PA:Another Writer Transfers Volition to Guns

The alternative online publication philebrity.com, which is about "Philly Arts, Gossip, Media, Music, Nightlife & Politics".   The have picked up on the theme of irrationality of those who wish to disarm the citizenry by attribution volition and motivation to inanimate objects:

"..3,373 people were killed by guns in Philadelphia between September 11, 2001 and the end of 2013, and 174 more have been murdered so far this year."

People were killed *with* guns, not "by" guns.   There is a large difference.   Guns are not alive.   Guns do not make choices.  Guns do not have volition or motivation.   People do.   Those who try to impute volition and motivation to guns appear to do so in order to remove volition and motivation from people.   If humans have no volition or motivation, then they are not responsible for what they do.   That seems to be what this irrational usage is aiming at.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.  Link to Gun Watch

Another Mayor Says: Thousands are Killed by Guns

 Mayor Hodges of Minneapolis is all wet.

I recently wrote about Mayor Sly James of Kansas City saying that "Too much violence is committed by guns".   I was skeptical that he had actually said that, because the Mayor is a well educated man, and served on active duty as a Marine.   It is a nonsensical statement to say that violence is committed "by" guns.   It transfers volition and responsibility to an inanimate object.  But, with another Mayor saying much the same thing, I begin to wonder.

Minneapolis Mayor Betsey Hodges, at a "Gun Violence" conference in Milwaukee, used the same improper transfer of volition to inanimate objects.  As reported by jsonline.com:

Hodges said urban gun violence is a moral issue, with thousands of teenagers killed each year by guns, as well as a political issue, because most victims and suspects have similar backgrounds, including criminal histories.

No, Mayor Hodges, the teenagers are not "killed each year by guns".  They may be killed "with" guns, but the difference is crucial.   They are killed each year by each other, primarily.   It is not a lack of jobs or education that causes them to kill each other.   It is a lack of responsibility for their actions, a lack of respect for themselves and others and their property, and a lack of respect for the rule of law, that causes them to kill each other.

The lack of responsibility, respect, and the rule of law have numerous causes, but primary among them are the "progressive" policies that have been implemented in the last 50 years.  Those policies implicitly preach that they have no responsibility for their actions,  a father is of no help in raising responsible children, that the rule of law is repressive, and that working is a form of slavery.

These policies have created an urban frontier where the new "tribes" are gangs that view everyone outside the gang as enemies or prey.

Guns are just a scapegoat that is used to cover the failure of the political policies of the last 50 years.  Politicians cannot admit the failure of these policies, because they have invested their lives and careers in them.   The politicians live lives insulated from the effects of their policies.   It is everyone else that has to pay.

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

3D Printed Imura Revolver Hybrid Development

An innovative 3D printed hybrid revolver design is being worked on as tribute to 3D printings first martyr,  Yoshito Imura.  Imura was arrested for 3D printing some plastic, blank firing guns in Japan.  The development would fire from the bottom of the cylinder, as did the original blank firing plastic gun.   The new design has hybrid features, including steel chamber sleeves and barrel liner.

 As seen in this computer image of the developing design, the revolver is meant to be double action; that is, one pull of the trigger will rotate the cylinder, cock the striker, and release it, firing the charge, whether cap and ball, blank cartridge, or conventional cartridge.

 

It is an ambitious design.   Here is a link to tweets on its development by WarFairy, Frostbyte, et al.  Double action revolvers are more complex than single action revolvers such as the original Imura design.  I see one weakness that the designers have probably noticed.   There is very little tensile strength in the proposed design.   Convention revolvers use a metal frame to contain the forces generated by firing a charge.   The chambers contain the pressure at right angles to the barrel, but the frame, chamber, and case, if one is used, must contain the pressure to the rear.   The projectile contains the pressure to the front, where the force is used to propel it out the end of the barrel.

 

If I were designing this revolver, I would consider the use of a bolt as a center pin for the cylinder to turn on.   A simple backplate of steel could be made to screw the bolt into, adding tensile strength.  It would not need to be circular, as long as it supported the rear of the chamber being fired.  Removal of the bolt would allow the cylinder to be removed from the side of the design, so as to facilitate loading.  Many conventional revolvers use this design feature.

While development is still in progress, at least one prototype cylinder has been produced.   Looking at the surface of the cylinder, it appears that a hobby type printer was used.   More images are available at this site.

