Guns Part 468 - Breaking Down Biden's Speech Part Deux

Because I ran into the conundrum of illustrating rifles, pistols, SBR's, and Any Other Weapons (AOW), this one's taken more time, even though it was the first of the two entries on Joe's speech.  

As expected, Joe decided to take action against things that are stuck in his mind, yet won't yield a damned bit of good.  Let's read what Joe had to say and attempt to make some sense out of it.  

He starts out strong with a complete lie.

"But you go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want and no background check." 

As I've previously noted in other entries, this is utter bullshit, and everyone who goes to gun shows knows it.

He continues - 
"...we want to treat pistols modified with stabilizing braces with the seriousness they deserve. Stabilize the embrace [inaudible 00:13:35] essentially makes that pistol a hell of a lot more accurate and a mini rifle. As a result, it’s more lethal, effectively turning it into a short-barreled rifle. That’s what the alleged shooter in Boulder appears to have done."

In all fairness, I can't say for certain whether Joe's lying or just has absolutely no clue what he's talking about.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and default to the latter.  

Regardless, one of the President's spokespersons openly stated the above was solely a reaction to the Boulder shooting.  Because as we know, being reactionary to one minor thing makes Joe feel good.  Except the gun used in the Boulder shooting was not modified with a stabilizing brace; it came from the factory with one.  Ruger, like every other major manufacturer of AR-15's equips their complete AR pistols with a stabilizing brace.  Again, standard, stock, out of the box, not modified.  At this point, you're probably wondering what's the difference between an AR rifle and an AR pistol as well as what the hell a brace is.  The main difference between a pistol and rifle is barrel length.  Rifles have barrels at least 16 inches and pistols, less than 16 inches.  Pistols are forbidden to have stocks installed on them, whereas rifles may have stocks.  A gun with a barrel shorter than 16 inches and stock installed is considered to be a short barreled rifle, or SBR.  Unless your gun has a tax stamp, possessing an SBR is a felony.  Pistols may have a brace installed, the use of which is shown below.  

It's designed so a shooter can effectively fire the gun one handed, but everyone shoulders the brace like a stock.  Quite frankly, is a workaround to not make it an SBR.  I have a brace on one of my guns, although I always use it in the manner in which it was intended.  If you're not sufficiently confused, I've taken the easy way out and gone with a movie that illustrates how fucked up the rules are.   

Returning to Joe's comments:
"I want to be clear that these modifications to firearms that make them more lethal should be subject to the National Firearms Act. The National Firearms Act requires that a potential owner pay a $200 fee and submit their name and other identifying information to the Justice Department, just as they would if they went out and purchased a silencer for a gun."

If you're wondering, the The National Firearms Act, or NFA, was enacted in 1934 as a response to all the naughty gangsters, running amok in the US.  It made things such as machine guns (full auto anything), silencers, and short barreled rifles and shotguns illegal to possess without the proper tax stamp.  The law was basically a knee jerk reaction to the mobsters - 'anything you guys have been using, and whatever else we feel like throwing in, are now illegal unless you pay a $200 tribute to the crown for the tax stamp'.  The short barrel stuff was a direct response to a gangster, whose name I've forgotten, who used a sawed off shotgun to commit robberies.  Incidentally, the cost hasn't changed since the law's inception; it's always been $200.

Some thoughts on the NFA, from others and myself.  First, even the ATF has said silencers shouldn't be on it; not necessarily germane to this topic, but dammit, I'm tired of dealing with the shit every time I want to build a can.  Second, the law is antiquated and a knee jerk response to events almost a century ago.  That crossing a line on a tape measure requires a tax stamp is ludicrous.  You can trust me, being as close to a gun expert you can have, short of paying for the analysis, a shorter barrel rifle may be slightly easier to maneuver in tight spaces, but not a whole lot more than a gun with a 16" barrel.  This is especially true in the more open areas where mass shootings typically occur.  

Oh, and if your plans include a mass shooting, I'd hazard a guess that you're not so concerned about committing a felony ahead of it, so you can throw a stock on your gun in 15 seconds for under $30.  

AR-15 Stock

All of the above aside, our illustrious leader wants to make over a million law abiding citizens into felons because of an event that represents roughly 1% of all mass shootings!  

Finally, I return to the fact I highlighted in a previous entry - were Colorado a participant in the NICS system, the gun wouldn't have made it into the shooter's hands in the first place.  

In conclusion, I applaud Joe for latching on to dumb details and getting worked up over them.  I have a feeling we'll be reminded quite a few more times that his primary quality that got him elected was he wasn't Donald Trump.

If you want me, I'll be pondering whether to give our government another $200 for the privilege of exercising my rights.

