got within the trigger guard and when he leaned back it applied pressure and went bang.  The other option is he violated rule 5 but I don’t think he would have put a hole through his jeans without also penetrating himself.

*Though it seems that military service satisfies the requirement, maybe they never told him to use a holster for sidearms.  About the best alternative option is participation in organized shooting sports.  I do not know specifically what sports they consider acceptable, however if it’s IDPA or USPSA they don’t let you do Mexican carry.  They tell you to use a freaking holster and what happened is exactly why.  Small-bore rifle and bullseye on the other hand, that just means you can hit the broad side of a barn, not that you know how to carry.

In Which I Think We All Know Why

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on In Which I Think We All Know Why

Given the following incident, I think the answer as to why his roommates did not renew his lease becomes obvious.

When he came to collect his belongings on Saturday night, the two residents were escorting Simpson out of the house when Simpson grabbed a shotgun, racked it, and pointed it at them. The residents ran to the back of the house and called Pullman Police Department.

I wasn’t kidding when I said this was a lively time of year for little old Pullman.  Though this year so far has been considerably more lively on the firearm front than usual.  Now I don’t have specifics but I know it’s safe to say that pointing a shotgun at someone is against the law.

I have a feeling there is more behind the scenes here, however the answer is not to the shotgun.  Incidents like this though are what our opponents grab and latch onto as a reason why college students should not have firearms.  Many students, as well as employees are disarmed by the schools policies yet things like this still occur.  Yet this incident occurred only a half mile from the last incident.  Not to mention that students have been attacked walking home after class through these neighborhoods.  It’s as if all those policies and laws don’t really do anything except prevent responsible law-abiding people from having or carrying arms legally*.

So I would like to stand up, applaud, and thank this moron, James Simpson, for supplying ammunition to the enemy and furthering their goals to keep their honest law-abiding fellow students disarmed to be easy prey.

*After VT,  I know for a fact that there was a decent number of people who started carrying against school policy to class.  They did so after they discovered there was no real legal bite to the policy.  At worst they could be expelled if caught and the individuals felt, “Concealed means Concealed” and if they need it expulsion is the least of their worries at that time.

Doubly interesting is a good chunk of those who carried were engineering students.

How to know your opponents are in still in denial

By | | , ,
1 Comment

Last Friday I saw this did nothing but laugh, I thought about writing something up but  doing other stuff won.

“Society has to take the glory out of guns,” the so-called “.44 Caliber Killer” told the New York Daily News in a jailhouse interview. “Young people have no business carrying a gun. I would love to speak bluntly to those gangbanging teens and wanna-bes and tell them prison is nothing like what you think. If you’re packing a gun, you’re making a big mistake, and you’ll regret it.”

Your position is in a seriously losing state if the biggest names you can get to support you are pathological serial killers.

Let’s start at the beginning of this.  Mr. Serial Killer here thinks that merely carrying a gun is a big mistake.  Tell me something, did you kill those people or did the gun magically make you do it?  Yeah, you and I both know the correct answer to that question because my gun, like so many other people’s hasn’t just magically hopped out of its holster and shot someone.

Moving forward, you state that using a firearm against someone else ruins both lives.  While for the most part this is technically true because there will be a legal investigation into any death, I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 if I found myself in the company of you or some of your compatriots.  In the end I say that because if I ever have to deploy my firearm, ultimately I will not have killed my attacker, he will have killed himself, I just merely carried the bullet around for a while.  All he needed to do was walk on by and leave me be and no harm would have befallen either of us.

The real reason this man hates firearms is because the last thing he wants is for innocent victims to be able to fight back.  He wants the predator to have an assurance of overwhelming force.  The best way to get this to happen is to have the state force disarmament upon the innocent at a threat of force from the state.

This is all that our opponents can bring to the table.  Serial killers and criminal professional athletes pardon me if I’m not shivering in fear at the idea that people are going to be swayed by the words of a serial killer saying, “Leave your guns at home.”  Yeah, there’s a reason he wants you to do that, and most people with an IQ higher than a rock can figure that out.

Gun control is dying, even while in the wake of tragedy.  Overall I’m seeing more and more outbursts of Anger as this goes on.  I’m just waiting now to see a serious outburst of anger from our dear friend Ladd.  Some may never move on from the first stage, Ladd however I think will eventually become angry, he’s been pretty nasty before.