Rational Thought

  We don’t need no truthless heroes 
--The Spy Hunter, Project 86   

Christ was crucified for preaching without a police permit 
--Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert Heinlein 

___________________________

In 2011, out of 12,664 homicides, 6220 people were killed in the United States with handguns versus 323 killed with rifles (Obama's Potemkin Gun Plan); the 323 figure includes all rifles, including the so-called assault rifles. 

The proposed gun control aimed at these military look-alike rifles is pure theater, much like the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).  Neither address a significant threat or make us safer, while both serve to irritate law-abiding citizens. We accept the idea that limiting magazine capacity is reasonable and rational (A Rational Response to Sandy Hook), but lack statistics to verify the effect.

Since 1982 the U.S. has suffered at least 62 mass shootings, leaving 543 dead.  During the same period there were 564,452 homicides, which means that .01% of all murders in the US are due to mass or spree shootings.  We are reacting to the grand spectacle of the spree shooting event, when regular workaday homicide is the real problem. Why do we not have data on the types of weapons used in these murders?

George Gascon at Politico (Time to Ban Assault Magazines) notes that between 1984 and 2011, the killers used a magazine that carried more than 10 rounds.  He claims 1,500 rounds were used to kill 225 people and wound 242 others.  If true, this means that the killer in each episode fired approximately 70-75 rounds.

It is clear that neither the Gun Control Act of 1968, the George W. Bush assault weapon import ban, the Bill Clinton assault rifle ban nor the Brady bill has had any effect upon the criminally-minded shooter.  The laws only harass legal gun purchasers.

In addition, The New York Times reports that 80,000 people were caught lying about prior criminal records when attempting to buy a gun in 2010 ( Lie and Try), while only 44 were charged with a crime.  It makes one wonder why people lose their voting and gun rights after they have served their complete sentences, to include probationary time -- especially when their crimes are not violent?

Ranger is against gun control and believes that such laws are ineffective at best, and unconstitutional at worst.  Guys like me are not National Rifle Association weenies who have never seen military service, nor are we politicians who have no experience with violence. We who have served in the military have been acutely trained in all things weaponry, yet we are being told we may not own a weapon with more than rounds in the magazine (11 rounds, since I will have one up the snout).  And you think limiting our magazine capacity is all that it will take to keep you safe?  From us?!?

We used our skills to defend you, the citizens, and now Ranger takes offense that he will be told in what manner he may defend his body and his home.  If my government does not trust me now, then why did they trust me when I was a soldier?  Please, America, don't tell me that I may defend democracy with a real assault rifle but cannot defend my home with an ersatz version. 

Ranger finds himself a stranger in a strange land when he is barraged in the creative media by the ubiquitous terror threat wreaking mayhem and death, countered by well-outfitted Jack Bauers, yet is told to stand down by the same actors who peddle this brand of paranoia.  Does this hypocrisy gall anyone else? 

In a nation of limited economic resources, from where will the funds for enacting the new laws come?

--Who will pay for private gun sales background checks?

--Who will be tasked with the record-keeping?

--Doesn't requiring private background checks trun every private owner and seller of a firearm into a "federal firearms dealer"?

--If the buyer or seller must pay for this required back, does this mean that gun rights are subject to a form of taxation in order for the gunman to exercise his civil rights? If Poll Taxes are illegal, then would this constriction upon a civil right be commensurate?

The U.S. already has the largest prison population in the world, and the new gun laws will add a new category of criminal to that mix: A normal citizen selling a gun to another citizen sans background check.  This type of criminality is the basis of most totalitarian regimes, and will require secret police and agents to ferret out miscreants who disobey the new laws.  Along with the informants will arise a thriving new black market. 

There is nothing good to expect from the proposed laws, other than a temporary soothing of the madding populace which is now being treated to a constant news feed which keeps their collective mind in a Tourette's-like state.  The new proposals will be a feint and a ruse, but it will not address our high homicide rate.

 The gun control rules will not keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.

Son of a Gun

--Falling Ifs, Matthew Heller

"You're a business owner, maybe,
and you're kind of pissed about Obama?
Take the bumper stickers off your car,
and no more sharing in the employee break room.
And no goddamn talking about the Rapture
ever, ever again.

"Are we clear? Because if you don't listen to me,
the only places we'll be competitive
are districts composed solely of people
who plan to shoot someone within the next 30 minutes
and actual Confederate veterans.   
Mostly northern Florida I guess."
--Karl Rove to the GOP: "Please, Please Stop Talking,
Goblinbooks 

 What [the Arab Spring] really means is
the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood
across the region
--Gerard de Villiers
 _________________________

Mr. Goblinbooks has a good sense of things in this neck o' the woods.