Guns Part 137, Breaking Down Biden's Speech

Because there's both bullshit and kernels of goodness in Joe's gun speech from last week, and I'm passionate about the subject, let's break some of it down.  Lest you think I'm being too hard on him, there were things he brought up that I find encouraging.  First, he acknowledges it's not just the guns, stupid. 

"...there are proven strategies that reduce gun violence in urban communities, and there are programs that have demonstrated they can reduce homicides by up to 60% in urban communities. But many of these have been badly underfunded or not funded at all of late."

He also wants to take action against 80% guns.  I hate the focus group formulated term, 'ghost gun', which he uses to portray them as evil.  As I revealed in my previous entries, despite ignorant people claiming to the contrary, guns aren't inherently evil.  Back to the speach - 

"Much more need to be done, but the first, want to reign in the proliferation of so-called “ghost guns.” These are guns that are homemade, built from a kit that include directions on how to finish the firearm. You can go buy the kit. They have no serial numbers, so when they show up at a crime scene, they can’t be traced. And the buyers aren’t required to pass a background check to buy the kit to make the gun. Consequently, anyone from a criminal to a terrorist can buy this kit and as little as 30 minutes put together a weapon. I want to see these kits treated as firearms under the Gun Control Act, which is going to require that the seller and manufacturers make the key parts with serial numbers and run background checks on the buyers when they walk in to buy that package."

Two points on this one.  The most important is that the Gun Control Act does not prohibit a person from building their own firearm, so long as it's for personal use only, the type is not regulated by the NFA (i.e. machine gun), and the individual isn't otherwise prohibited from owning a gun (i.e. convicted felon).  Furthermore, the GCA requires neither the gun to be serialized nor a background check passed.  So, I can go out into my machine shop and legally create as many guns as I wish, so long as I don't sell them to anyone else.  

Now you're saying that I just proved Joe's point, that these 80% lower receivers should be treated as firearms.  Except they're not firearms!  These lower receivers are typically missing critical holes or aren't machined out the whole way, so they can not be used as a firearm.  Furthermore, they aren't kits that you 'put together a weapon'.  

Case in point, here are photos of an 80% lower and a completed lower.

Still a lot of work to be done on that first one before it can go bang.  

Then, we jump on the downward spiral into stupidity - no holes drilled, features not machined, and so on, until you're left trying to classify the item below as a firearm.  

Let's not forget 3D Printers, which have become quite affordable and can print guns all day.  Do we regulate those as well?  

Change the damned law so that all finished firearms require serial numbers and the owner to pass a background check.  Heavy penalties for those who don't comply.  Easy peasy, you anti gun, fuck head.  

"Finally, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the key agency enforcing gun laws, hasn’t had a permanent director since 2015. Today, I’m proud to nominate David Chipman to serve as a director of the AFT. David knows the AFT well."

I think I join many people in wondering what the fuck the AFT is Joe keeps talking about.  Old Dave Chipman knows the ATF well and is quite well known for his anti firearm leanings as well as his bullshit claims that the Branch Davidians shot down two helicopters during the Waco seige.   

Guns, The First and Last of a Series

 The Gun Owner's Mind

This entry will serve as the finale to the firearm extravaganza I've written over the past few weeks.  It's intended to provide a bit of illumination into the minds of gun owners, which may be helpful for those who don't live abroad or believe we buy guns in order to stoke the evil in our hearts.  

By now, you know I like to deal in facts, so I'll start with some additional statistics relevant to this discussion.  According to a 2019 Pew Research poll, 44% of Americans say they either own a gun or live with someone who does.  Among those who own guns, 66% report owning more than one gun, with 29% owning more than five guns.  32% admit to providing a lower number to reflect what they've told their wives.  I may have made that last one up.  At 67%, protection is the number one motivation for gun ownership, followed by hunting (38%), sport shooting (30%), gun collecting (13%), and because it's required for their job (8%).  

The piece of data that I think brings illumination into the mind of a gun owner is that roughly half grew up with guns in their household.  I know a lot of folks that fall into this category, including myself.  My grandfather had guns and he taught me how to shoot at an early age.  He had a lever action 22 rifle (which is now in my safe) and we'd go shoot cans on his property.  It was a lot of fun, learning how to aim, properly pull the trigger, and satisfying when you hit what you were aiming at.  He heavily stressed gun safety, along with being responsible and cleaning your gun immediately after you were done.  

How Gun Owners See Firearms

This is the meat and potatoes that I think is important for those not familiar with guns to read.  There is one important concept the reader needs to if not grasp, recognize.  Most of us who own guns find shooting them to be enjoyable.  Yesterday, I grabbed a couple of guns and went to my club.  It was both relaxing and rewarding to put four bullets through the same hole at one hundred yards.  Once I'm fully vaccinated, I'll begin competing again.  If you read my original entry where I outline that decision, you already know I did it for the social aspect as much as the shooting itself.  

