Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 19, 2017, 03:45:45 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
105837 Posts in 2395 Topics by 1093 Members
Latest Member: Cruces
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] Print
Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )  (Read 521857 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1750 on: February 24, 2017, 09:21:45 PM »

 DESIGNATION OF MILITIA RIFLES

By the authority vested in me as President and Commander in Chief of the Militia by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure the ability of citizens of the United States to defend themselves, their communities and their States, as well as to ensure the safety and security of our Nation, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. Both individual and community safety are critically important to the national security of the United States. Terrorism, transnational criminal activity and potential acts of war by foreign nations present a significant threat to national security and our citizens, who have the right and the duty to defend themselves, their communities, their States and the Nation.

Section 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:

(a) Support and defend the Constitution, including the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms for Militia purposes,as well asself-defense.

(b) Encourage citizens to be prepared to act as members of the Militia to defend communities, States and the Nation, as part of the common defense contemplated by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Discourage restrictions by States and political subdivisionson individual possession of firearms suitable for Militia purposes by citizens of the United States.

Section 3. Definitions.

(a) “Militia” has the meaning given the term in Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code to include the Unorganized Militia, as well as the meaning given to the term “Militia” under equivalent State statutes.

(b) “Self-Defense” shall mean the actions of citizens to defend themselves and their families from physical attack.

(c) “Communities” shall mean neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties and other political subdivisions of citizens who live in distinct geographic areas within a State.

(d) “State” shall mean one of the fifty States of the United States.

(e) “Militia Purposes” shall mean training, practice and preparedness which could improve the ability of a citizen to act,and to be armed in case of a need to act, as a member of a local, State or National organization commanded by government officials and responsive to a physical threat. Appropriate organizations include those commanded by an elected county or city Sheriff;those commanded by the Governor of a State through officers of that State’s Defense Force as authorized by Title 30, Section 109 of the United States Code, or through officers of that State’s National Guard;and organizations commanded by the President through officers of the Active or Reserve components of U.S. Armed Forces.

(f) “Militia Rifles” shall mean the firearms designated in Section 4 that are made in America and suitable for use in self-defense, community defense, defense of States and defense of the Nation.

Section 4. Designation of Militia Rifles. That the following firearms and accessories are authorized and appropriate for individual citizens to keep and bear for Militia purposes under the Constitution and the laws of the United States:

(a) The AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles, to include flash suppressors and bayonet lugs, magazines of up to thirty round capacities, M-7 bayonets, and ammunition in 5.56 NATO or .223 Remington, in all quantities.

(b) The M1A and similar semi-automatic rifles, to include flash suppressors and bayonet lugs,magazines of up to twenty round capacities, M-6 bayonets, and ammunition in 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester, in all quantities.

(c) The M1 Garand and similar semi-automatic rifles, to include flash suppressors and bayonet lugs, M-5 bayonets, and ammunition in.30-’06 Springfield, in all quantities.

(d) Bolt action rifles in the calibers of .30-’06 Springfield; 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester; 5.56 NATO or .223 Remington; or any substantially equivalent caliber, and ammunition appropriate for the rifles, in any quantity.

(This list could easily be expanded.)

Section 5. Pre-emption. This Executive Order is intended to pre-empt the laws of States or political subdivisions that infringe upon the rights of citizens to keep and bear the arms designated in Section 4.

Section 6. Judicial Notice. That the judges of all State and Federal Courts are hereby given notice that possession of the designated Militia Rifles and accessories by citizens should not be restricted or infringed upon by State laws or the laws of a political subdivision of a State and any such law should be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard to determine whether it is a violation of the Constitution of the United States after judicial consideration of this Order and the fact that it was issued by the Commander in Chief of the Militia.

