fisk – Page 6 – The Smallest Minority

July 20, 2004 KevinLeave a comment

~~Idiocy~~ Fantasy as Policy

The LA Times has a piece up about Brazil’s doomed-to-failure attempt to curb its astronomical homicide rate by – wait for it…

GUN CONTROL!

The LA Times has a registration requirement, but the Tucson Citizen carried the piece. It’s also available in abbreviated form on the Seattle Times site, so I’ve linked to that, but I will include the whole text (as I fisk it) from the Tucson Citizen, including the Citizen’s headlines:

Law’s goal is to disarm gun-heavy Brazilians

By Henry Chu
Los Angeles Times

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil — To live in this city and other urban areas of Brazil is to hear the frequent rat-a-tat-tat of gunfire. As many as 20 million firearms are in circulation in this nation of 180 million people, who suffer from one of the highest rates of gun deaths in the world.

Yet according to the UN Small Arms Survey 2003 there are an estimated 238 to 276 million firearms in the United States – nearly a 1:1 parity – and our homicide rate, while quite high, is absolutely eclipsed by Brazil’s. If the number of guns is the problem, the U.S. should have wiped itself out by now, should it not?

Now, under a new law hailed by supporters as the most sweeping gun-control measure in South America, only Brazilians with valid reasons — police and security guards, for example — are allowed to carry firearms in public.

And this will stop the criminals…how?

Ordinary citizens who own guns either must register their weapons, turn them in or face jail time.

And this will affect the criminals…how? I mean, it’s worked so well in England, hasn’t it? Washington D.C., Chicago…

Proponents of the law, which went into effect this month, see it as a badly needed step toward ridding this country of weapons too easily acquired and too often used to kill.

They always do. It never works. But it cannot be an error in the philosophy, only an incorrect implementation of it. They must do it again, only harder!

Critics call it a misguided attempt that will do little to take guns out of the hands of drug dealers and other violent criminals who build their private arsenals through a flourishing illegal arms trade.

Replace “critics” with “realists” and you’d be bang-on. (No pun intended.)

No one, however, disputes the statistics that have made shooting deaths commonplace in Brazil, where officials say someone is killed by a bullet every 12 minutes — more than 40,000 each year.

Pardon the nit-picking, but killed with a bullet. Killed by a PERSON.

By contrast, the United States, which has 100 million more people, recorded about 30,000 gun deaths in 2001, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

And here we have our very first “GOTCHA!”

What you have here is a classic example of mixing statistics for maximum shock effect. What Brazil is experiencing is a massive increase in homicide – specifically homicide by firearm, but homicide nonetheless. Yet what the author just did was compare Brazilian homicide to all American deaths by firearm.

According to the CDC, in 2001 (latest data available) there were 29,573 deaths by firearm in the U.S. Of those 29,573, there were 16,869 suicides, leaving 12,704 homicides and legal interventions. Also according to the CDC, in 2002 Brazil suffered 49,570 homicides, of which 34,085 were committed with firearms and 6,728 were committed with sharp objects.

Brazil has a population of about 175 million compared to our population of about 300 million. Their “sharp-object” homicide rate is about equal to our firearm homicide rate. Think on that as we continue.

“In six years, the U.S. lost 56,000 men in Vietnam. We have almost a Vietnam each year in Brazil,” said Antonio Rangel Bandeira of Viva Rio. “I show the figures to people in other places and they say, ‘Which country is Brazil at war against?’ “

If you want to get right down to it, it’s a civil war due to America’s demand for illicit drugs. But by all means, beat that “VIETNAM!” meme for everything it’s worth.

Debate over stricter gun controls echoes that in U.S.

The debate over stricter gun controls in Brazil echoes that in the U.S. Gun-control advocates here find themselves up against a similarly established culture of gun possession, partly born of a romanticized rough-and-tumble frontier past in which cowboys, rebels and vigilantes helped expand the country’s settlements and borders.

Cue “Duelling Banjos” and Clint Eastwood.