Hybrid designs such as this offer unique advantages for the production of inexpensive firearms outside of normal channels of commerce.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.  Link to Gun Watch

Florida looks to Expand Legal Hunting with Gun Mufflers

While the United States leads the world in most ways, it has lagged in the adoption of mufflers for guns.   In most of Europe, mufflers on guns are not controversial.   In Finland, ownership, manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of gun mufflers is a constitutional right.   On most of the continent, gun mufflers are easier to acquire than firearms; their use is considered good manners.

Not so in the United States.   Due to a weird quirk in firearms law passed during the Roosevelt administration, gun mufflers require a $200 tax to be paid to the federal government.  Processing of the tax form runs to several months.   When the law was passed, the tax was equivalent to $4,000 today.   This "tax" was on a device that normally cost $10.   Today such devices can be had for $50 in Finland.   No reason was given for the virtual ban on the mufflers.

Now that inflation has reduced value of the tax to "only" one half  to four times the cost of the device, there has been a resurgence in the use of gun mufflers.  States are seeing the advantages of reducing ear damage and the irritation of neighbors.   Most states now allow the mufflers to be used for hunting.

Florida already allows gun mufflers to be used on private property with rifles and pistols, and for hunting with shotguns.   From bizjournals.com:

TALLAHASSEE | Hunting game in Florida could become less noisy by the end of the year.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission advanced a proposal Wednesday to remove a prohibition on the use of noise-suppressors, or silencers, with rifles and pistols when hunting deer, gray squirrels, rabbits, wild turkeys, quail and crows.

The proposal will now be advertised in the Florida Administrative Register, and the commission is expected to vote on the new rule in November.

Florida is likely to join the other states in allowing the devices to be used for most hunting.   It is hard to argue against it when bows and crossbows are legal.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

PA: Legislature to Vote on Gun Law Reform

The NRA is reporting that an important gun law reform will be coming up for a vote this week.  From the nraila.org:

Next week, the Pennsylvania Legislature returns from its summer break, and the NRA has learned that the state House of Representatives may be considering a vote on House Bill 2011 as early as next Monday.  This critical firearms preemption legislation is needed to strengthen and provide consistency in Pennsylvania’s firearm and ammunition laws throughout the state.  To date, nearly fifty municipalities have enacted illegal local gun control ordinances including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Lancaster, Reading and the state capital of Harrisburg.  Enough is enough.

 I wrote about the law back in March.  There are very good reasons to pass this law.  It is popular with the legislature, and the anti-rights types hate it, because it provides needed limits on government power.  Local tyranny is still tyranny.  

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

AZ:Armed Robbery: Distraction = Death

A common theme in the failure of armed robbers is the problem of becoming distracted, if only for one or two seconds.   That is all the time a prospective victim needs to access a weapon and strike a fatal blow or three.   Robbers want compliance and money or goods.   They generally do not want murder, at least until after they get the goods or money, which compliance helps them to obtain.   In this case in Phoenix, the would be robber was distracted, and loses the subsequent gunfight.   From kpho.com;  Crump is a police Sargent:

The suspect walked up to the 54-year-old seller, who was in the back seat of a vehicle, about 9:45 p.m., Crump said.

But when the seller asked to see the suspect's medical marijuana card, the suspect pulled a handgun and tried to rob the victim.

Crump said the suspect's attention was diverted and the victim also pulled a handgun and shot the suspect several times.

The suspect returned fire and struck the victim's vehicle at least once, but did not hit the seller, Crump said.

The lesson for potential armed robbers is, distraction = death.  It is very difficult to avoid all distraction.   For a single robber, it is almost impossible.  He has to cover 360 degrees, and the noise at the back room or door could as easily be a deadly threat as the clerk that he is holding at gun point. 

Even professional robber teams get distracted and die.  I recall a failed robbery in Florida, where one of the victims was a 71 year old retired Marine with a concealed carry permit.   It took two attempts to get the robbers distracted; they were canny and suspicious of the older man who wasn't acting exactly as they wished.  They were correct in their suspicion:  he pulled out his legally carried pistol and killed one and severely wounded the other.  They were ordering him into the store restroom when he shot them.


©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

TX: Gas Station Owner Shoots at Thief

The owner followed the suspect outside the store and shot at the thief, but it's still unclear if he was hit.

"I drew upon my training and I did what I had to do to protect me and my co-worker," the clerk told Eyewitness News.

More Here

TX: Woman Shoots Man, Man Takes Gun, Flees

Perhaps not as bizarre as it might seem.  I have read of at least one, perhaps tww similar cases.   If you consider that the disarm prevents further shooting, and leaving allows for care of the wound...

San Antonio police said a man allegedly talked himself into a woman's apartment and tried to choke her.