Let us talk about gun control here in the good ole Homeland.

So we're gonna do it: No more high-capacity magazines for civilians and ban assault rifles (even though they are not assault rifles).  The manufacturers will eliminate the flash suppressors, the bayonet lugs and the extendible stocks, and everything will be copacetic.  However, you will have the very same rifle, minus the bells and whistles -- what is euphemistically called a "Post-ban rifle".  Now we will all be much safer ... don't you feel better?

Meanwhile, after the love-fest, the United States still lurks near the bottom of the life expectancy scale among industrial nations, despite the fact we spend more for personal health care.  Removing bayonet lugs will not solve that problem.

We suffer tobacco-related death, aggressive and oblivious drivers, alcohol-related death and the myriad of death by stupidity but what do we do?  We focus on 10-round magazines and military look-alike rifles.  Perhaps this is because eliminating the stupid is a lot harder than regulating weapons.

And this is what passes for leadership in America.

License to Kill

 The personal is the political
--Carol Hanisch

That second dose of soma had raised
a quite impenetrable wall between
the actual universe and their minds 
--Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
______________________

A few additional thoughts on the recent mass killing in Aurora, Colorado (Spree Killers follow-on):

The main question that should arise from such events is not, "Why are we so well-armed?" but rather, "Why are we so violent?

From that compelling and inscrutable question to some particulars, the answers to which have also been kept opaque.

[1]  News accounts say shooter Holmes  possessed "explosives", but give no details.  There are allusions to "fire works" rigged as booby traps, but fireworks are not "explosive devices"; fireworks and gunpowder (propellants) are not even close to being explosives, so why the hyperbole?

This crazy could have done just as much damage with his shotgun or pistol alone, yet the press fronts the assault rifle angle, adding to and exploiting the mystique of a tragic situation.

[2] It is reported that Holmes possessed a "gas canister" but what exactly was this cannister?

[3] If Holmes was kitted out in body armor and helmet, then why did he not engage the police in a gun fight? Why wear armor to kill soft targets?

[4] Holmes' AR-15 assault rifle jammed, preventing him from emptying its 100-round magazine. Ranger consistently writes that people who use hicap magazines are amateurs, and this situation bears this out.

If 100-round magazines were reliable than the military would use them.  Losers like Holmes do not know this fact.

[5] The Denver Post reported that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) that expired in 2004 would have prevented the sale of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, and the 100-round drum magazine attached to it.  In fact, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is a cruel hoax played upon the American people -- there has never been a viable assault weapons ban.

The Executive Order (under George H.W. Bush) banned only the import of assault rifles.  Additionally, assault rifles are like pornography in that they both defy description and logic in U.S. Code.  Until 1994 there was no assault weapons definition in U.S. Statutes.  They were still produced domestically.

The 1994-2004 AWB was a cosmetic ban only which did NOT remove AR-type rifles from the marketplace; manufacturers simply removed the telescoping stocks, sometimes pistol grips, bayonet studs, flash hiders and grenade launching capabilities.  (Incidentally, assault rifles historically were by definition selective fire, which means "auto-semi-or safe"; U.S. law ignores this fact.)

The 1994 AWB applied only to the citizenry, and not to police or security agencies, a bit of hypocrisy.  As well, the AWB did not remove "kill your neighbor" weapons from gun shops, so the law did not do much to keep us citizens "safe" from weapons harm.

The usually incendiary William Saletan of Slate online wrote that "Someone pulling a firearm on Holmes could have triggered an even wilder shooting spree," a totally useless bit of baseless conjecture.  A trained gunman with a concealed carry permit (CCW) could have neutralized the gunman.  Or not.

We cannot know since it did not happen.  However, a cinema showing a midnight film not equipped with an off-duty police presence for security detail is a real failure, with a real tragic outcome.

The AWB of 1994 was ineffective in terms of reducing gun-related crime.  Historically, the AR15-type weapons constitute less than 2% of gun crime statistics, so it is hard to understand the argument against black rifles.  They can be had for $200 and are cheap and prolific; the cheap SKS rifles are not assault weapons by U.S. standards, anyway -- they just look the part.

It is the ubiquity of cheap weapons which is the key to gun control, since most criminals cannot afford expensive weapons like the AR-15, at $1,200 to $3,000.  If they could afford fancy guns they would be collectors, and not criminals

Again the question, not "Why are we so well-armed?" but rather, "Why are we so violent?" As on the national, so on the personal level.