The newly tightened rules are the fruits of years of lobbying by gun-control activists, who had been stymied in the past by a powerful domestic firearms industry aided, at times, by the National Rifle Association in the United States. Gun-control advocates credit a new, left-leaning government and growing public anger over crime with shifing the political winds in their favor.

Yes, the NRA, in the pocket of the gun industry, is responsible for all of this murder. You read it here in the LA Times, so it must be true.

Passed by the legislature in December, the law requires background checks for prospective buyers, raises the legal age for gun ownership from 21 to 25, demands that all guns be registered and imposes prison sentences of up to four years for violators.

Again, this will affect the criminals… how? This has worked… where?

This will disarm… whom?

It will disarm the law-abiding – and that is all it will do. It will create a more dependent and less protected population. Nothing else.

Anyone with a criminal record will be denied, but critics note that drug traffickers and organized-crime rings get their stockpiles illegally anyway and thus will not be affected.

Again, replace “critics” with “realists” and you’ll be absolutely correct.

Ask the British.

To encourage owners to hand in their weapons instead of simply registering them

(for future confiscation)

the government has set aside $3.3 million for a buy-back program that offers as much as $100 per firearm – more than a month’s wage and a considerable sum for poor Brazilians.

Or, conversely, a drop in the pot to drug smugglers. And how many poor Brazilians have a firearm to sell? I mean, most firearms sell used for more than $100, and when the black market really gets started, what’ll they be worth? Want to bet we’ll see police and military armories getting jacked?

Perhaps most significant, the law calls for a national referendum next year asking voters whether gun sales should be banned.

And, again, this will affect the criminals… how?

Polls show strong public support for such a move.

Well, considering how many poor Brazilians there apparently are, perhaps they believe “If I can’t buy one, you can’t either.”

That dismays Renato Conill, vice president of Forjas Taurus. The company is one of Brazil’s largest gun manufacturers, with annual revenue exceeding $40 million through domestic sales and exports to more than 80 countries.

That would be the “evil bloodsucking” company. Guess the editors clipped that part though.

“We don’t believe that by restricting honest citizens’ access to legal firearms the crime rate will lessen,” Conill said. “Legal weapons aren’t a cause of crime. …The disarmament law will simply stimulate the black market.”

Said the man who actually grasps the lessons of history.

Before, buying a gun in Brazil was an easy affair. A customer had only to show identification and produce proof of employment to be eligible. Now, potential buyers are subject to more rigorous background checks.

Yes, I’m sure that puts a severe crimp on how drug lords arm their armies.

I can’t wait to see them try to explain why the homicide rates don’t go down.

But here’s an easy explanation: The guns aren’t the problem. The drug trade is. Throwing $3.3 million at the gun problem is a complete waste of $3.3 million.

The government’s corrupted by drug money.

Law enforcement is corrupted by drug money.

And now the honest people are going to be disarmed and handed on a platter to the predators.

Way to go, Brazil!

I Also Do Requests

June 22, 2004 KevinLeave a comment

Reader Sarah forwarded a link to me and asked that I fisk it. It’s to the Brady Campaign’s “CCW FAQ” page. I’m very much pressed for time at the moment, so I’m going to have to do this in pieces, but I promised her I’d do it, and it is fiskworthy, as you’d expect. Let’s get right to it, shall we?

Q: What is a “carrying concealed weapons” license?
A: A “carrying concealed weapons” (CCW) license allows an individual to carry a loaded, concealed gun.

CCW laws have nothing to do with private firearms ownership in the home. They relate solely to allowing individuals to carry their concealed guns almost anywhere in the community.

Except places where the government prohibits, like courtrooms and schools and restaurants that serve alcohol, and places that have signs prohibiting concealed carry on the premises. Pretty much anywhere the Brady Bunch et al. can get the business owner to object.

Q: The gun lobby, headed by the National Rifle Association, has been engaged in a major campaign in all 50 states to pass the weakest CCW laws. What is their rationale for making it easier for just about anyone to carry a concealed, loaded weapon?
A: It is extremely important to understand the NRA’s motivation for advocating these laws – the NRA is a special interest group whose primary goal is to increase gun ownership in America.

Right-o! The idea behind the NRA is to have a nation of marksmen – people who possess weapons and are trained in their proper use. I’m all for that.

The NRA no longer disguises the fact that they are an advocacy group for the gun industry. In response to questions about the new, more deadly ultracompact guns that have appeared on the market, Tanya Metaksa, chief lobbyist for the NRA, crowed that: “The gun industry should send me a basket of fruit – our efforts have created a new market.”

“More deadly”? More deadly that what? The high-capacity pistols that they made ultra-expensive by stopping the manufacture of magazines of greater than 10 rounds capacity? How is an “ultracompact” 9mm handgun that holds ten rounds “more deadly” than a regular sized one that carries fifteen? Sophistry.

This is evidence that “the NRA is an advocacy group for the gun industry”? The NRA must have a gun industry to accomplish its ends – defined above as “increasing gun ownership in America.” Allowing the gun controllers to wipe out the source lets them end-run the Second Amendment without bothering to overthrow it. Damned straight the NRA supports the gun manufacturers. The gun banners change the rules, and then bitch when the market responds to the rule changes. You don’t get it both ways.

Or perhaps, if you’re the Brady Bunch, you do.

Laws that make it easier to carry concealed weapons are legislative sales tools for the gun industry and their loudest cheerleader, the NRA. In fact, gun sellers view these laws as excellent marketing tools. According to the Vice President of Marketing for Interarms, the effort to weaken CCW laws is the “most important star on the horizon.”

They sure are. And they’re also a great way for people to take responsibility for their own safety. It’s a win-win situation for people who want to be citizens and not wards of the State.

Former National Rifle Association President Tom Washington was often quoted as saying: “an armed society is a polite society.”

If he was, he was quoting author Robert Anson Heinlein from one of his science fiction novels.

If this were the case, the United States would be the most polite society on earth. Already there are over 222 million privately-owned firearms in the country, and we are by no means the safest nation on earth.

And we are not and armed nation. We’re a nation with a lot of guns, certainly, but we’re not “armed” in the sense that Heinlein meant it. Here’s the entire quotation:

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

(Emphasis mine.) In Heinlein’s meaning, “armed” means “bearing weapons.” Yes, perhaps as in carrying concealed. Yet in the states that have “shall issue” CCW only about 2% of the eligible population actually acquire a permit, and it’s probable that only about half of those actually carry at any time. This is hardly an “armed society.”

We’ve got lots of guns in cabinets, safes, and closets, but very damned few in hand or on hips. Perhaps if there were more of the violent but protective out there bearing arms, our society would be more polite.

In 1994, 38,505 Americans were killed by firearms – in homicides, suicides and accidents. Between 1987 and 1994, the rate for non-handgun murders declined by 11%, while the rate of handgun homicides increased by 52%. 1.1 million violent crimes were committed with handguns in 1993. Recently, the extraordinary benefits of reasonable gun control laws like the Brady Law, the Federal ban on assault weapons, and certain state laws have started to emerge. Crime with guns is just now falling faster than the overall crime rate. It is vital that we continue to move forward in our fight against gun violence in America.

Spin, spin, spin. It’s all they can do. They know that all the gun laws they’ve tried have not affected violent crime in the least, but they’ve got to make it look good. How about some reality? Here’s the long-term homicide trend in the U.S., 1950 through 2000:

Click on the graph for the data set by year. Note that there were peaks in 1972, 1980, and 1991. By 1994 and the passage of the Assault Weapon Ban, the homicide rate was declining. Bear in mind that each and every year about two million new long guns and one million new handguns enter the civilian market. Including lots of those “assault weapons” that the Brady’s and others protest “skirt the ban.”

The Brady’s want to take credit for that decline by citing “the Brady Law, the Federal ban on assault weapons (that isn’t a ban), and certain state laws.” Let me present another graphic for you to look at of “certain state laws,” and please note the dates:

Is CCW in any way responsible for the precipitous decade of decline in homicide rates? I don’t know, but my assertion is every bit as possible as theirs. Throwing in the other statistics about violent crime and handguns? Just more cherry picking to obscure the fact that gun control laws haven’t had any noticeable effect on crime rates. Here’s another long-term trend, this time of gun crime:

Again, click on the graph for the source data. Notice that the Brady center picked 1993 – the WORST year for gun crime in the last 30 for their piece. But the Brady law was passed in 1994 and was reviewed in 2000 by the (not gun friendly) Journal of the American Medical Association by (not gun friendly) Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook of Georgetown University in their paper “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated with Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.” Let me quote from the paper for you:

Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates. In particular, we find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 treatment states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states.

—

Although our study detected no reduction in homicide rates in treatment states compared with control states, we found that suicide rates for persons aged 55 years or older were reduced in the treatment states. The estimated association between the Brady Act treatment and gun suicide rates among persons aged 55 years and older is equal to ?0.92 per 100000 (95% CI, ?1.43 to ?0.42), or about 6% of the gun suicide rate among this age group in the control states after the Brady Act had become law.

However, we did not detect an association of the Brady Act with overall suicide rates.Wefind some signs of an offsetting increase in nongun suicides to those aged 55 years or older, which makes the reduction in the total suicide rate smaller than the reduction in gun suicides. Neither the increase in nongun suicides nor the decrease in suicides from all causes are statistically significant at the conventional 95% level, though the overall pattern of findings is consistent with theories of “weapon substitution.”

Let me translate: The Brady law did not affect homicide. It resulted in some elderly men choosing a different method of committing suicide. That’s it. And that result was reported by two champions of the gun control movement.

As I keep saying, the gun control philosophy cannot be wrong! So “Do it some more, only HARDER!“ is ever the cry.

More to come…

June 5, 2004 KevinLeave a comment

Too Little, Too Late (I Hope)

It appears that the pressure is on now to renew the Assault Weapon ~~Cosmetic Legislation~~ Ban.

The GOA is reporting that Sen. Diane Feinstein is looking for a bill to which she will attach a renewal amendment, and that’s being covered by Publicola, the Geek, and others.

Meanwhile the ~~Brainless~~ Brady Bunch are sending out recruitment emails – as usual – filled with fear-mongering lies. Reader Ben, a stealth member of “StoptheNRA.com” – a subsidiary of the Bradyacs – was kind enough to send me a copy of their latest list of lies. Let us fisk:

Dear Friend,

If you are going to get involved in renewing the Assault Weapons Ban … the time is now. Congress is in session for only 30 more days before the ban expires later this summer. If the ban isn’t renewed, in most states, new assault weapons will be sold at gun shows without even a background check.

LIE #1 & #2. If it’s new it will be sold by a FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER – who, by the way, can sell new “post-ban” weapons right now. And all FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS DEALERS MUST run a background check whether they sell the gun at a gunshow or at their shop. So there’s two lies here. Regardless of whether the ban expires, you can buy a new “post-ban” weapon that lacks a few cosmetic features, but you’ll get a background check anyway. Or you can buy a “pre-ban” rifle from an individual sans background check, also regardless of whether the ban expires. Only the price will change.

That means assault weapons could be sold to anyone: criminals, gang members, drug dealers, and terrorists.

And this is different under the existing conditions exactly… how? If the first argument is wrong, this one doesn’t improve it.

Our advertising campaign starts next week and it is crucial that we maintain it throughout the summer. We need your support to renew the ban. We can’t do it alone. CLICK HERE TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION.

Just a heads-up. And as for that contribution? I wouldn’t piss on you if your head was on fire.

Over 75 percent of Americans agree that the Assault Weapons Ban must be renewed. Every police organization in the country, religious groups, educators and scores of other mainstream organizations agree.

If true, it might have something to do with the way you and groups like you LIE TO THEM. Ya THINK?

In fact, there is only one group in the country in favor of letting the ban end: The National Rifle Association. And so far President Bush is listening to the NRA over every other constituency.

We cannot let this ban expire. Here’s what happens if the NRA wins:

And let’s count the lies, shall we?

1. In most states, eighteen-year-olds will be able to walk into gun stores and buy new American-made AK-47s.

Which they can do RIGHT NOW.

2. In many states, it will be possible to bring concealed TEC-9 assault pistols, loaded with thirty rounds of ammunition, into bars, churches and sports arenas, and even public schools or universities.

Which can happen RIGHT NOW. The “ban” didn’t make the guns go away, it just changed the way they look. All those thirty round magazines are still out there.

Fearmongering like this REALLY PISSES ME OFF!

3. In many states kids as young as 13 will be able to buy brand new American-made AK-47s at gun shows and through the classifieds.

Current FEDERAL LAW, 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (c)(1), prohibits firearms dealers from selling or delivering a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18. Dealers are prohibited from selling or delivering other firearms (e.g., handguns) or ammunition for those firearms to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 21. STATE law controls transactions between private parties. As of right now if a 13 year-old has $1,000 laying around he can probably purchase just about anything he wants, if he knows the right people. The AWB DOESN’T ADDRESS THE QUESTION.

More fearmongering.

4. New assault weapons will be advertised over the internet.

Hmm… Bushmaster, DSA, DPMS, and there are a lot more. The product line will simply broaden again. But if you want to BUY one, you still have to go through a FEDERALLY LICENSED DEALER.

5. New rapid-fire ammunition magazines that allow guns to fire up to 100 rounds without reloading will be mass-produced and sold on a cash-and-carry basis to anyone, with no questions or background checks.

Oh Jeebus, I hope so! Standard capacity magazines are way overpriced these days.

Here’s how you can help renew the ban:

1. contribute to our campaign (Bite me!)

2. sign our petition if you haven’t yet (Ditto!)

3. forward this mail to everyone you know (Posted it on my website. Happy?)

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a past presidential race that he would find it hard to back any candidate who favored repealing the federal assault weapons ban. “Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues.”

Good thing nobody has to “vote to roll back the assault-weapons ban” isn’t it? All they have to do is just let the useless, irritating thing die a natural death.

More later.

Of that I have no doubt.

Thank you for your support.

No, thank YOU, you morons.

UPDATE 6/5: Publicola reports that Diane Fienstein has introduced her AWB renewal bill, S2498, in the Senate. At first blush it appears to be a simple 10-year extension of the existing cosmetics ban. Co-sponsors are the usual suspects:

Barbara Boxer (CA), Lincoln D. Chafee (RI), Hillary Clinton (NY), Michael DeWine (OH), Christopher Dodd (CT, Jim Jeffords (VT), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Carl Levin (MI), John Reed (RI), Chuck Schumer (NY), and John Warner of Virginia.

Time to start writing and calling your congresscritters.

NOW.

May 13, 2004 KevinLeave a comment

Tom Diaz Scares Me

Because I don’t think he’s too tightly connected to reality. Tom is one of the principals of the Violence Policy Center which is dedicated to banning handguns.

Our buddies at JoinTogether have published one of his op-eds. Let us fisk:

Had Enough Yet?

by Tom Diaz

It’s an All-American story. Nebraska University soccer star Jenna Cooper throws a barbecue in her home to celebrate the season’s end. Two men argue over stolen shot glasses. One whips out a handgun.

Jenna Cooper, 21-years old, on the cusp of life — talented and loved by her team, her family, and her friends — is gone, taken by a stray bullet fired in anger.