That's when police said the woman pulled out a gun and shot the man in the shoulder. The woman told officers the man fled, but also managed to take the gun.

More Here

WeaponsMan:Printed AR Lowers Continue to Evolve

Another excellent article by WeaponsMan:

The mainstream media have left this behind for now, although another round of ZOMG Invisible Ghost Guns!!1!!!1!! is never too far in the future, and indeed in Calfruitopia a “Ghost gun ban” bill which criminalizes build-your-own firearms is on the desk of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh er, Governor Brown. (We regret the error. They’re easily confused). But printed AR lower designs continue to evolve.

More here, with good pictures

Charles Krauthammer, the Assault Weapon Ban, and Shannon Watts

On April 5th, 1996, Charles Krauthammer gave his reasons for supporting the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapon Ban.   The column was called "Disarm the Citizenry.  But Not Yet." in the Washington Post.  

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

The column came to mind because even the Bloomberg funded Moms Demand Aciton has decided to step away from the idiotic "Assault Weapon Ban" for much the same reasons that Charles Krauthammer mentioned:

While many gun control groups still officially support the assault weapons ban — "we haven't abandoned the issue," as Watts said — they're no longer actively fighting for it.

Krauthammer has changed his thought a little bit since then.   This is from his column "The roots of mass murder" published in December of 2012:

I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.

But Charles has never really explained why he thinks that gun bans are necessary for domestic tranquility.   They have never reduced the homicide rate anywhere else.    The homicide rate in England increased with increasing gun control, including homicide with guns.  Nowhere have gun bans been shown to decrease homicide rates.   The closest place is Australia, where a massive, intrusive, gun control scheme was pushed onto the public in a rush after a mass shooting in  1996.   The legislation had been planned in advance, just waiting for the right trigger. 

The only problem is that academics agree:  the legislation had no effect on Australia's homicide rate, which was already dropping before the ban.

An excellent counterexample is Switzerland, which had far less gun control than the United States for decades, up until 1998.   Facing immense pressure from the European Union to impose restrictive gun laws, Switizerland implemented gun control that brought it close to the United States in some areas, more restrictive in some ways, less restrictive in others.   Yet Switzerland has always had one of the lowest homicide rates in Europe.

The evidence that restricting guns lowers crime simply does not exist.   So why does Charles Krauthammer think it is necessary?  Does his idea of "domestic tranquility" mean something other than crime reduction?

I have one explanation.  It is because citizen disarmament has become an article of "progressive" faith, not logic or reason.    Perhaps part of that is simply that "progressivism" is built on the idea of a powerful state protecting and providing for its citizens.   If the state is your god, limits on it, such as the second amendment, are intrinsically offensive.

But limits on state power have proven to be necessary everywhere. Even socialistic European nations have found that they must limit state power. All of them have far lower corporate tax rates than the United States, for example. Unlimited state power leads to disasters such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and most recently, Venezuela.  Expecting a "world government" to be an exception to the abuse of state power is the worst kind of pollyannism.

I would like to have Charles Krauthammer explain what "domestic tranquility" would be enhanced by a gun ban.   Perhaps he will, some day.

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

MO: KC Mayor James "Violence is committed by guns." ?

There has been much talk about how "progressives" do not believe in individual responsibility.  There is the stereotype that liberals attribute volitional powers to firearms, that firearms cause violence.   In anticipation of the veto override  of SB656 in Missouri, Mayor Sly James gave a speech in Kansas City, MO.

The transcript from fox4kc.com shows:

Violence, the mayor says is committed by guns.

I listened to the video of the speech.  That sentence is not recorded from Mayor James, but is reported as being said by Kerri Stowell of Fox4news.  As I heard it , she said that Mayor James said "Too much violence is committed by guns".

It does not matter  much whether the Mayor said it or if Kerri Stowell misquoted him.  It is a major misuse of the language to say that violence is committed "by" guns instead of "with" guns.   "By guns" attributes agency and volition to guns, a nonsensical statement.   "With guns" correctly attributes agency and volition to the people using the guns.

I see and hear this usage repeatedly.   I do not think it is accidental.  Saying that violence is committed "by guns" removes the volition and responsibility from human hands, and offers a simplistic and irrational solution to a complex problem.   Remove the guns, and you remove the violence.   As with most simplistic solutions to complex problems, it only creates more problems.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

The Lethality of Shootings in Wisconsin

 

How many people who are deliberately shot survive, compared to those who are shot and killed?  Some early work on this subject was done decades ago.    In 1985, Cook found that about 15% of assault linked gunshot victims that were known to police, died.  That would be a ratio of 5.67 to one.