Donald J. Trump

THE WHITE HOUSE

March __, 2017

PROPOSED EXECUTIVE ORDER DESIGNATES MILITIA RIFLES FOR CITIZEN OWNERSHIP
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1751 on: February 27, 2017, 09:06:31 AM »

http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=10f1b2be1fbee7acd9ac7bb79&id=f0a795bb19&e=0332f322fa
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1752 on: March 11, 2017, 10:04:04 AM »

3/7/17:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/03/obama-doj-failed-stop-mexican-cartel-murder-ice-agent-smuggled-guns/


10/23/14
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-key-fast-furious-information/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7622


« Reply #1753 on: March 30, 2017, 07:13:46 AM »

My take.  Let this be a lesson to would be burglars:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/alleged-getaway-driver-instructed-slain-teen-burglary-suspects-185005591--abc-news-topstories.html
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 12:36:54 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1754 on: April 20, 2017, 08:26:08 AM »

https://patriotpost.us/alexander/48626

I make an annual donation to this group.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1755 on: April 21, 2017, 12:22:40 AM »

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/costs-consequences-gun-control#full
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1756 on: June 16, 2017, 07:29:04 PM »

http://www.thedailyliberator.com/facts-neither-side-wants-admit-gun-contro/#rJBkvchs2mX8u3RZ.99
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1757 on: July 11, 2017, 08:48:27 AM »



http://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9208


« Reply #1758 on: July 11, 2017, 11:03:21 AM »


If John Lott is right, it is hard to believe a study out of respected institution can be so narrow and biased.  Lott also has a bias; his name is synonymous with more guns less crime.  But his data and studies are wider in scope.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/10/stanford-law-prof-gets-it-wrong-on-guns-right-to-carry-reduces-crime-not-other-way-around.html    John Lott:
"Would you rely almost exclusively on trends in Hawaii to predict violent crime rates in Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Utah?  Would you look at Illinois to predict changes in Louisiana and South Carolina?   Illinois has a drastically difference crime landscape, with half of its violent crime occurring in Chicago.

Though it wouldn’t pass the laugh test for most people, an unpublished report making just these sorts of comparisons has been all the rage in the media.  Lead author John Donohue, a professor at Stanford Law School, makes a claim which goes against existing national research: that right-to-carry laws increase violent crime."
---------------------------

On a related matter, the congressional shooter could have and would have been stopped sooner if not for DC prohibit carry laws.
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/07/congressional-staffer-could-have-stopped-baseball-field-attack/#axzz4mXVEWVlg
"Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/07/congressional-staffer-could-have-stopped-baseball-field-attack/#ixzz4mXW7eA1X
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Rep. Loudermilk said. “If this had happened in Georgia, he wouldn't have gotten too far. I had a staff member who was in his car, maybe 20 yards behind the shooter. Back in Georgia [he] carries a nine millimeter in his car. I carry a weapon. He had a clear shot at him. But here, we're not allowed to carry any weapons here."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1759 on: July 24, 2017, 08:42:17 AM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449754/concealed-carry-permits-increasing-good-america
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1760 on: July 27, 2017, 03:45:35 PM »

http://www.recoilweb.com/california-magazine-ban-stopped-in-its-tracks-128765.html?wc_mid=4035:7935&wc_rid=4035:28484361&_wcsid=3310334D3D21814928E35DA2B24DB22F354971D4291FADA0
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9208


« Reply #1761 on: October 04, 2017, 07:58:41 AM »

Washington Post!  Today.  She worked for Nate Silver's "538".  Not a conservative group!

She makes the case against sweeping gun control laws without even mentioning the defensive role of guns.
----------------------------------------
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

By Leah Libresco October 3 at 3:02 PM
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

After a shooting in Las Vegas left at least 58 people dead and injured hundreds, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Oct. 2 said Congress’s failure to pass gun-control legislation amounts to an “unintentional endorsement” of mass shootings. (U.S. Senate)
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9208


« Reply #1762 on: October 04, 2017, 08:11:18 AM »

From 538, this appears to come out of the same study as the previous post by a former 538 researcher.  Again, strong case made without even mentioning the positive role of guns.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/

Mass Shootings Are A Bad Way To Understand Gun Violence

It’s impossible to say when the first mass shooting in America took place. Plant your shovel in the internet and you’ll find one event described that way, and then another. Deeper and deeper. Back and back. The 13 residents of Camden, New Jersey, killed by a neighbor in 1949. The eight Winfield, Kansas, concertgoers murdered when a man fired into a crowded intersection in 1903. The 60 to 150 African-Americans shot and hanged by a mob of white men in Colfax, Louisiana, in 1873.