In order to drive my point home, I'll share one additional experience for those who still think we're nuts for enjoying these death machines.  A few of the women I've dated, including my now ex-wife, were hardcore anti gun liberals.  They didn't want anyone to have a gun, particularly an evil AR-15.  In each of those instances, I offered to take them shooting, so they could experience the AR-15's dearth of evil for themselves.  All took me up on the offer (partially because they knew I would have dumped them had they not) and said roughly the same thing to me:  When can we go again?  Shooting is fun, people! 

As an ambassador for gun owners everywhere, I'm willing to make the same offer to any other attractive women who've never been shooting and want to sleep with me.

Recognizing shooting as a legitimate and non-evil hobby brings us that much closer to a meeting of the minds.  With that established, it wouldn't be unreasonable for those in that hobby to want a variety of guns to enjoy.  Guns are typically at a median price point where you won't bankrupt yourself for acquiring more than one; $800-$1,500.  But prices run across an entire spectrum.  The least expensive gun I own is a Russian Makarov I bought when they first became available in the US.  I bought it because 'first Russian gun you can buy in the US and it's only $100'.  That gun is worth $550 now, which illustrates another point; you'll almost never lose money on one.  You can spend a whole lot more, obviously.  A custom 1911 can set you back up to $8k and taken sixty steps further, a pair of shotguns built by Holland and Holland can set you back close to half a million dollars.  They'd better come with a concierge blowjob service for that money.  

If you grew up with guns, you may have also inherited a few that live in your safe, such as the 22 lever action rifle I mentioned above or the 32 caliber revolver that my great great grandfather carried as a constable.  Those can add up as well.

Touching on owning a gun for protection, I think I'm similar to others in that I consider such as gun to be a tool.  Along with the vast majority who own guns for protection, I didn't make the decision from an imminent threat, rather something to have in case it's needed.  Unless we live in a certain type of neighborhood or are employed in a high risk job, we recognize the need to utilize that tool to be infinitesimally small.   However, just like a flashlight or fire extinguisher, it's there if we find ourselves in a situation where that type of tool is required.  

At the risk of another digression, let me address a common misperception / belief that many non-gun owners have about law enforcement.  Specifically, that only law enforcement (LE) is properly trained and should therefore be the only ones to carry guns.  In my experience, and that of many other shooters I know, LE as a whole is comically unskilled, when it comes to firearm capability and safety.  According to a friend of mine, one of the favorite past times for local shooters is to go to a particular indoor range when the Overland Park PD is about to requalify with their handguns.  Just don't be in the same room, because you'll see the cops put bullets into the floor, through the ceiling, and everywhere else, save the target they were supposed to be shooting.  When I was actively competing, I also served as the range safety officer for the squad I was with.  I only ever had to disqualify two shooters for unsafe gun handling.  One accidentally put a round into the dirt midway between the two of us (which was about 18") and the other swept my chest with a loaded gun, when they turned the wrong way during a stage (closest I've ever come to shitting my pants).  What they had in common was, you guessed it, both were LE.  

Hopefully, that answers the three most common questions to those of us who own guns:  Why do you own guns?  Do you really need a gun?  Why do you feel the need to have so many guns?

I've done my best to be a good ambassador and provide some insight to those who the concept of owning guns may be alien or unsettling.  

Culture of Fear

Perhaps I've cleared up a few misconceptions, but the media and libs continue to stoke the fear of guns.  Today provides a perfect example.  CNN is reporting that there have been TWENTY mass shootings between the time of the Atlanta spa killings and yesterday, when a gunman killed four in Los Angeles.  (I obviously wrote this a few days ago.)  Holy shit!  There really is an epidemic!  Except CNN is manipulating the numbers to make a more sensational story.  As I noted in my other entries on the topic, the FBI / Federal Government defines a mass shooting as an event that claimed four or more lives.  Mother Jones uses a lower threshold of three deaths.  However, CNN considers a mass shooting to be one that has a total of four deaths or wounded.  Others don't use the number of wounded specifically  because of how broad the definition can be.  Taking a small bullet fragment into your leg doesn't do anything but hurt (been there, done that), but it still counts as a wound.  In other words, I could fire a few rounds into the sidewalk of a crowded street and it would be considered a mass shooting by CNN, due to bullet fragments finding people's legs.  Worth noting is that the Mother Jones database doesn't list any mass shootings during the same period CNN claims twenty took place.   

One could argue that the right has stoked fear among gun owners over civil unrest and the government coming for their guns, causing them to buy and hoard everything they can get their hands on.  One could just as easily argue the left has done the same thing.  This is one area in which I'll admit to being biased.  To me, having a sufficient firepower to deal with as many zombies that come my way is called being properly prepared.  