A recent study by the Urban Institute(pdf) helps to shed some light on this ratio.  It gives fairly precise figures for firearm assault injuries that are reported by hospitals, for Black males 15-34.

By finding the ACS numbers for the population of 15-34 year old Black males in Wisconsin, we can determine the number of assaultive gunshot victims that were reported by hospitals.    The population  number, according to ACS estimates, is 16.5% of the Wisconsin black population, or 59,259.   This matches well with the 2010 census figures of 59,522.  The number of assaultive gunshot victims then comes to .59259 x 554.4 or 307.   The article points out that 6.5% of these hospitalizations ended with the victim dying, so the non-fatal hospital reports are .935 x 307 or 287.

With a little digging, I found the National Violent Death Reporting System has Wisconsin firearms homicides listed for 2010.   It only has this data for 18 states, and Wisconsin is one of them. It lists 37 Black male homicides victims from intentional gunfire in 2010 aged 15-34.   The non-Hispanic White and Hispanic male fatality numbers for the age group were both less than 10, so they were not available.  Together, they were only 13.

We now have a workable ratio for non fatal to fatal shootings recorded by  hospitals, or lethality of assaultive shootings.   It is 287 to 37, or 7.76 to one.   That is in the ball park of what Cook reported in 1985   However, this is a limited slice of the population.   It is not hard to believe that older groups would have different results.

Young Black males are the group most involved in crimes, but young people are more likely to survive trauma. Over 30 of the young Black male victims were in Milwaukee.

I was a little surprised at the numbers.   As most shootings involve handguns, I expected a higher number of survivors.    Talking to knowledgeable friends, most thought the ration would be closer to 10-1.   One thought he had read of military studies with the 1-10 ratio.


There are uncertainties.   These results are only from Wisconsin, but the Wisconsin fatality percentage (6.5% once the hospital is reached) is listed as the same as the national percentage.

Some people may choose not to be treated for minor gunshot wounds.  I suspect the number is small.   Similarly, some murder victims may not be found.  Again, I suspect the number is small.

While not definitive, I find this ratio to be interesting.  All it really says, is that if you are a young Black male in Milwaukee, and are shot, your chances of survival are about 8-1.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

PA:Armed Homeowner Drives of Burglar

The incident happened around 1:00 a.m. on the 1500 block of Elbridge Street.

Police say the homeowner fired a shot at the suspect who did not fire back.

More Here

TX: Dogs Threaten New Born Calf, are Shot

“We received a call from the property and cattle owner who reported that he shot the dogs after they entered his property and began threatening his livestock,” Sheriff Larry Fowler said. “He was upset that he had to shoot the dogs but feared they would kill a new-born calf and other cattle. In this particular case, we found that the cattle owner’s actions were justified according to State Law.”

More Here

SC: Victims takes Robbers Gun, finds Gun was Stolen

I have read thousands of stories of citizens fighting criminals, and usually winning, especially if they are armed.   In very rare cases, the criminal takes a weapon from an armed citizen.   It seems to be a bit more common for a citizen to take a weapon from the criminal.   It makes sense when you consider that the citizen has a lot more to lose than the criminal.  Criminals, by their actions, have shown that they have no concern for the rights of others, so a victim has reason to fear for their life.   Most citizens have no desire to harm others, so criminals know that citizens are less likely to kill them without provocation.  Here is the latest example of a victim taking a gun from a criminal.   The victim is 29 years old, and thought that he was checking out an Xbox One for sale.   From islandpacket.com:

He was met by two unknown men, one of whom pointed a gun, the report said. The victim wrestled it away from him, the report said.

Keeping the gun, the victim got into his car and drove down Bruce K. Smalls Road as the suspect and the second man ran from the home, the report said.

The victim returned to his home, called authorities, and turned the gun over to deputies, who discovered it had been reported stolen from a Burton home in 2007.

I am sure that the gun's original owner will be glad to get his gun back.  The man who recovered it should be rewarded.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

GA: Woman Shoots Dog in Self Defense

The woman told the officer she heard dogs barking loudly in her yard and upon checking, she saw two dogs jumping around her chicken coop. The woman went inside and got her .38-caliber pistol and went back outside, where she found the dogs had cornered her cat under a lawn mower, deputies said.

The woman fired two shots in the air to frighten the dogs, and while one dog ran, the other lunged at her, according to the report. She fired one shot at the dog, which laid down, so she called friends and family to get help, she told the officer.