There is something distinctly American about this way of death. Mass shootings1 happen in other countries, but they are far more common here. Between 1966 and 2012, there were 90 such incidents in the U.S. The next four countries with the most mass shootings had 54 combined. There is also something distinctly American about how we respond to these events, the way they become tangled up in the national debate about guns — this question of how to reduce deaths attributable to a weapon protected in the founding documents of our land. No other country has that particular challenge. So mass shootings become a symbol of gun violence in general. The deaths of dozens become a window into the death of one, and a separate one, and a different one over there.

This, of course, has already happened with the mass shooting on Sunday in Las Vegas that left at least 58 people dead and hundreds more injured.

ADVERTISEMENT

And this is a problem. What we know about mass shootings suggests that they are different from the everyday deaths that happen at the end of a gun. The weapon is the same. So much else is different. And the distorted image we get by using one as a lens through which to view the other has consequences for our understanding of the problem and the policies that might address it.

Last year, we produced a series of stories on American gun deaths and the people behind the statistics. From that reporting, and other sources, we know mass shootings are different from other kinds of gun deaths in several ways.

First, they’re rare, and the people doing the shooting are different. The majority of gun deaths in America aren’t even homicides, let alone caused by mass shootings. Two-thirds of the more than 33,000 gun deaths that take place in the U.S. every year are suicides (click through the graphic below to see how gun deaths break down):


And while people who commit suicide and people who commit mass shootings both tend to be white and male, suicide victims tend to be older. The median age of a mass shooter, according to one report, is 34, with very few over 50. Suicide, however, plagues the elderly as much as it does the middle-aged.

Second, the people killed in mass shootings are different from the majority of homicides. Most gun murder victims are men between the ages of 15 and 34. Sixty-six percent are black. Women — of any race and any age — are far less likely to be murdered by a gun. Unless that gun is part of a mass shooting. There, 50 percent of the people who die are women. And at least 54 percent of mass shootings involve domestic or family violence — with the perpetrator shooting a current or former partner or a relative.

The historical trends for different kinds of gun deaths don’t all follow the same course. While data suggests that the number of mass shootings similar to the Las Vegas event has gone up, particularly since 2000,2 homicide rates have fallen significantly from their 1980 peak and continued on a generally downward trajectory for most of the 21st century. Meanwhile, suicides are way up, with the biggest increases among women. The trends are different because the situations are different and the people are different. Maybe different solutions are warranted, as well.

You could, theoretically, cut down on all these deaths with a blanket removal of guns from the U.S. entirely — something that is as politically unlikely as it is legally untenable. Barring that, though, policies aimed at reducing gun deaths will likely need to be targeted at the specific people who commit or are victimized by those incidents. And mass shootings just aren’t a good proxy for the diversity of gun violence. Policies that reduce the number of homicides among young black men — such as programs that build trust between community members, police and at-risk youth and offer people a way out of crime — probably won’t have the same effect on suicides among elderly white men. Background checks and laws aimed at preventing a young white man with a history of domestic violence from obtaining a gun and using it in a mass shooting might not prevent a similar shooting by an older white male with no criminal record.

If we focus on mass shootings as a means of understanding how to reduce the number of people killed by guns in this country, we’re likely to implement laws that don’t do what we want them to do — and miss opportunities to make changes that really work. Gun violence isn’t one problem, it’s many. And it probably won’t have a single solution, either.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9208


« Reply #1763 on: October 04, 2017, 10:32:02 AM »

Not to minimize the deaths of 58 perhaps going on a hundred in a crowd of 22,000, but imagine for a moment that the gun control crowd succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, completely unrealistically, and eliminated every gun of every type in America forever.  There are trucks and knives but also weapons available and under development that could kill all 22,000 and more, made from readily available sources.  Same mass murderer possessed ammonia and fertilizer for example.  Neutron bomb, Cuban sonic attack and so many other possibilities if mass destruction is your aim.  Same crowd ironically favors open borders so no matter what is illegal here it will be brought in under their system of non-enforcement.

The killing will end when we identify killers before they kill, and each episode ends when someone shoots the shooter.  In every mass murder we can say that was not soon enough.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1764 on: October 05, 2017, 07:37:48 AM »

Courtesy of Daniel R. Martinez.

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000101851851852% of the population dies from gun related actions each year.

Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang, and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now let's look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths?