Wrapping Up

Throughout this series, I've done my best to be an ambassador for my fellow gun owners.  Hopefully,  readers no longer view owning firearms, particularly multiples, as some sort of aberrant behavior.  That owning multiple guns makes one even more dangerous to society.  

I'm tired of being demonized by the left because they want an easy villain, instead of taking action against the real problems.  There's no way the libs can't recognize taking away guns will only cause more people to want them.  However, most Americans don't have the attention span to digest complex social issues.  They want someone or something to blame and government to make it go away.  

Thanks for making it through the long slog on the gun topic.  I hope you consider the time you spent reading these entries to have some value. 

Addressing Gun Violence - The Prequel

Based upon some of the questions and comments from readers of my previous entries on gun violence, I thought it may be of value to step back and examine the origin's of America's gun culture and why it's perpetuated.  In addition, I'll throw out some gun owner's insight on our hobby. 

Gun Culture in the USA

In order to best understand why the US has the gun culture it does, I find it helpful to explore why other countries don't.  Let's go back to the founding of this country for a quick look at the two sides that fought each other.  The bad guys lived under a monarchy and were professional soldiers for the largest empire on the planet, where the good guys, who kicked their asses, had a fledgling democratic government and were anything but professional soldiers.  This is the first glimpse of the everyman as a hero, in this country, fighting for his very freedom.  This underdog kept his musket by the front door, should he be called upon by his country again.  What about his opponent, the Red Coat?  Once he came home, and exited his service, he had no further need for a musket.  Not as though anyone was threatening to invade England.  By then, Europe was mostly stable, relative to fighting between neighboring countries.  When fighting did break out, it was conducted by professional armies.  

Wrapping that thought, I would suggest that the length of time and circumstances in which a country gained their independence represent significant factors in their views toward guns and gun ownership.  The US had to fight for its independence from another country less than 250 years ago in a war waged by everyman soldiers.  I'll contrast that with two other random countries.  France's independence came after that of the US, but they fought themselves, which doesn't count.  The country hadn't been under another country's rule for centuries by then.  Because it's been highlighted as having one of the lowest rates of gun violence, I'll pick on Iceland.  Their actual independence took place in the 19th century, so not that long ago.  However, it didn't involve any bloodshed; they essentially just informed Denmark 'you're not the boss of us anymore'.  How stable the country is overall also plays a role, with gun violence inversely proportional to the amount of internal strife (i.e. most of Central America).

Finally, I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of system of government on a country's views toward gun ownership.  Until WWI, every country in Europe was run by a monarch, mostly all from the same German family (hence the stability).  And monarchs aren't terribly fond of the general populous owning weapons that could be used to overthrow them.  The same can be said for dictators.  In any case, living in monarchies, Europe had been accustomed to not having guns for centuries.  That makes understanding America's gun culture baffling for those who live there.  

Returning to America, once freedom had been won, it was time to explore the rest of our great land.  Those pioneers and explorers carried guns to hunt for food as well as defend themselves from bears and the like.  They also carried for another reason that continues to echo today.  There's not much law enforcement present when there isn't a state, much less a town to elect a sheriff.  In other words, you were left to your own devices to defend yourself against those who may wish to do you harm, so a gun  could come in quite handy. 

Guns in Popular Culture

That segues perfectly into popular culture and the theme of rugged individualism that's echoed for a couple of centuries now.  In American pop culture, when someone is murdered or grievously wronged, the hero that brings justice to the bad guy(s) is rarely law enforcement, or at least not typical law enforcement.  In many cases, American pop culture portrays law enforcement as incapable, lacking latitude to enforce the law, or even corrupt.  Another set of random examples.  John Rambo had to defend himself from corrupt law enforcement in the first movie, then, still shunned by the establishment, goes back to Vietnam and rescues POW's and returns a hero.  Who doled out justice when they killed his dog?  John Wick, of course.  The only time when law enforcement is portrayed as the hero is when one member goes rogue.  Case in point - While John McClain was a cop, he was essentially a rogue cop, who had to contend not only with Hans Gruber and company trying to kill him, but the LAPD's incompetence.  He was the true hero of Nakatomi Plaza.  And that's what most American men want to see themselves as - the rugged hero who kicks ass.  And kicking ass requires a lot of firepower!  For most American wannabe's, the only elite unit they would be qualified for is Meal Team Six, but that's another story.  Contrast that with how law enforcement is portrayed in other countries' pop cultures, where they're shown as professional, capable, and bring the bad guy to justice as a team, through hard work and intellect.  At most, rules are bent, but never thrown out the window.  

Stay tuned for the final installment coming soon.

Addressing Gun Violence, Part 2

Welcome back...this one promises to be quite the roller coaster ride, so please buckle in and secure all loose items.

We'll begin Part 2 with...

The Evil Black Rifle
Yes, it's been called that by those who want to ban the AR-15.  The AR-15 is the civilian variant of the M-16 and is semiautomatic, with one round fired with each press of the trigger, versus the full auto.  Because full auto is all but impossible to control, most M-16's are now built with semi auto and three round burst fire capability.  I own a number of AR-15's and find them to be a blast to shoot, no pun intended.  

The AR-15 is available in an almost unlimited number of configurations.  From small form factor guns with 7" barrels, to bench rest style rifles with 20" heavy barrels.  Obviously, you can buy your AR-15, but they're surprisingly easy to work on, so the average person with a bit of mechanical aptitude can build one in an afternoon.  This allows for the builder to have a gun that's exactly the way they want it.  I built all of mine.    

Worth noting is that because it's a design, not a brand or trade name, there is no such thing as an 'AR-15 style rifle'; it's either an AR-15 or not in the same way an engine is either a V8 or not.  Something to help you be a bit smarter than the talking heads on the news.  

What makes the AR so much fun is also what makes it so effective for mass casualties.  Inside a certain distance from your target, you can point a (any) rifle instead of having to aim it, there are magazines available with capacities up to 60 rounds, and each round delivers three times more muzzle energy than one from a 9mm pistol (assuming standard 556 NATO ammunition).  These attributes are also what makes the AR the standard in 3 Gun competition.

AR-15's are also available in other calibers.  My home defense gun is chambered in 300 Blackout, which was designed to 

It might surprise you to learn the AR-15 has been available to civilians since the 1960's.  However, it was largely overlooked by enthusiasts for its first thirty years on the market.  It wasn't a good hunting gun and a rifle for personal defense was ludicrous.   That remained the case until 1994, when its popularity skyrocketed.  What took place to cause such a shift?  Quite simple actually; the AR-15, along with the AK-47, were banned.  Note: I'm skipping detail on the AK platform because it only enjoys a fraction of the AR's popularity.  

The crime bill / assault weapons ban of 1994 was partially geared toward taking military style rifles off the market and prohibited rifles containing more than a few key traits from being manufactured or imported.  It also prohibited the manufacture or import of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.  Rifle manufacturers got around the ban by removing the traits of lesser importance (i.e. bayonet lug and flash hider) and continued production, shipping guns with 10 round magazines.  The author of the crime bill screamed that manufacturers were gaming the system.  The manufacturers responded that they were complying with the law and that they had staff to keep employed.  The AR-15 suddenly received a great deal of attention and demand.  Nothing makes people want something more than when the government says they can't have it.  A friend of mine who owns a gun shop told me there were tons of people coming in, many first time gun owners, to buy the last pre-ban AR's and even the post-ban versions, for that exact reason.  Apparently, they'd walk in and say, "I want whatever the government says I shouldn't have."

It should be no surprise the bill didn't accomplish anything except drive up prices for pre-ban equipment, and had zero effect on crimes committed with guns.  Because anything made prior to the 1994 ratification could still be owned and sold, you could still get high capacity mags (although they became $70 instead of $15) and watered down AR's were just as capable as pre-ban versions.  Not to mention manufacturers went bonkers building as much inventory as possible before the ban went into effect.  Word was that Glock was using their entire allocation of import dollars to send container after container of high capacity magazines, in order to get as many as possible in under the deadline.

The crime bill had a provision to sunset after ten years, unless it was renewed, which it wasn't.  By 2004, there was a great deal of pent up demand for the rifle that everyone suddenly wanted and production ramped up accordingly.  When I bought my first AR during the time the bill, there were only three or four manufacturers who offered them; now that number is closer to forty, if not higher.  There's a whole cottage industry around parts to build your own AR-15, which is I did on the ones I currently own.  That also means tens of thousands of jobs now rely on the AR-15.  At this point, it's worth returning to the Mother Jones mass shooting database, to either confirm or refute timing of AR-15's rise in popularity.  Indeed, despite being available for decades, the first mass shooting where the weapon was an AR didn't occur until 2006.  

It's about now you should be asking yourself what idiot wrote the bill that made the AR-15 so popular.  He's the same idiot calling to ban them now, then Senator now President Joe Biden.  That's right, Joe Biden is responsible for the AR-15's popularity.  Show of hands; who didn't see that one coming?  Regardless, he's arguably the last person on earth suited formulate a plan to address gun violence.

Clearly a ban on new production wouldn't work any better than it did the last time, particularly when a massive supply of existing guns exists, but what if it was taken a step further?  What if it suddenly became illegal to possess such rifles?  The term 'complete failure' comes to mind.  First, it would be contested in court, winding up in front of the Supreme Court (with a conservative majority), who would strike it down for violating the Second Amendment.  If you remember bump stocks from the Vegas Strip shooting, you may be alarmed to learn a court recently overturned the ban on those.  But what if it was upheld?  Such a law would be completely unenforceable for a few reasons.  First, those you must rely on to enforce the law oppose such a ban too.  In response to the potential assault weapons ban in Virginia, dozens of chief law enforcement officers declared they wouldn't enforce it.  There's no reason to believe a nationwide ban wouldn't receive the same widespread support.  Second, no one in their right mind will turn in their guns.  Would you blindly hand over something you invested so much money and time into?  As a benchmark, I'm probably about average for most law abiding AR owners and I've got just shy of $10k invested.  I predict there will be an amazing rash of boating accidents, where everyone's guns fell overboard, in a thousand feet of water.  Tragic.  Or they'd flat out not comply (or worse).  Third, there would still be the DIY crowd making 80% guns (long topic on itself, but feel free to read up on your own) and replenishing the supply.

It all reminds me of a conversation I had with a Dutch colleague, while driving through a sketchy area of Rotterdam.  He indicated there were a lot of shootings in that area.  I pointed out that guns were all but impossible to get not only in the Netherlands, throughout Europe.  He responded, 'yeah, but criminals will always get their hands on guns.'  

Before I wrap up on the evil black rifle, I'd like to address a few other challenges gun owners have gotten relative to owning AR-15's.  First is the ever popular 'why do you need such a thing?'  The answer is I don't need it, but as a law abiding citizen, I'm allowed to.  I hate coffee, so why do you need to give Starbucks $8 every morning?  My second favorite is 'civilians shouldn't have weapons of war'.  Newsflash, 75% of guns on the market began as weapons of war.  That Colt 45 that everyone loves was designed to be used as by soldiers as their sidearm, when going to war.  Finally, there's the ever popular 'that gun was designed to kill'.  Again, that applies to 95% of the guns out there, either through use in defending your family or to humanely hunt an animal.  No, we won't venture down that rabbit hole.  

So, should the AR-15 (and other military style rifles) really be banned?  I get it - mass shootings are ugly, traumatic, and more frequently involve children and are carried out with military style rifles.  However much of a shock to the system, the fact is they're statistically insignificant and banning them is nothing greater than a knee jerk reaction.  For additional context, there were 60% more murders in Chicago (where you can't legally buy a gun) last year than mass shooting victims in the past DECADE.  Not to mention FBI statistics say that 70% of homicides involving firearms are carried out with handguns, not military style rifles or rifles period.   Banning AR-15's / AK-47 rifles based upon 0.6% of all shootings will make the left all feel good about themselves and tell everyone how they've made America a safer place.  Except for the reasons above, mass shooters will keep on using the rifles.

Speaking of Chicago and shooting related deaths, Kina Collins of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence was recently interviewed by NPR.  She took issue with the President's laser focus on mass shootings and an assault weapons ban.  "That's not what we're dealing with in communities that deal with everyday gun violence," she said. "We're dealing with hand guns. We're dealing with straw purchases, we're dealing with illegal guns floating across the borders into states. That's what we're dealing with."

  

So what can be done to decrease the number of firearm related deaths?  First, I think rather than focusing on what trigger is being pulled, attention should be focused why the trigger's being pulled in the first place.  Anyone with half a brain should be able to make that distinction.  Having half a brain myself, that's what I'll focus on.  First, I think that more and more people live solitary lives without support structures and succumb to mental illness leaving them feel hopeless or that the world is against them. On a side note, why is it the greater a boring loser someone is, the more they're convinced the government is spying on them?  But people feel less included and more disenfranchised as time goes by.  However, I also think too many people have been raised to be self absorbed little snowflakes that don't understand the word 'resilience'.  So many murders are to 'get back at someone' for shit that is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  Being disrespected is part of life; get over it.  Your significant other dumped you for your best friend?  Get over it and bang his mother, not shoot both of them, you moron.  How many of us were bullied as children, but the thought of killing anyone over such transgressions never crossed our minds?  My dad grew up in a rural area.  Almost every guy had a rifle or shotgun in their car, at school, because they all went hunting after.  If you had a beef with someone, it was settled with fists after school; no one ever grabbed a gun over whatever it was.  

Finally, there are those who want their fifteen minutes of fame and are willing to kill to get it.  Finally finally, shitty parenting has a great deal of impact, beyond raising snow flakes.  Two perfect examples of how decent parenting would have prevented mass shootings - Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened if the shooter's mother had half a brain and not tried to connect to her mentally ill son through shooting. (He shot her and took the guns)  The Columbine shooters were a couple of complete sociopaths that had exhibited plenty of warning signs ahead of that shooting.  Where the fuck were their parents?

Make no mistake, I'm completely behind universal background checks and other reasonable measures to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.  Universal should be emphasized here, because not all states perform their checks in the same manner.  NICS is the FBI's national background check system and, from what I've been able to uncover, queries their terror watchlist on each inquiry.  However, only 36 states currently use NICS, the remainder either carrying out checks at the state level or using some sort of hybrid model.  As someone pointed out, the Boulder shooter was on an FBI terror watchlist, yet still received approval to purchase his firearm.  Colorado isn't one of the 36, instead using their own homegrown system.  Had CO been a NICS state, the approval likely would have been denied, preventing another mass shooting.  Again, universal background checks are a good thing, are effective, and that's a no brainer.  

But other actions have to be taken to decrease gun violence or we never address the root cause.  Banning weapons, aside from it not working, sends the message 'we've given up on our society'.  We need to begin taking better care of each other or things will only get worse; gun violence will be the least of our concerns.  

Random comment that didn't have a home, but worth including:
You can't legally make your AR a fully automatic weapon without a full background check, waiting close to a year, and spending $30k.  You can make it full auto illegally in an afternoon without much effort.  There are devices on the market that simulate full auto, such as binary triggers, that fire a round not only when you pull the trigger, but also when you release it.  And let's not forget the bump stock that became famous after the Las Vegas Strip massacre.  Personally, I have an issue with these workarounds; no one's fooling anyone with them.  However, at what point do you draw the line?  That's a question I continue to ask myself.  

Addressing Gun Violence, Yeah I'm Going There

Having plenty of time on my hands, along with recent events, has almost guaranteed me eventually wading into this topic.  As a gun owner / enthusiast, a closet liberal, and non-extremist, I think I'm able to speak intelligently about firearms without venturing toward the fringe.  This entry will consist of both my own observations and beliefs as well as non-cherry picked statistics.  First, let me make it clear I'm appalled by the level of gun violence in the US.  There are too many lives being taken as a result of bad actors and regardless of how the reader may interpret the following, I don't take any of it lightly.  I'll admit, up front, that I think a ban of any kind would be fruitless and I'll explain why.  Regardless,  we have to view the subject dispassionately if we are to draw any meaningful conclusions.  

Because there's a lot to unpack, I'm breaking the topic into two parts.  In Part 1, we'll set the stage with some statistics and address some fallacies.  Part 2 will talk about the evil black rifle, then finish big with how to address gun violence.  

Mass Homicides

We'll start with the stats on mass homicides (I may use mass shootings interchangeably, because frankly it's easier to type), which is defined as an event involving a firearm that results in four or more deaths.  These events are the ones that grab the headlines and bring the most outrage.  Mother Jones maintains an excellent database of these events, that includes a lot of detail on the shooter, weapon used, etc.  Links to that and the FBI database I'll refer to will be at the end.  Also, I've stopped with 2019, because with everyone under lockdown in 2020, there weren't really opportunities for mass anything.

The data says there have been 102 mass shootings since 1982, resulting in in a total of 918 deaths.  If we break the data into time periods, an alarming trend emerges.  Between 2000 and 2009, there were 171 mass shooting deaths, versus 482 the following decade.  The number of mass shootings more than doubled as well.  Because Mother Jones' database lists the firearms used in each event, we can determine how many deaths were the result of the shooter using an AR-15 / AK. military style rifle.    Assuming any unspecified semiautomatic rifle to be an AR-15 or AK, that number for 2010-2019 is 254, or half of the the deaths from mass shootings.  The decade prior saw 5 mass shootings, using these weapons, with a death toll of 33, and 2 in the 80's, with a total death toll of 15.  This is reflected in average number of deaths per event, which peaked in 2017 at almost 20, although it's been in the single digits since 2018.  Clearly, the AR-15, along with the AK platform, represent a serious threat, with respect to mass shootings.  I'll dig into the AR-15 in the second part because there's a lot about this gun I'm sure most aren't aware of.  

Overall Firearm Related Homicides
Back to the stats.  Before we jump to any conclusions, based on the mass homicides, let's put some context around them.   According to FBI statistics, the total number of firearm related murders, from 2012 through 2019, was 78,162.  That's a pretty astonishing number, which we'll dig into a bit later, but the positive thing is it's been trending downward since 2017.  If we compare mass homicides with total homicides, using firearms from 2012 through 2019, the former represents roughly 0.6% of the total deaths noted above.  Not even one percent of total firearm murders.  Again, please don't take my comments as being dismissive, but the fact is that, while mass shootings get all the headlines, they're statistically a footnote in the bigger picture.  Quite frankly, it would be dumb to base legislation on something of this magnitude, or lack thereof.  

Digging into the FBI numbers a bit more, another story begins to emerge.  The FBI statistics break down homicides by weapon.  I'm happy to report strangulations are trending seriously downward, whereas murder using explosives is showing growth, although not quite, um, explosive growth.  Firearms numbers are further broken down by type: handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.  There's also a category of 'Firearms, type not stated', which I find problematic, considering it's over a quarter of the total.  Looking at unmanipulated numbers, in 2019, handguns represented 62% of the 10,258 firearms related homicides, but were trending downward from 68% in 2013.  Rifles were only 4%.  Back to the not specified bucket, I think it would be cherry picking to not divvy that up a bit (although the Daily Caller had no issue doing so), knowing how much AR-15's have proliferated recently.  I went with 20% for rifles, which caused them to jump to 10% of firearm homicides in 2019, or 1,020 fatalities.  Taking supposition a step further, we'll err on the high side and say military style rifles account for 60% of that.  Wrapping a bow on the stats, military style rifles only accounted for 6% of firearms related homicides in 2019.  This is the first time when you ask yourself what impact banning such rifles would have on overall gun violence.

Moving on to fallacies, there are two I'd like to cover.  First is the assertion that it's easier to get a gun now than ever and that guns are flooding the streets.  This is complete horseshit.  First, all fifty states now mandate some sort of background check (either with the state or the federal NICS system) to purchase a handgun, regardless of where it's bought.  That hasn't always been the case, with some states only recently enacting the requirement.  As far as guns flooding the streets, I've heard those same words since the 90's; the same dog whistle over and over.  Actually, since the beginning of last year, gun sales have been at record highs, driven by the pandemic, then the civil unrest, followed by a Democrat being elected president.  This does concern me because of how many gun buyers during this period are first time buyers, who haven't had proper training available to them, because of the pandemic.  The impact from either accidental or intentional discharge of guns will increase in the near term; you can count on that.  

That brings us to the so-called gun show loophole.  Essentially, this is an instance where one party buys a gun privately from another individual, without a background check.  It's supposedly rampant at gun shows, but that's horseshit as well.  If you're selling guns at your table, you have to be have an Federal Firearms License (FFL) or you're going to jail.  And a gun show is a pretty public forum to engage in such activities.  Also, see previous explanation about required background checks.  Can you prevent people from taking possession of a firearm without a background check?  Of course not.  A perfect example is a 38 Special I took possession of from my father, recently.  It was his father's gun.  Did my father have a background check when he inherited it?  No.  Did I?  No.  (To the ATF, if you're reading this - before you swoop down and kill my dog, I've undergone 7 fucking FBI NFA background checks in the past 18 months, so you can fuck right the hell off.)

Stay tuned for Part 2

Mother Jones Mass Shooting Database

FBI Data

Always Remember You're Special

 ...just like every other guy who's paying attention to me.  

I recently had an interlude, for lack of a better term, with someone whose identity shall remain a mystery that broke new ground in a number of undesirable ways.  On paper, she was a great fit for me (super smart, submissive, well read, hot), but distance precluded anything substantive from developing between the two of us.  Still, it was nice to interact and exchange ideas.  As she wandered into what something between us would look like, were the distance removed, she became quite effusive with her praise, referring to me as 'divine' and using phrases such as 'meant to be'.  You get the idea.

Of course, I wasn't the only man she was chatting with, which she confirmed.  She also admitted to craving attention from certain types of men.  Your grandmother would have called her 'boy crazy'.  But surely, she wasn't sharing such intense sentiments with other men, right?  There couldn't be multiple divine men out there.  Yeah, not so much.  She admitted espousing the same sentiments to other men.  Her rationale was she used them in a different context than was typical, and telling me of course, there's a back story.   Of course...there's always a back story.

I think you'll agree that a shared language is important for well, everything.  Back story or not, a soldier sitting in an underground silo can't one day decide that saying 'we have authorization to launch the missiles' really means he's going into town for a pastrami on rye.

Needless to say, I severed ties after hearing that little gem.  That was late last week.  I've since happily moved on and reconnected with someone I should have held onto.  But for some reason, I felt compelled this afternoon to revisit the communication I had with the woman who called me divine (she's right, you know).  I feared I was being too harsh toward her.  Nah, should have been more harsh.  

In scanning her notes, I uncovered two instances where her effusive praise was wrapped in an agreement to something I never said.  This woman was copy pasting the exact same material to multiple men!  Let me say it again; she was sending the same messages to multiple guys.  If you've kept up with my blog, you know that I've seen a lot of different 'interesting' behaviors from women.  But here's something brand new for the annals of dating history.