Shakedown

--Violent Land,
Dario Castillejos, El Imparical de México

If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot
unarmed men with army pistols or guns,
the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows,
and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege
--Wilson v. State, (1878)

[T]he ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone
--James Madison

No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms
--Thomas Jefferson
_______________

The Wall Street Journal's "Gun-Control Calls Are Renewed" contained several errors.

The SKS -- one of four guns used in the Alabama shootings -- is a 1940's design with a 10-round non-detachable box magazine. This is not an assault weapon.

The scare sentence is: "Unlicensed dealers, such as those at gun shows, may sell semiautomatic assault rifles to anyone of any age without conducting a background check."

"Unlicensed dealers at gun shows" are actually citizens selling their legally acquired firearms to other citizens. There are no background checks required as this is a personal transaction, and not regulated in the same manner as a sale through a dealer. In a free market, democratic and capitalistic society, one must be able to sell one's legally acquired property to legal citizens.

However, personal sales are subject to federal law and all gun shows follow state and federal guidelines. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents routinely patrol gun shows for legal violations.

Gunshows are neither illegal nor illicit. The same rules which would constrain any gun transaction between eligible individuals apply. Legal sales require proof of identification verifying state residency. Most transactions are between persons who possess "carry permits," which indicate both citizenship and authority to purchase weapons. Laws pertaining to gun sales may be hypocritical and arbitrary, but they are not ambiguous.

The Alabama shootings occurred despite correct gun ownership procedure. Since shooter McLendon had a carry permit, it is logical to assume that his purchases were legal and correct. His use of the weapons was illegal and unfortunate.

However, the Constitution does not change because we cannot engineer "correct" people.

Gun Nuts

The art of our necessities is strange,
That can make vile things precious.
--King Lear, Shakespeare
_____________

Ranger attended a recent gun show and got a taste for life on the other side of our comfy corner of the blogosphere.

First, the amount of hatred for Barack Obama is palpable, and the vitriol is not contained -- it overflows. Frequently heard was the assertion that Obama would ban assault weapons, pistols and ammo. The T-shirts show a new level of defiance: "Liberals are Posing as Americans," "Infidel and Proud of It."

But best of all were the featured celebrities, look-alikes of Sarah Palin and George Bush holding assault rifles. Since this crowd is so concerned about their assault rifles and the ban they imagine Obama will impose upon their ownership, Ranger feels like setting the record straight.

First, a definition.

The first assault rifle was the StG 43 or 44 variant, along with the MP 43 and 44. These evolved into the AK 47. All assault rifles are selective fire, meaning they are automatic weapons. They are full auto, but they are not machine guns. (Machine guns are belt-fed, open-bolt fired, crew served and are not individual weapons; assault rifles are.)

StG is an abbreviation of Sturmgewehr, or "storm rifle," which became assault rifle in English. They use lower intensity, intermediary cartridges, meaning they lack in power and range, but are excellent for assaulting objectives when a heavy volume of fire is called for. Assault rifles are shoulder-fired individual military weapons.

There was a ten-year assault rifle ban, from 1994-2004, but contrary to the name, the weapons targeted were not assault rifles but rather look-alikes, which lack the selective fire feature. Again -- all assault rifles are selective fire.

So, the U.S. government denied the citizens the right to own bad ass looking weapons with high capacity mags and which fire in a semi-automatic mode. But the hypocrisy is weighty: IF one wishes to own a real full auto assault rifle, one need only pay a $200 fee and purchase a Federal Tax Stamp and voila, it is legal to purchase a fully auto weapon, to include machine guns. It has always been that way, even during the "ban".

So why the phony ban? If you can own the weapon provided you plunk down $200, it is a violation of the constitutional concept of rights, as one must pay to exercise their rights. The $200 is the issue, and not the ban, which never was.

As so often in our society, the simulacra stands in for the actual. It looks like we ban assault weapons, but we do not really. What is actually being banned is a full, unfettered access to our 2nd Amendment rights via a "gun tax."

The gunnies are so terrified that an "assualt weapons ban" will be implemented. They do not care that the economy is crumbling beneath them -- just don't take away their stupid damned rifle. They fail to see the intricacy of what is actually at stake.

Their argument is always, "What if we need to rebel?" It is Ranger's experience that no one ever became a rebel who was a fat ass in tree bark.

You cannot revolt if you are watching the Super Bowl XLIII but you sure can stroke your rifle, even if it's a little one.