All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of a crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).
Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7622


« Reply #1765 on: October 05, 2017, 03:51:45 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/05/vegas-shooter-originally-wanted-attack-chicagos-lollapalooza/

Reminds me of the endless decades of theories about Lee Harvey Oswald having help.  He could not have killed Kennedy alone.  Grassy Knoll etc.....

I predict we will not find any one else .

I predict this will start a whole new cottage industry of books, a movie or so articles and theories. 

AS for why the country crowd.  Maybe just a Willie Sutton,  because that is where the crowd was .
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1766 on: October 06, 2017, 01:47:32 PM »

http://freebeacon.com/issues/d-c-decides-not-to-appeal-decision-striking-down-restrictive-gun-carry-law-provision/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9208


« Reply #1767 on: October 09, 2017, 12:36:13 PM »

I wrote my complaints from the media thread to Fox News Sunday and added this, something everyone here already knows:

If fewer guns is your safety point, look at what escalated gun sales in America more than anything else, the perception that guns will be taken away or not available to buy later.

Obama is the best gun salesman in America
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales/index.html

Gun Sales Have Dropped Since Trump's Election
http://fortune.com/2017/08/04/trump-gun-sales-obama/


Once again and as always, liberalism involves first level thinking.  Nothing would contain gun sales like running our government like the Founders intended, securing the country and enforcing all of our constitutional rights.  Nothing scares people into arming, building fortresses and stocking ammunition like threatening to take our rights away, without a constitutional amendment and without due process.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15344


« Reply #1768 on: October 10, 2017, 10:37:28 AM »


http://ace.mu.nu/archives/liberals%20guide%20to%20the%20ak-47.jpg
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15344


« Reply #1769 on: October 10, 2017, 02:39:31 PM »

http://monsterhunternation.com/2017/09/26/an-opinion-on-suppressors-and-the-hearing-protection-act/

An Opinion on Suppressors and the Hearing Protection Act
September 26, 2017   correia45   

I have not written an article on gun control in a while, but since people have something new that they don’t actually understand to freak out about, it’s time once again to take off my Writer hat and put on my Gun Nut hat.

Today’s topic is suppressors, also known as silencers, which are basically car mufflers but for guns. Some folks are having a giant hyperbolic come apart because Congress is thinking about making suppressors easier for people to own. Note, they are already perfectly legal to own, but the process to get one is convoluted and stupid. This law would just get rid of the convoluted and stupid part.

For full disclosure, my gun related resume is listed at the beginning of this article. http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/23/an-opinion-on-gun-control-repost/ I own a whole bunch of suppressors, I’ve used dozens of different types of suppressors, and I owned a gun store that sold NFA items. Basically I’ve shot more rounds in a single burst than most of the people I’m arguing with have shot in their lives.

So when I see posts like the one copy and pasted below, I know how doctors must feel when some anti-vaxxer is “educating” them about how their healing crystals and essential oils will rebalance their chakras to prevent autism.

The following post is from author Elizabeth Moon, who is an extremely good science fiction writer, but who apparently knows jack shit about guns. Which is kind of sad, since she was a Marine. There is so much wrong with this post that later on I’m going to have to break it down and fisk it line by line, but here it is first in all its magnificence.

##

 

So the House is once again trying to sneak through a bill that deregulates silencers on personal weapons. Yes, they really want us all dead…they really want to make it easier for their right wing goons to shoot us and not be heard doing so. Their excuse is that firearms are noisy and the noise can damage a shooter’s (or their hunting dogs’) hearing.

Uh huh. And can keep people from knowing there’s someone going around shooting people, so they’re easier to shoot, and nobody knows it’s happening. No witnesses, no investigations, no prosecutions. Enabling careless irresponsible hunters (the kind who shoot people “by accident” without being noticed. Enabling assassins and terrorists, who shoot people on purpose for political or personal ends.

Because seriously, people have been hunting with noisy rifles and shotguns a long time and seem to be able to get along quite well by sticking those earplugs or headgear on before they actually shoot. People in this country are not going hungry because they can’t kill enough deer or rabbits or quail or elk to survive. And game is spotted visually more often than heard (migratory waterfowl perhaps excepted.)

No, guys, this is not reasonable. This is stupid and serves only to enrich the firearms industry which is already rich enough to pay a huge amount lobbying you. They’re making a profit already. Let this alone.

 

##

Wow… Okay. There is so much nonsense in there that it is going to take some time to refute it all. This is a perfect example of Brandolini’s Bullshit Asymmetry Principle, in that it takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than to create it.

First off, it’s education time. How do suppressors work and why do we use them? When a cartridge is fired, the gun powder burns extremely rapidly, and this creates pressure which forces the bullet down the barrel. When those hot expanding gasses escape into the atmosphere, it is rather energetic and extremely loud.

If you’ve ever been around a really loud bang, you may have noticed that afterwards your ears ring. I’ve got some bad news for you, that ringing means you’ve permanently damaged your hearing. When that fades you will have lost some measure of hearing, and hearing damage is permanent and cumulative. The more of these loud bangs you are exposed to, the greater the damage. It will never get better. It will only continue to get worse.

I was a firearms instructor for about a decade and spent a lot of time running ranges and teaching people. I was religious about wearing my hearing protection, but if you spend enough time on the range you will be caught unaware eventually and somebody is going to touch something off right after you take your muffs off.

I have tinnitus. Basically, there is literally no sound of silence in my world. For me it is a constant ringing noise that’s about the same pitch as my lawn sprinklers. I also can’t pick up a lot of things in higher ranges, like for many years, my daughters’ voices. If you’ve ever spoken to me in the dealer’s room of a con, you’ll notice that I tend to lean over the table to get close to the speaker. That’s not because I’m being weird, it’s that I can’t understand you, especially in a room with background noise that aggravates the perpetual ringing.

I’m not alone. I’m sure audiologists love old gun nuts because they sell a lot of hearing aids that way.

Guns are loud, but are also incredibly useful. If you want to be proficient with a firearm, you must practice with it. So we put up with the loudness and put things in or over our ears in order to mitigate the damage as much as possible.

However, muffs slip. It is really easy to break the seal of an ear muff when you place your cheek on the stock of a rifle. Boom. Hearing damage. Or that little foam plug in your ear isn’t squished in quite right, or deforms and falls out? Boom. Hearing damage. I used to hate when I came home from a long day teaching a class, and I’d hear that ring that told me that at some point I’d screwed up. Because there’s no going back.

Suppressors were invented to mitigate that danger. You can call them silencers too, that’s fine, but Silencer was a brand name, not a particularly true description. It’s like Xerox or Kleenex. Many of us gun nuts just refer to them as cans, because that’s basically all they are.

I wasn’t joking when I said they work exactly like the muffler on your car. As those expanding gasses from the burning gun powder escape the muzzle, instead of flying outward to bombard those delicate little hairs in your ears, the gasses are trapped in a can screwed onto the end. That’s basically it.

Cans are usually filled with something that increases the interior surface area that gives the sound waves more things to bounce off of. In the olden days we used things like rubber gaskets, steel wool, grease, and all sorts of other stuff. Nowadays since good precision machine tools are common and cheap, most of them use metal baffles. The hardest part about building a can to last is dealing with the temperature. That energy which would normally escape as noise gets trapped as heat. Cans get hot fast.

So if you screw a suppressor onto the end of your gun, usually it isn’t going to make it silent. Not even close. The actual noise reduction is going to vary greatly depending on a whole bunch of different factors. The quality and construction of the can is secondary to the power level of the gun. The more powerful the boom, the more can required to contain it. It’s all about the amount of expanding gasses escaping that muzzle.

Also, most bullets are supersonic. Just like a fighter jet, when that bullet breaks the speed of sound it is going to make a sonic boom. Though since bullets are much smaller, it is more of a sonic crack. The baffles in a modern can never actually touch the bullet, so they do nothing about the bullet breaking the sound barrier.

I won’t get into decibel ratings (which are indecipherable gibberish to most folks anyway) but if you slap a suppressor onto a standard rifle, shooting standard ammunition, it is still pretty loud. It is still noticeable by anybody nearby. Everybody is still going to hear the sonic crack of the bullet. Only for the shooter is doesn’t feel like you’re getting hit in the ear canal with a hammer.

Regular pistols with regular ammo aren’t movie gun quiet. Not even close. In the movies the hit man shoots somebody with his 9mm and the people in the next room don’t hear it. Bullshit. A suppressed 115 grain standard 9mm sounds like taking a big ass dictionary and slamming it down as hard as you can flat on a hardwood floor. WHUMP. Bystanders are still going to hear, it’s just not as sharp.

There’s also the mechanical action of the gun working. On a semi-automatic firearm, the action is still going to cycle, and that also makes a pretty distinct noise. Bullet impacts are surprisingly loud, especially when they land close to you.

Can you get a gun movie quiet? Yes. It is possible, however it means using slow, subsonic ammunition that never breaks the sound barrier, a high quality can, on a manually operated firearm like a bolt action. The easiest way to do it is with a weak little .22, though there are bigger specialty subsonic calibers (not cheap, but fun), but There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. All of those are going to suck over any kind of distance because slow bullets drop fast, which means you can’t hit crap because you have a trajectory similar to a rainbow.

Basically, cans aren’t magic. All this stuff is just basic physics.

Suppressors are also perfectly legal at the federal level, and legal in most US states right now. The law regulating them dates back to the 1930s (the National Firearms Act) and it doesn’t make a lick of sense. The NFA is like the poster child for silly pointless government inefficiency.

Quick version, in order to purchase a suppressor you need to get it from a special kind of gun dealer (an SOT Title 3 or 7, which I was). Then you fill out some special federal paperwork and pay a special tax ($200) to the BATF. This paperwork (the Form 4) is actually pretty simple, the kind of thing that could be done over a website, or processed by a private company with a couple days turn around, but the BATF takes about a YEAR (not a typo) to cash the check, stamp the paper, and mail it back to you, so that you can take possession of your suppressor.

The last can I bought it took the ATF nine months to approve it, which is actually pretty good. I’ve had them come back in as fast as four months, and as long as eighteen. I’ve got two stamps that I’m waiting for right now.  It’s not like they’re doing a rigorous background check that whole time or anything. That’s all done instantly with a computer database. It is literally just a year of waiting for a government employee to work through the stack, to stamp your paper and put it in their registry. (yet somehow people still thought the government was going to improve healthcare? Go figure)

Basically, these things are already legal, and lots of us already own them. I’ll get back to just how many of us later.

The thing that congress is talking about doing is moving suppressors from the NFA, to treating them like they were regular guns. The NFA is bloated, inefficient, slow, and basically a useless relic requiring 1934 level tech. We have a National Insta Check System already for firearms purchases, so there’s no reason they couldn’t just use it instead. Personally, I think they’re just glorified pipes, so even treating them like a firearm is kind of silly, but it’s an improvement over our current archaic system.

Now let’s break down Elizabeth Moon’s hyperbolic silliness, line by silly line.

So the House is once again trying to sneak through a bill that deregulates silencers on personal weapons. Yes, they really want us all dead…

 

That’s just stupid. If congress wanted us all dead it would be easier to just put the democrats from Flint in charge of our water supply. 

 

they really want to make it easier for their right wing goons to shoot us and not be heard doing so.

 

That’s right. Congress wants roving bands of redneck ninja death squads, silent but deadly, offing delicate Bambi-like progressives who were just standing on the corner minding their own business.

It was that stupid line which caused me to write this blog post. I like Moon’s books, but that line took the gold in the thousand meter moron.

 

 

Their excuse is that firearms are noisy and the noise can damage a shooter’s (or their hunting dogs’) hearing.

 

Nope. That’s perfectly true. Already detailed above. A single gun shot will cause hearing damage, and all hearing damage is permanent and cumulative. I mentioned how suppressors are already legal here, but they are considered normal safety equipment in some European countries, and it is considered rude to shoot at a range without one.

That is my excuse. I’ve shot a lot, but I’ve never even joined a single right wing murder squad… I must be doing this wrong.

Plus, deaf dogs? That’s just sad. I didn’t even think of that. Poor things. HPA now! Won’t someone think of the puppies?

 

Uh huh.

 

Yeah huh.

 

And can keep people from knowing there’s someone going around shooting people, so they’re easier to shoot, and nobody knows it’s happening.

 

Sure, if you’re dealing with TV assassins using action movie physics. Those Redneck Ninja Death Squads are elite operators.

 

No witnesses, no investigations, no prosecutions.

 

“What do we have here, Sergeant?”

“Well, Detective, we’ve got a body with multiple gunshot wounds, there’s shell casings over there, we’ve got eye witnesses, security camera footage from the surrounding buildings, cell phone footage from the bystanders, and a bunch of other pieces of forensic evidence… But nobody actually HEARD the gunshots due to the whopping 28 decibels of reduction. So we’ve got no case.”

“Okay, cool. I’m just going to call it a day. Praise Trump.”

“Praise Trump.”

 

Enabling careless irresponsible hunters (the kind who shoot people “by accident” without being noticed.

 

Following that logic we should take the mufflers off of cars so that drunk drivers don’t get away.

Plus, I like how she puts by accident in quotes, because you know how it is out here in red state flyover country, with us constantly getting away with outlandish murders and nobody ever notices. All I have to do is tell my local sheriff, “aw shucks, I totally thought he was a cow” and we all have a good laugh.

 

Enabling assassins and terrorists, who shoot people on purpose for political or personal ends.

 

Yes. Because even though there are millions of suppressors already in circulation, and anybody with some basic mechanical knowledge can improvise one, a professional hit man never would have thought of using a suppressed weapon before now. Sure, we’ve got drug cartels who manufactured their own submarines, but that $200 tax is just too hefty. And I can just imagine all those terrorists who’ve been thwarted by the NFA. “Oh no! I have not done the proper tax paperwork on my silencer! Abort the mission!” They must be from those same terrorist groups who obey Gun Free Zone signs.

 

Because seriously, people have been hunting with noisy rifles and shotguns a long time and seem to be able to get along quite well by sticking those earplugs or headgear on before they actually shoot.

 

This is stupid because it makes a few shockingly ignorant assumptions. Hunters don’t walk around wearing plugs, because they are annoying, and make it hard to hear what’s going on around you. Even electronic amplification muffs start to suck pretty fast when you’re doing anything other than actively shooting (and your ears get hot). So most hunters don’t wear earpro while hunting. When they see a deer, they don’t suddenly stop and pull out their plugs. Like hang on a minute Bambi, I’ll be right with you. Hell no. They take the fucking shot.

And once again, boom. Permanent and cumulative hearing damage.

 

People in this country are not going hungry because they can’t kill enough deer or rabbits or quail or elk to survive.

 

What a derpy straw man. I’m deaf, not hungry.

 

And game is spotted visually more often than heard (migratory waterfowl perhaps excepted.)

 

Moon has obviously never been hunting. And if I’m wrong and she has, I’m guessing she was remarkably bad at it.

What a stupid thought. Like the ONLY possible thing a hunter would need his hearing for is spotting animals, and not all of that normal hearing stuff we use our ears for every single day, like hearing somebody calling for help, or somebody shouting a warning about that bear that’s about to eat you, or the most likely danger, that dumb ass mountain biker flying down a trail about to run into you. Or shit, Elizabeth, maybe I just want to listen to the birds sing or the wind whistle through the trees and that’s none of your fucking business.

 

No, guys, this is not reasonable.

 

Nope. It’s perfectly reasonable. I can’t help it if you are emotional and terribly ignorant about the topic. (Originally I was going to be polite, but when she got to the part about right wing death squads murdering with impunity, I said fuck it, let’s go)

 

This is stupid and serves only to enrich the firearms industry which is already rich enough to pay a huge amount lobbying you. They’re making a profit already.

 

I’ve talked about the myth of the ultra-powerful gun lobby on here before, but it’s crap. The gun industry lobby is comparatively tiny. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is nothing compared to any of the big industry or union lobbying machines. The NRA is big, but its dues are paid by regular people. Regular people like not being deaf.

The part about enriching the firearms industry is exactly ass backwards. Last year suppressor sales were up big time. Then this year when congress started talking about the Hearing Protection Act, suppressor sales cratered. Why? Because all of their customers thought if that there might be a chance they could buy the same thing without paying an additional tax and waiting a year, why buy now? So they crossed their fingers and waited.

Customers want cans, but they hate the NFA so much, that if there is any chance they don’t have to get a government proctologic exam, they’ll hold off. So until the HPA passes/fails, it’s actually hurting the industry.

I know of a couple different suppressor manufacturers who have had to lay off workers since rumors about the HPA started up. Some of the layoffs have been huge. They need congress to either act or not, because right now the wait is killing their business.

Also, if it passes, if you remove the NFA requirements then it becomes a whole lot easier for more manufacturers to get into the suppressor business. Which would increase the existing manufacturers’ competition. Right it requires an SOT7 to make a can, which is another specialized hoop to jump through. So I don’t know what the hell she thinks they’re lobbying for, starving their business, until they can add more suppliers to compete against? Brilliant.

 

Let this alone.

 

Make us.

You’re talking about bullshit like right wing death squads murdering people with impunity right now, but your side keeps getting this stuff embarrassingly wrong. You were wrong about “assault weapons”. You guys ranted about Uzis in the streets, yet the ban went away and nothing changed. You were wrong about concealed carry. You predicted wild west shoot outs over every parking space, but now its super common in most states and we’re fine. You’ve been wrong about gun free zones. They’re shit and killers love them. You’ve been wrong about every fucking thing. But you guys keep on lecturing us, aggressively certain that this time your doom and gloom will come true.

But it won’t, because it’s stupid.

Let me break down why moving suppressors from the NFA won’t result in a sudden upswing of right wing death squads creeping through your windows at night in their confederate flag ninja pajamas and MAGA hats.

We already have lots and lots of silencers.

number_of_nfa_firearms_processed_by_fy

That’s not all guns. That’s just NFA items. Regular firearms transfers are way, way bigger. Here are the stats from the BATF. https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/data-statistics

NFA items include legal machine guns (yes, those exist too!), short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors. I couldn’t tell you how many of that are of each kind, but based upon my own time selling this stuff, suppressors are a big honking chunk.

There were 2.5 million NFA transfers last year alone. A ton of those were for suppressors. We’ve been making these things forever, and good ones don’t really wear out. But no right wing death squads have been murdering with impunity. Go figure. These right wing death squads must be constrained by something other than a supply of suppressors, oh, like maybe THEY ARE FUCKING IMAGINARY.

I could write a post in favor of a border wall because it would keep out the Loch Ness Monster and it would be about as realistic as Moon’s post. Because fuck you, Nessie. I’ve got my eye on you.

But wait, there’s more. Let’s suppose that our country has fractured to the point that we now have roving Redneck Kill Teams picking off caring liberals (why? Maybe they’re mad liberals made it so their poor hunting dogs are all deaf). So we’ve got this massive break down of law and order to the point murder is unremarkable, who gives a shit about the NFA? What’s to keep Bubba from going to Home Depot and putting together a functional suppressor out of some pipe and tubing? Hell, we can make these things out of oil filters. It ain’t rocket science.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, all those millions of transfers weren’t conducted by elite TV hit men, they were purchased by regular guys like me who are trying to protect what hearing we have left.

Excuse me, your highness, but if it pleases the crown, I would like to have the ability to teach my children to use firearms safely, in such a manner that they don’t end up hearing perpetual lawn sprinkler noises for the rest of their lives.

People like me, who have a clue about this topic, think it is dumb that sticking a pipe on the end of a gun is a felony. People like Moon are worried that if people were free to put pipes on the end of their guns, it will somehow lead to roving death squads and a complete breakdown of law and order. But they said the same thing about CCW and the AWB, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Suppressors are great, but they’re basically just another tool, and they’ve got their pros and cons like any other tool. I would encourage anybody who isn’t familiar with them to find their local range that offers NFA rentals, and try one out. Trust me, it’ll be a whole lot more educational than watching hit men on TV.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15344


« Reply #1770 on: October 15, 2017, 01:45:32 PM »



https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2017/10/Schinlders-List.jpeg
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1771 on: November 06, 2017, 11:12:59 AM »

http://nypost.com/2017/11/06/sharpshooting-plumber-fired-shot-that-took-down-texas-church-gunman/?utm_campaign=iosapp&utm_source=facebook_app
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1772 on: November 06, 2017, 09:53:28 PM »

http://www.4029tv.com/article/man-who-shot-texas-church-gunman-shares-his-story/13437943

https://pjmedia.com/video/hero-johnnie-langendorff-describes-going-95-mph-catch-sutherland-springs-shooter/
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 09:58:46 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15344


« Reply #1773 on: November 07, 2017, 12:30:54 PM »

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41590


« Reply #1774 on: November 16, 2017, 06:46:05 AM »

These folks are in the US1

http://www.chron.com/news/us-world/border-mexico/article/New-report-shows-how-Mexican-cartels-are-12320888.php
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!