More Here

MO: Legislature Overrides Nixon's(D) Veto, Restores Gun Rights

Today, September 11, the Missouri House Joined the Missouri Senate in overriding Governor Nixon's (D) veto of SB 656.    From wsvn.com:

The new regulations, which this time garnered the two-thirds majority needed to override Nixon's veto, take effect in about a month.

 Here are the primary reforms that will be enacted with SB0656:

•  Guarantees the right to posses arms in public housing
•  Forbids physical restraint or disarmament unless there is an arrest or an articulable and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
• Mandates that  POST  determine the training standards for school protection officers
• Allows school districts to designate school protection officers
• Forbids health care professionals from entering data about firearms ownership into databases 
•  Allows for a demonstration of proficiency with either a revolver or semi-automatic handgun instead of both for the carry permit
• Uniform open carry law throughout the state with a concealed carry permit
• Changes the age of eligibility for the carry permit from 21 to 19

 The bill override comes on the heels of the overwhelming passage of Missouri Constitutional Amendment 5 on August 5th of this year.

Constitutional Amendment 5 changed the language of the Missouri Constitution to confirm that the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms is unalienable, that any restriction on the right shall be subject to strict scrutiny; and that the State of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold the rights.  SB656 becomes effective in a month.   Amendment 5 took effect on September 5th.   Amendment 5 removed the legislative power to regulate the carry of concealed arms from the Missouri Constitution.

It is too soon to determine what the synergistic effect of Amendment 5 and SB656 will be, but it seems likely that constitutional, or "permitless" carry is in Missouri's future.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

CA: Homeowner Drives of Burglars with Pistol Shot

These "kids", that is criminals form 14-19, have some of the highest murder rates in the U.S. population.

A Rancho Cucamonga homeowner fired a .45-caliber pistol at a burglar climbing through a window, and deputies later arrested three suspects, all kids, sheriff's officials say.

More Here

Governor Christie Watching Shaneen Allen Gun Case

Governor Christie is closely following the Shaneen Allan case.  This fact was mentioned at the tail end of an article about New Jersey lawmakers attempting to reform the State's gun laws, which are some of the most restrictive in the country.  From cbslocal.com (NewYork):

Christie says he’s been following the case closely but doesn’t like to intervene in cases until they’ve had the opportunity to work their way through the judicial process.

“I don’t like to intervene in the judicial process until the judicial process has an opportunity to work its way through,” he said. “I think then and only then is it the appropriate time for a governor to consider action.”

The Shaneen Allen case has become something of a cause celebre because of the bizarre injustice of the New Jersey law.   Allan faces a mandatory three years in jail for a "crime" that appears to be without any criminal intent.   The act is a clear case of Malum prohibitum (wrong because it is prohibited) instead of evil of itself.    Lawmakers are hoping to avoid the embarassment of more cases like Ms. Allen's.    Allen is being prosecuted for being in possession of a gun in New Jersey, without a New Jersey license.  She holds a valid Pennsylvania concealed carry license and volunteered the possession of the gun when stopped by New Jersey police, close to the border.

Governor Christie commuted the sentence of Brian Aitken, another gun owner who was persecuted under the draconian New Jersey gun laws, in 2012.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

ID: Coeu d'Alene City Council Scoffs at the Law

Coeur d'Alene City Council.

Idaho, as with most states, has a preemption statute that guarantees uniform gun laws across the state.  The laws have proven to be popular in the United States.  All states have some form of preemption.   In New York, courts have ruled that the State handgun licensing law preempts local ordinances.  The laws vary in their application by state. 

The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance is pushing Idaho governments to follow the state law.   Most have been doing so, at least when notified. 

Coeur d'Alene seems to have less respect for the rule of law than most.   From boiseweekly.com:

When the Coeur d'Alene City Council refused to overturn laws prohibiting firearms at parades and public assemblies, the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance threatened to sue, according to KTVB. A report from the Coeur d'Alene Press said the organization lacks the legal standing to file suit on its own, but members are working with an attorney to build a case.

From cdapress.com; two members of the council voted to amend the ordinace.

 Despite his arguments, Adams' attempt was unsuccessful. Only Adams and Councilman Dan Gookin voted to amend the ordinance.

Adams is to the right of the Mayor, who is wearing a suit and tie.  Gookin is to the left of the Mayor in the picture.

Ultimately, disrespect for the second amendment is disrespect for the rule of law.  It is not surprising that those who disdain putting limits on government power see any attempt to limit their authority as a challenge.

Governments have to have sufficient power to maintain the rule of law and to enforce borders.   The founders of the United States worked hard to create a balance of powers to restrain all levels of government, while allowing them to be effective.

State government restraint of local governments is part of that balance.

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch