GUNS ( Part 6: Defund the Police and Defend Yourself )

Mixed Messages in the Era of Gun Control

But let’s take this one step further.  We have established that the cops have a 6.5% hit rate in armed encounters.  If we are seeking to defund the police and effectively reduce their presence, one can logically assume that crime will increase. Nature abhors a vacuum.  Without law enforcement, the citizenry will have to rely on themselves for security.  And nobody drives that point home better than a democrat administration in the White House, whose anti-police and anti-gun rhetoric has driven gun sales through the roof.  Ironically fueled by government stimulus checks, the FBI broke its record for background checks for gun sales, and concealed carry permits in March. According to Forbes, “background checks for gun purchases and other firearms related actions totaled 15.96 million in the first four months of 2021”. And since the start of the pandemic “more than 8.4 million Americans have purchased guns for the first time”.  Gun manufacturer Sturm Ruger reported a “50% spike in quarterly sales and more than doubled its profit.” So Mr. Biden, America is listening and responding appropriately to secure their safety.   So here’s the dilemma: if more Americans are forced to rely on firearms for there own security while the government reduces our police presence, how does that mesh with the government simultaneously seeking to restrict the citizen’s access to a firearm? And here’s where the statistics become very inconvenient.  If law enforcement, trained professionals are scoring only a 6.5% hit rate on assailants, how exactly will the relatively untrained citizen score in a similar situation? The Biden Administration seeks to impose a ban on “assault weapons”, an ill-defined construct that lumps the AR-15 sporting rifle into that category, a rifle that accounted for 61% of all civilian rifle sales in 2016 according to CNN. There are more than 15 million AR-15 rifles in the hands of American citizens today. So how is such a popular firearm that even CNN states was “designed for close, confusing combat”, an apt description for say, a home invasion, deemed unfit for civilian use? Without launching into that argument, we all know why. It has been the weapon of choice in certain high profile mass shootings and serves as the most effective poster child for the narrative of not allowing a “military style weapon designed to kill people “ in the hands of the public.  It’s modular, it’s ugly, it looks evil, it’s black and that’s probably racist. It also serves as the “camel’s nose under the tent”, the observation that in other countries that have instituted all-encompassing gun bans, they started by demonizing one type of firearm, banning it in the name of public safety, only to incrementally expand their definition of what is “allowed” until they were all eliminated.  And the party of science is choosing to ignore the data.  The Clinton era assault weapon ban, misleadingly titled The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a 10-year prohibition on the manufacture of certain semi-automatic firearms, ill-defined as “assault weapons”, as well as large capacity magazines greater than 10 rounds.  Despite notorious ant-gun Senator Diane Feinstein crowing that the 1994 ban was “effective at reducing crime”, the data is clear that the legislation resulted in no statistical change in criminal activity, or firearm homicides. In actuality, the homicide rate with firearms was less in the three years preceding the ban. Christopher Koper, a professor at George Mason University concluded “the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect”.  Of course, good liberal that he is, he suggested, “it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period”.  May have.  Possibly. Just give it time.  Uh-huh.  But back to the premise at hand:  The government, who we have established is forcing us to fend for ourselves, is intent on eliminating the most popular rifle in America, popular due to it’s ease of use, customizable features, effective caliber, handling, manageable recoil and magazine capacity?  Which gun do the pros use, you know when the SWAT team shows up to clear the building?  I want that one. Why do I want a Kitchen-Aid mixer in my kitchen?  Because that’s the one the Cake Boss uses.  And yet, the government expects the citizen to be restricted in his choice of equipment, restricted in the number of rounds in his magazine and yet still have the skill to stop the threat, even when our professionals, armed with the best equipment, training and unlimited magazine capacity have shown that they only score a hit on their intended target 6.5% of the time.  So we are expected to perform better than the professionals, with less training and less rounds in the magazine.  You have to be kidding.  And the ten round magazine restriction, law already in most blue states, is creeping its way through Congress as we speak.  Going back to Sheriff Ken Campbell: “If armed with a firearm containing 16 rounds (15 round magazine plus one in the chamber)” statistically  “12-13 rounds will may miss the target entirely.  Of the 3-4 rounds that [score hits on] the attacker, none may be effective in immediately stopping the attack. If restricted to a 10-round magazine it’s likely that all 10 rounds may miss the target and the citizen will be “unable to stop the attack”.  Comments by liberal author Stephen King who said in 2013 “If you can’t kill a home invader with ten shots, then you need to go back to your local shooting range”, are totally out of touch with the reality of armed engagement.  But Sheriff Campbell astutely points out, “it’s not about hunting”.  Andy Cuomo infamously bellowed in his grating downstate accent: “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer”, while promoting banning magazines greater than 10 rounds for New York State’s preposterous SAFE Act.  Similarly Joe Biden latched on to the ridiculously unrelated hunting theme with this patronizing nonsense: “talk to responsible gun owners-they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having hundreds of rounds in a weapon.  What do you think the deer are wearing, Kevlar vests?”  No, Joe I don’t. But it’s unlikely that deer are going to break into my house. Besides, dummy, most high-powered rifle rounds will penetrate Kevlar…… providing you are able to hit it. Of course, the preposterous notion behind this whole magazine restriction nonsense is the assumption that the attacker, specifically those engaged in a mass shooting incident, can be stopped when they pause to reload. More hooey. Not only is it unlikely that the criminal will choose to adhere to your magazine restrictions, but Sheriff Boone showed in a live fire exercise that, even with a relatively unpracticed shooter, the difference between emptying two 15-round pistol magazines into a target and five 6-round magazines was somewhere on the order of four seconds.  With a seasoned shooter, this was reduced to less than two seconds. He placed a runner 25 feet from the shooter and had them speed towards the shooter when they perceived the shooter was engaged in a reload.  In none of the exercises was the runner able to reach the shooter before the reload was complete. You could argue that a potential hero could be closer or could surprise the shooter from cover, but that would require a lot of luck and a huge set of….intestinal fortitude.  Statistically, experts recommend running for the nearest exit, specifically advising, in order of preference, evacuation, barricade yourself, prepare for attack if cornered, distract the attacker, and lastly swarming the suspect with improvised weapons.  Doesn’t that sound appetizing? Unfortunately, there have been few instances where such a disarming has occurred, most notably the Tucson shooting incident where a 61 year-old woman managed to wrestle a magazine away from the shooter.  But in another high profile supermarket shooting, it appeared that two potential heroes lost their lives in an attempt to disarm the attacker.  It may actually be more dependent on assessing the skill of the attacker. And frankly, the government and the media shouldn’t be promoting this nonsense. Wait until he attempts to reload, then rush the attacker.  Seriously? But none of this would apply to a home invasion where we are right back to the statistics game.  If confronted with an attacker or, worse yet, multiple attackers in your home, with no means of egress, with the likelihood of you scoring less than 6.5% hits on your attacker, how many rounds do you want to have in your magazine?  And you have to assume that if the attacker is armed as well, it is unlikely that he is concerned about adhering to your state’s magazine capacity restriction laws.  Sheriff Campbell summed up his study best; “Proposed magazine bans are absurd.”   

GUNS ( Part 5: Interacting with the Police )

Interacting with the Police

So let’s review:  We’ve established that stressful, violent encounters with a firearm result in a significant degradation in motor skills to the point that the police record a hit rate on the assailants of something on the order of 6.5%.  Abysmal.  And the media, essentially the propaganda arm of the democrat party, supports defunding the police as a solution to the narrative that the police are disproportionately shooting people of color, despite the fact that people of color are disproportionately engaged in a greater percentage of crime, specifically violent crime. So let me get this straight: we have concluded that the police need more training, so the solution is to defund them, so they are stretched thinner and unable to fund more training?  Or perhaps we should take a more pragmatic approach and seek to lessen the number of violent encounters people of color have with police officers.  But that would require a fundamental change in the behavior of the citizen.  Here’s something novel:  how about when stopped by a police officer, you do what you’re told?  Radical thinking, I know. Regardless of the perception that people of color are being disproportionately accosted by law enforcement, it seems to me, and this is based on a review of body cam footage from the recent shootings, that complying with the officer, even if that compliance means getting cuffed and hauled down to the local precinct, results in a much higher rate of survival.  Duh.  And come on, all of us have had negative encounters with law enforcement, most often in the dreaded “speed trap” when the 75 MPH speed limit is suddenly reduced to 45MPH, seemingly for no other apparent reason than to entrap you and line the local coffers. And for some reason, the vast majority of State Police officers all treat you like you’re public enemy number one, their wife left them, their dog died, their shorts are too tight and it’s all your fault.  And besides, they have to wear those funny hats. And despite being a model citizen and being treated like dirt by officer cranky-pants, why haven’t I been shot? Because I complied and followed the officers instructions.  Shocking, I know.  I had a friend who was a senior surgeon, faculty at a large southern teaching hospital.  He was stereotypically, in what would be considered a racist description these days, Mexican in appearance, as if he was the villain in a Clint Eastwood western.  Thick, black, slicked-back hair, an enormous moustache that obscured his upper lip, dark complected and with a heavy accent to go with it.  Amusing, self-effacing, smart and affable. He was pulled over for a speeding violation on his way to work.  When asked for his license and registration, it suddenly occurred to him that the documents were in his glove box, inconveniently nestled next to his .357 revolver.  Uh-oh.  So he informed the officer with a chuckle, of the location of his papers and the legally owned firearm, and asked how he wished to proceed.  After backup arrived on the scene, most of the hospital staff and a few of his residents witnessed him cuffed and sprawled on the hood of his car while officers searched his vehicle. He was late to work, arriving unscathed, with a speeding ticket as a souvenir of his encounter.  Why wasn’t he shot or beaten?  Because he complied with the officer’s instructions.  He suffered some embarrassment, was probably profiled to a degree, but he lived to tell the tale. Life is full of choices.  You have the option of being a good citizen, of following the law.  The other option will result in an increased possibility of encounters with law enforcement.  So which should we, as a society chose? Law and order? Or the dismantling of our security to favor those that choose to ignore the rule of law? Not to go all Vulcan on you but “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

GUNS ( Part 4: Marksmanship: The Reality of Shooting Under Stress )

Marksmanship: The Reality of Shooting Under Stress

And returning to the subject of marksmanship:  As we have already examined, stress and fine motor skills do not generally go hand in hand.  Using the recommendations of the Joys, Ms. Reid and Ms. Behar, pinpoint accuracy like “shoot them in the leg” or “in the behind” would be an exceptional feat in the midst of a stressful encounter.  Like trying to thread a needle after sprinting up a flight of stairs, successfully achieving pinpoint shot placement on what is likely a moving target would not only be impossible, but would probably fail to stop the attack in progress.  Center of mass training is in place to both stop the attack and increase the probability of successful hits on the target.  Recall a few short decades ago, cops were carrying 6-shot .38 caliber revolvers, eventually graduating to the higher capacity 9mm semi-automatic pistols, both relatively anemic rounds as compared to the .40, 10mm and .45 pistols found in the holsters of law-enforcement officers today.   And modern ballistics have improved as well, making the 9mm of today a more powerful round than it was back then.  But there were numerous documented encounters with assailants of sufficient body mass, fueled by adrenalin and drugs, that failed to stop the attacker even after they had sustained multiple hits.  This lead to a reassessment of ballistics and training, resulting in higher-powered cartridges, larger magazine capacity and the tendency, based on real life encounters, to continue firing until the assailant is subdued or your magazine is empty.  And how accurate are our police officers in these encounters?  Unfortunately, the answer is: not very.  Boone County, Indiana Sheriff Ken Campbell produced a series of videos detailing the statistics of armed encounters as well as examining the media-fueled notion that banning high capacity magazines is in the interest of public safety. He makes the salient point that “civilians defending themselves from a violent attack are under conditions similar to those encountered by police officers”.  “Most US Law Enforcement agencies”, he states, “shifted to firearms with larger capacity magazines for two reasons: 1. Because 75-80% of round fired by police officers in lethal force encounters miss the intended target, and 2. Many rounds that do hit the target fail to achieve immediate incapacitation (i.e. the threat continues)”.  Well, that’s not very good.  He continues with more sobering statistics: “NYPD officers fired 368 rounds in 2010 to stop 24 attackers  (a 6.5% hit rate)”, despite the fact that “in 27% of the encounters, only one round was fired.” This leads one to suspect that in some instances, the situation deteriorates significantly into chaos.  In a foreshadowing of the Breonna Taylor shooting, he outlines one incident inside an apartment in which “four officers fired a total of 21 rounds, and struck the subject three times (14% hit/86% miss).  In yet another encounter, four officers fired 46 rounds, hitting one subject four times and the other 21 times (and three bystanders and one police officer one time each).  Some years ago in Providence, RI, State Police officers had the misfortune of pulling over a vehicle driven by an armed parole violator, who leapt out of his vehicle and opened fire with a six-shot revolver.  The two police officers responded in kind with their high capacity semi-automatic pistols.  When the smoke cleared, the assailant had scored three hits on the officers, a 50% hit rate, whereas the police officers managed to spray their 30 rounds all over the neighborhood scoring no hits at all.  Embarrassing to say the least.  But it details the fact that these trained professionals suffer a significant degradation in skills when faced with high stress encounters, encounters that are life threatening. And why wouldn’t they?  They are understaffed, underfunded, and not adequately trained for these encounters, encounters in which they may find themselves, surprised, outgunned, on unfamiliar ground, and now restricted by the court of public opinion. My State Police source, for example, was recently tasked with a routine serving of a warrant that degenerated into a home search that resulted in the perpetrator emerging from his hiding place to attack the officer with a kitchen knife.  Split second.  What do you do? After a few moments of flailing more akin to the 3 Stooges than CSI, his partner shot the perpetrator.  Center of mass.  One shot. Stopped the attack.  The perp, a person of color, survived the encounter, which is likely why you haven’t heard about it, nor have you seen a city burn.  All in a day’s work.  So progressive left pundits, listen up.  Go head, defund the police, thin their ranks, lessen their training and expect perfection.  Perfect decision making, perfect interactions, perfect marksmanship. Or better yet, form your citizen police forces, your neighborhood militias.  And these lesser-trained weekend warriors are going to be armed with what exactly? See how that works out for you. Who you gonna call?

 

GUNS ( Part 3: Shooting Incidents and Training )

Shooting Incidents and Training 

For those of you that have seen the body-cam footage, it is remarkable how quickly these incidents escalate from routine to life threatening.  Rarely is there opportunity for de-escalation when what starts as a professional interface with the public degrades into brawling and grappling for a firearm.  Often the officer has been struck, or his weapon has been compromised.  He is undoubtedly angry.  His authority has been tested; his well-being is in danger.  He may be injured.  He is caught between the desire to be safe and the requirement to do his duty. The adrenalin is flowing and the fight-or-flight response is in high gear.  You’re essentially on autopilot where we become victims of our own physiology: blood is shunted from places where you don’t need it to places where you do.  Your blood is diverted from your GI tract to your skeletal muscles and you often off-load waste you don’t need, thus the effect of peeing yourself…. or worse. All the better to take flight.  Your heart rate increases as blood is pumped to your muscles and your airway dilates to allow you to take in more air, oxygen to fuel your engine. You sweat to cool your muscles, your hands shake from the epinephrine surge.  Your pupils constrict, you get tunnel vision, better to see distance and focus on your escape.  Your brain’s higher function isn’t required, only the instinctual desire to escape or fight.  At this point the situation has deteriorated to something primal.  

Training can mitigate much of this fight or flight response and, of course, the best response is not to get into this level of confrontation to start with.  But that would involve either a level of social working skills that officers may not possess, skills that may expose them to a greater potential for injury should the efforts fail, or the option of not showing up to the confrontation at all. And when the interaction deteriorates into combat, how much training do officers actually receive in high stress confrontations?  In speaking with a State Police officer, the answer is: not much.  Officers are required to qualify with their sidearm at the range to meet minimal standards of marksmanship.  But slow-fire marksmanship is altogether a different skill than shooting under stress. In recent years practical shooting has become very popular in the civilian sector with competitions and courses available to the gun owner. IPDA (International Defensive Pistol Association) in particular, offers shooters the opportunity to run courses that present the participant with scenarios that require quick decision making, marksmanship and using cover while being timed, perhaps the best simulation of real life shooting situations this side of actually taking fire.  The Police apparently have no such program in place.  They are often required to practice on their own, purchasing their own ammunition.  And as many of you might know, finding ammunition these days is a feat in itself.  Ammunition stores have been depleted by a run on ammunition as the Biden Administration introduces more anti-gun legislation and news of rioting and lawlessness dominates the airwaves.  Common handgun ammunition is virtually impossible to find and, when it is available, can command prices as high as a dollar a round, up from Trump era prices in the range of 16 to 20 cents a round for 9mm, for example.  The situation has become so bleak that many defensive pistol courses, offered by firearms training schools like the SIG Academy or Gunsite for instance, have had to cancel their classes and students have had to drop out when they are unable to find or afford the 2500 rounds required for enrollment.  Even professional shooters who compete internationally in IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation), a more technical precision shooting competition, have had to limit their practice time and reduce their appearances at competitions when they routinely digest over 20000 rounds a year.  Practice has become either unavailable or unaffordable and alternatives like dry-fire drills, air-soft guns or even using the more affordable and available .22 caliber round does not simulate the recoil, the noise, or the skill of reacquiring your target after each shot that comes with using the real thing.  

GUNS ( Part 1: The Chauvin Trial )

 

The Chauvin Trial: Justice in the Era of Racial Equity and Political Partisanship 

The Chauvin verdict is in and the mob has been appeased.  Wait no, they have just moved on to the next outrage.  Remember, the goal is to convince you that America is systemically racist.  The police are racist.  Voting laws are racist.  The filibuster is racist. Not admitting DC and Puerto Rico into the union is racist.  Healthcare is racist.  The border is racist.  Hell, according to AOC and her band of merry progressives, even climate change is racist.  You’ll have to explain that last one to me. Apparently the left has weaponized racism and is using it to bludgeon conservatives into retreating on every progressive talking point, making a sensible discussion of the issues impossible.  Especially when one side has essentially resorted to name-calling.  And don’t get me wrong, Derek Chauvin is a persona non grata on the right as well.  This cretin opened the door to the narrative that we have to “fundamentally change racist America” and “defund the police” by his callous disregard for the well-being of his fellow man in obvious distress, regardless of Mr. Floyd’s criminal record, drug abuse, and the infamous gun held to the pregnant woman’s belly during a home invasion. No angel was he.  But he didn’t deserve to die in the street and be deprived of due process.  Yet he also doesn’t deserve to be canonized by the left. And while on the subject of due process: Since when in America do we disregard the effect of outside influences placed on a non-sequestered jury?  CNN essentially doxed them all, providing detailed descriptions of their ages, races and professions.  As Glenn Beck pointed out, in a parody of the Dating Game (Google it, kids): he’s a 30 year-old white, chemist, married with two children.  Gee, I wonder if his co-workers in the lab can put that together when Frank is mysteriously out of work for two weeks? And how about the pig blood smeared on the front door of a witness’ home? And the reprehensible and utterly self-serving Maxine Waters inciting the mob to violence should the verdict not be to their liking?  Incredulously, even Biden weighed in and issued a statement.  And how about that mob that assembled outside the courthouse every day? Does anybody have a job anymore?  But here’s what I really gleaned from the trial and all those expert witnesses:  unless a knife was plunged into the victim’s heart, or perhaps there’s a large bullet hole in the forehead, pathologists frequently have absolutely no idea what actually killed the victim.  The most important determining factor on autopsy would appear to be which side is picking up the tab.  And in all that testimony, not one word in the media about the most common side effect of fentanyl: respiratory depression.  Another complication, although rare, is “stiff chest syndrome”, a poorly understood phenomenon that results in muscle contraction and rigidity of the chest wall with the patient being unable to exchange sufficient air resulting in the inability to breathe.  Might that account for Mr. Floyd claiming he couldn’t breathe when he was standing upright, unmolested, restrained only by handcuffs?  Nothing.  Crickets.  Even the judge provided a qualifier as the jury headed to deliberation, chastising the mob, and that includes you Maxine, for seeking to influence the jury.  Such is the state of justice in America. She may claim to be blind, but she sure has become politically correct.  And now we find that a juror seeking his 15 minutes of fame, a sad commentary on our times, lied on his questionnaire and had appeared at a BLM rally that featured Floyd’s family.  But we’ve seen this before.  Recall the jury foreperson in the Roger Stone case who lied about her background, actually being a failed Democrat candidate, and a vehement anti-Trump activist.  But Obama appointed judge Amy Berman Jackson let that one slide, and Stone was convicted.  With that precedent, this appeal should be of interest.

Militias and Gun Control

Finally, after seeking to dissolve the NRA for “misappropriation of funds”, NY Attorney General Letitia James has successfully driven the NRA to file for bankruptcy protection.  The gun rights group, originally registered in NY, will flee to Texas where they will incorporate and restructure to exit from what it described as “a corrupt political and regulatory environment”.  President-elect Joe Biden has also signaled that he intends to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, that effectively shields gun manufacturers and dealers from being held responsible when their products are misused in a crime, or results in injury, much as any manufacturer of consumer products is protected.  This of course would open the door to frivolous class action lawsuits that will attempt to drive the firearms industry out of business. Simultaneously, and not without coincidence, we are seeing a coordinated attack develop on the Second Amendment where the FBI, having distinguished themselves as partisan manipulators of evidence under James Comey, is seeking to link the Capitol riot to white supremacists and neo-Nazis,who in turn are members of organized militias.  Thus by the transitive property of partisanship: if you were at the protest, then you are an insurrectionist, which makes you a white supremacist, which links you to militias…….who have guns. That makes you a threat to democracy, which means you have to be disarmed.  Kiss the Second Amendment good-bye.  Game over.  Isn’t this the first step in the tyrannical playbook: Disarm the people?  It was the first thing that both Hitler and Stalin did when they came to power, and look how well it worked for them.  Even Bill Maher, hardly a moderate, warned not to equate 5000 protesters with the 75 million people who voted for Donald Trump.  And in another astonishing example of being mathematically impaired, NPR ran a scathing piece declaring far right extremist groups such as The Three Percenters, The Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and the Texas Freedom Force had members in the crowd who were urging protesters to organize and were seen in videos “giving directions by voice” and flashing hand signals associated with white supremacy”.  One such organizer was seen “wearing a black short-sleeved t-shirt with yellow, consistent with the Proud Boys logo, the FBI said”.  Better purge your wardrobe of those black and yellow t-shirts.  And the truly frightening fact is the shear number of participants from these highly organized extremist groups: “at least eight”.  That’s right, eight. And this coming after untold hours of detective work, facial recognition scanning and Internet research by our highly trained government employees.   Of course, this nugget comes after the Washington Post declared last week that, after their exhaustive research efforts, they discovered a whole half-dozen white supremacists and Neo-Nazis in the crowd.  That would be six.  I’m not sure whether I should be more embarrassed by the laughable participation of these fearsome white supremacist militias, or the media’s apparent ignorance of the significance of single digits.

 

So absurd as it may be, I get the distinct impression that we are witnessing a coordinated effort, not by these white supremacist organizations spewing vitriol on the internet and posing for selfies in their camouflage coordinates, but by our own government, which is incrementally seeking to gut the Constitution and strip us of our rights.  Chuck Schumer has proposed putting the protesters on the “no fly” list”.  Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, has had his line of pillows and bedding yanked from the shelves of Bed, Bath & Beyond, Amazon and Wayfair for expressing support for Trump and questioning the election results.  Senator Hawley had his book deal canceled by Simon & Shusterafter he raised objections to Electoral College Results (something the Democrats have done every time, incidentally).  Tucker Carlson pointed out that Representative Steven Cohen from Tennessee questioned the integrity of the National Guard, tasked with protecting the Capitol, based on their racial makeup being overwhelmingly white and male, making them “more conservative”.  Nancy Pelosi has referred to the rioters as “domestic terrorists” a tag parroted by Joe Biden.  Elizabeth Neumann, a former member of the Department of Homeland Security in an interview with NPR stated: “We have to go after the people doing the incitement….with the same intensity that we did with Al Qaeda”.  The same article goes on to criticize the fact that “the threat of Islamic radicalism commands a far greater share of government resources” with Heidi Beirich of the leftist Southern Policy Law Center calling the disparity “a sign of the great hypocrisy”.  Hypocrisy.  Really.  After months of “peaceful protests” in the name of racial equality, largely ignored by our elected officials and praised by the media, protests that burned and looted our cities, resulted in police officers injured and property destroyed, we are choosing to label this protest an “insurrection” with comparisons in the media ranging from Pearl Harbor to the Holocaust and now Al Qaeda?  This is insanity.  Have we finally reached the tipping point?  With immigrant asylum seekers queued up at our border and more caravans on the way, with DC poised to become a state, with an attack on fossil fuel, amidst a raging pandemic, with Big Tech yielding greater power over public discourse, with our election integrity in disarray, and with 75 million Americans labeled domestic terrorists and under assault by our cancel culture, can we possibly save our Republic from crumbling, or has Obama’s wish finally come true: to fundamentally change America?

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Judging by your response to my Sandy Hook Blogs, you out there in the Bloggosphere are both incensed and confused! Let me give those of you, less firearm's oriented, a crash course in munitions. Not that I'm an expert mind you, but had grown up with hunters and practiced marksmen, and am one myself. And of course entwined in my familiar anti-current administration, anti-liberal, anti politically correct, anti-socialism rhetoric

With Obama following Rahm Emanuel’s rule of never letting a “serious crisis go to waste” he has announced that he will use “all the power of his office” to institute laws to prevent the Newtown horror from ever happening again.  Cue the anti-gun opportunists.  Less than four days after the tragedy we have had Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Shumer, Carolyn McCarthy, Andrew Cuomo, Mayor Bloomberg and a cast of thousands of mindless politicians, talking head newscasters, and assorted second amendment bashers lining up for their turn at proposing completely preposterous, ineffectual, ridiculous “solutions” to keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally deficient.  Bravo.  If I hear one more of these sheep refer to an “assault weapon” as a “machine gun”, use “clip” instead of  “magazine”, “automatic” in place of “semi-automatic” or start ranting on about such nonsense as “cop killer bullets”, “microstamping”, or the necessity of “allowing” the public to possess “military style” firearms, my head is going to explode.  So many sheep and so little time.  Where do I start?  

Let’s start with the most preposterous:  a rifle is a rifle, boys and girls.  Whether it is painted black, has a flash hider, a bayonet lug, a collapsable stock, a picatinny rail, a laser site, a magazine forward of the pistol style grip, it’s all lipstick on a pig.  All these politicians have their knickers in a twist over esthetics without a consideration to statistics. I am yet to hear that a 7-Eleven was effectively knocked over because the assailant’s rifle had a bayonet lug and a flash hider.  Fact of the matter is: rifles are used in only 2.78% of all murders.  And that’s all rifles, with so- called assault weapons an even smaller percentage of that (the FBI does not make a distinction, but makes note of their rarity).  More people are murdered by knives (13.21%) and just hands and feet (6.6%), yet I haven’t seen a call by our astute leaders to ban cutlery or human extremities. Rifles are just too cumbersome, the barrels are too long, they are difficult to conceal, and there are far more effective options if your intent is murderous mayhem.  

So what’s the big deal with “assault weapons”?  They make for good press, that’s what.  They are lethally attractive, threatening in appearance, conjuring up images of SWAT teams, drug cartels and military action.  They are prominently featured in video games where their picatinny rails support all sorts of flashlights, laser sites, holographic sites, scopes and assorted bling to add to their lethal appearance.  But under all that hardware is a good old-fashioned semi-automatic rifle.  Pull the trigger, it fires one shot.  No bursts, no continuous fire.  One shot.  It is not a machine gun, stupid. Granted, the magazine can make the difference here.  With many states having existing magazine restrictions, especially in the red states, the big 30 round banana shaped mags are more of a rarity, and even 20 rounders are scarce for purchase in the northeast.  But there is still a boatload of them out there, readily available to the criminal element.  10 rounds is more the norm on new purchases, consistent with many handguns, but anyone reasonably proficient can change out a magazine in less than 2 seconds.  Kinda like Bloomberg’s ban on Big Gulps…..just buy two 16 ounce cups and voila!, you have high capacity.  Duh. Unfortunately, assault rifles also appear to be the weapon of choice for deranged rampage style killers.  Probably because these nitwits all have the same thing in common:  they are gamers, learning their trade at the controls of a Playstation or an X-Box.  They seek drama, and what’s cooler than an assault weapon? Hollywood showed them that.  They want to kill as many people as possible and a big old magazine or better yet a bunch of magazines will do the trick.  They always pick soft targets, you know the ones where you’re least likely to encounter resistance and find the largest number of unsuspecting victims.  Like those “gun free” zones.  And you want to get maximum press, your 15 minutes of fame.  Rack up a large body count and the media will glorify your killing spree all month, maybe even get you a cover on People magazine.  And lastly, as soon as you encounter resistance, off yourself.  It’s almost like there’s some kind of rampage killer handbook.  Oh yeah, there is:  NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, and yes…the entire internet.  Keep it up, right now there’s another disenfranchised nut-case out there taking notes.

And why can’t I have such a rifle? Muzzle loaders were replaced by bolt action rifles firing cartridges.  Bolt actions were replaced by semi-automatics. Even in National Match competition for high power rifles, the venerable action of the M1 Garand (and subsequently the M14: same action with a detachable magazine) has been replaced by the AR style platform.  And why wouldn’t it?  The AR (designation for the designer, Armalite, not the political term “assault rifle”) platform has been around for over 40 years, has become the standard for American military style rifles and has become refined in both function and accuracy.  As the M1 Garand took the place of the bolt action Springfield in match competition, why wouldn’t the AR replace the Garand as the technology creeps into the shooting sports as well?  But why do I need an assault weapon?  Why do I need a Ferrari, a Lamborghini, an Aston Martin, a Corvette, or a Porsche?  If the speed limit is 65 miles per hour, a speed limit established by our government for the purpose of safety, why do I need a vehicle that goes nearly 200 miles per hour?  Certainly that serves no purpose, and is inherently unsafe to both the driver and the public at large.  After all, 40000 people are killed each year in car accidents , making the automobile the most dangerous consumer product in the world.  People should just be restricted to driving a 1932 Ford Victoria.  After all, it is slower, serves the same purpose and is inherently safer.  A Ferrari belongs only in the hands of a professional race car driver, doesn’t it? Well, think of an assault weapon as a Ferrari, a race car.  It is efficient, it is accurate, it is available in a multitude of cartridges, it is safe in the hands of a skilled user, it is lightweight, it has a tolerable recoil and it is versatile for both hunting, especially varmint hunting, and target practice.  Why wouldn’t a sportsman select a weapon that reflects the best that technology has to offer?  And also bear in mind that not all of us are sitting in a Starbucks this morning sipping a latte, reading the New York Times and contemplating whether we should take the Beamer or the Prius to the symphony tonight.  Some of us hunt, some of us target shoot, some of us are shooting skeet, and some of us need to keep the coyote population in check.  A gun is a  tool for sporting purposes as well as a tool tailored to the needs of where we live. 

But what about those high capacity magazines?  Why do you need one of those?  Sportsmen don’t purchase high capacity magazines for the purpose of obliterating game with multiple shots, although some varmints are the exception.  The purpose of most hunting is actually to preserve the condition of the game for consumption.  And if you intend to take a trophy, you lose style points if it is filled with holes. A high capacity magazine is a convenience for the range.  When you go skiing, you don’t necessarily enjoy riding the lift.  When you play golf, you don’t enjoy riding the golf cart to the next tee.  When you play tennis, you don’t enjoy picking up the balls between points.  You actually want to play the sport.  Similarly, when at the range, you want to maximize your time shooting, not reloading your magazine.  To get proficient at your sport, you want to practice the actual sport, not the grunt task of reloading a magazine with a nice tight spring.  Like it or not liberals, PETA members, and democrats:  hunting is a sport and target shooting is a skill, whether you choose to practice it or not.  I personally think golf is ridiculous, but I do not denigrate it because I don’t play, nor to I profess to know anything about the skill required to play it.  So back off about something that you don’t know anything about, and stop pretending to be an expert when it is apparent that you haven’t a clue on the subject. It’s like a vegetarian lecturing me on the evils of eating steak.  Shut up.

And you have to love the cast of simpletons out there picketing in front of the NRA headquarters with such signs, obviously fostered by genius, like : the “NRA is killing our children”.  You can’t be serious.  With Occupy Wall Street closing up shop, you mental midgets have nothing else to do?  Please.  Protesting against the NRA for gun violence is like picketing Triple A for car accidents.  You liberals just love to spout off with your pre-conceived notions about the NRA, the Tea Party, or Fox News without actually knowing anything about them, or worse, basing your opinions on what other liberals have said about them.  The one thing that mass murderers and liberals all have in common is that neither of them is a member of the NRA. It’s like blaming high cholesterol on the dairy lobby or The American Medical Association for malpractice.  They have a subject relationship, but no responsibility for the individual.  One is disconnected from the other, and largely ignorant of the other’s perspective. Now, the NRA tone is admittedly strident in defending the second amendment and promoting the shooting sports. It is well organized and is an effective political force.  But the NRA is also more effective in promoting gun safety than any liberal politician could ever dream of being, taking into account the hundreds of ill-enforced, and phenomenally ineffective gun laws currently on the books.   The NRA is pure and simple the mouthpiece for the law-abiding gun owner.  Do any of you liberals actually think that the NRA promotes gun violence?  When was the last time you heard:  In related news, it was found that the robbers of the First National Bank were all NRA members? Punishing the law-abiding for the actions of the criminal element is completely nonsensical. Like the Tea Party, the NRA  appears to be a cross section of America, mostly males (although the female membership appears to be growing steadily) , majority white, veterans, hunters, and marksmen who enjoy the shooting sports and have a propensity for conservative ideals.  One doesn’t join the NRA for the latest tips on how to knock over a liquor store.  In fact the latest issue of American Rifleman, the official NRA publication, contained two pages of politically oriented editorials, and an analysis of what gun owners can expect from the next four years under Obama rule, but the remainder of the magazine featured an article reviewing a new handgun offering, an historical article on the US Marines, an article on holsters, an article on a hunting cartridge and an article on how to properly fit your shotgun for hunting, as well as scattered reports on training, state associations, firearm identification, values and gun shows.  Hardly seditious stuff.  And if you are seeking training in how to properly use your firearm don’t you go to the firearm experts?  More shooters have been trained by NRA certified instructors than anyone else outside the military, and most likely many military and police officers received training from the NRA. 

So when the NRA stated the obvious in their press conference: that schools should be protected by armed security and that our culture of violence in movies, video games, television, and rap music is contributing to this epic wave of moral turpitude, why did the liberal press go absolutely apoplectic? Because the NRA is an easy scapegoat for the simpletons. NRA membership makes up 1.14% of the US population, and with 300 million firearms in the hands of US citizens it is a good bet that the NRA doesn’t represent anywhere close to the majority of gun “owners”.  It can’t possibly be our fault that we’ve become a godless, entitlement driven, porn watching, morally skewed, violent, bunch of primitives. Witness the Christmas Eve shooting in Webster, New York.  What have we come to? Have you watched television recently?  Tune into the Kardashians for a couple of episodes and ask yourself that question again.  Americans are embarrassing.  And not in the tacky dressing, camera toting way that used to unnerve Parisians.  At least in those days we had gravitas.  We had brawn.  We worked harder than everyone else, we produced more, and we carried a big stick.  We were cowboys.  Now we are an apologizing, sniveling bunch of whiners, pointing fingers at everyone else for our misfortunes and commanding zero respect on the world stage.  And we are being led by a President with an open hatred for our way of life, seeking higher levels of entitlements on the backs of the productive, willing to cede our place in the world to the United Nations with their pitifully corrupt third world despots. And why wouldn’t we want to protect our most precious cargo, our children?  We protect banks with armed guards, we protect our money with armored cars and phalanxes of security personnel and we protect politicians and celebrities with small armies of armed bodyguards.  We walk through metal detectors and get patted down at sporting events, concerts, the airport and in public buildings without protest.  And yet isn’t it laughable that money, celebrity and politicians are, based on their level of security, more important to us than our children, so much so that the media pillories the NRA for suggesting a change in priorities.  Pitiful.

So go ahead, ban assault weapons, ban firearms, ban them all and sentence America to a wave of violence and crime unseen in history.  Sentence an entire generation to joblessness, perpetuated by a government that favors power over the people, that places entitlement over accomplishment, favoring redistribution and Keynesian economics, the same policies that have doomed Europe to mediocrity, only to have us follow as some sort of sad historical footnote.  Make the political class the new aristocracy with their lavish entitlements on the backs of the taxpayer under the guise of leveling the playing field and making us all equal not just in opportunity, but in wealth, regardless of effort or success.  To hell with the Constitution. Let them eat cake. We are a special country, a special people.  We have unique demographics and unique geography.  We are not Europe, nor do we care to be.  It is time to rethink our future, redefine “progress” and restore America to her place in the world with our Constitution as our guide.  A mindless, short sighted excision of the Second Amendment from our Constitution is not the place to start.