The Lincoln, Nebraska chief of police remarked that Jenna Cooper happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. With all due respect, chief, sir, that is not the problem. The problem is that America is awash with firearms hyper-marketed by a relentless and unregulated gun industry. If a Saturday night barbecue in your own home is the wrong place at the wrong time, what’s left? Not much. There is no right place and right time anymore. How about the office. Bad idea.

Note: Tom doesn’t place any blame on the shooter, but on the gun industry. Anybody see a problem with that?

A co-worker might come in packing to settle an obscure score that has been sloshing around in his cranial brew for years. What about church, or synagogue, or mosque? Nope, that’s been tried. Angry, gun-toting people cork off there, too. Churches have been shot up, even priests officiating masses. Ditto, synagogues and mosques. Schoolyards, the Empire State Building, shopping malls, even the U.S. Capitol have been turned into shooting galleries.

All the fault of gun manufacturers – not the shooters. And not all guns, only handguns.

Except churches, schoolyards, shopping malls et. al have all been shot up by people with rifles, too.

Oh, yeah, and the road rage shooters are out there, waiting to be crossed. One of them just might take the occasion of your flight to safety to decide that you are in too big a hurry, made too sharp a turn, or just plain look like a good candidate for road kill. Had enough yet?

The real problem is that there is barely a crevice left in American life in which the handgun has not taken root. Someone wants to argue over a shot glass or two? Just pull out your argument settler and pop off a round. End of argument.

Again: It’s apparently not the fault of the shooter, but the GUN INDUSTRY.

Now Tom really runs off the rails:

It wasn’t always that way. The American gun industry — one of only two consumer products in America free of federal product health and safety regulation (the other is tobacco) — has created this nightmare.

It has deliberately changed the mix of firearms sold in America over the last 30 years. It has done it because, unlike many other consumer industries that follow population growth, the gun business has faced saturated, declining markets. So it has relentlessly pushed new models of handguns to stimulate sales.

Excuse me? Last time I checked, the market is what drives innovation. If the industry builds it and nobody wants it, that product fails – but Tom is convinced that the industry somehow holds its product to American heads and forces us to buy. Here’s his “evidence”:

This was described some years ago in a magazine called American Firearms Industry: “Without new models that have major technical changes, you eventually exhaust your market. . . This innovation has driven the handgun market.” The most spectacular change in the U.S. civilian firearms market since the end of the Second World War has been the rise of the handgun. In 1946 handguns were only eight percent of firearms sold. Beginning in the mid-1960s this changed.

Handgun sales are now twice the level of 40 years ago, consistently averaging about 40 percent of the overall market. Not only that, the industry is making handguns smaller and more powerful so they can be concealed more easily and do more damage when used. The Austrian company Glock, one of the biggest handgun marketers in America, dubbed its contribution the “Pocket Rocket.”

Let’s stop right there for a moment. Remember, Tom has just built the case that handguns are responsible for turning various places into “shooting galleries,” that handguns represented only 8% of firearms sold, at least in 1946. Now, does that suggest to you that Tom is making the case that homicide rates were much lower in those halcyon days back when handguns were such a tiny percentage of all firearms? Well, here’s a graph of homicide rates in the U.S. from 1900 through 2000. Bear in mind, those rates continued to decline through 2003.

See anything wrong with Tom’s premise?

So those corny old movies and nostalgic television shows are right. In 1946, you could go to a party and maybe somebody would get angry. Maybe a punch or two would be thrown. But it would be darned rare for somebody to pull out a Pocket Rocket and start shooting. Not because people were better then, but because handguns were scarce.

Um, no Tom. Because “pocket rockets” weren’t invented until much later. But what about 1929? Would it have been rare then for someone to have pulled a “gat” and started shooting? Was it the eeeeevil gun manufacturer’s fault then?

Not any more. Now every husband who decides to come home and pop the wife has a handgun readily at hand. Every depressed kid or senior who wants to end it all has a handgun. And every nitwit who wants to feel like a big man at a barbecue has a handgun.

Right. The gun fairy just leaves it under the pillow.

There are a few ideological fantasists who are so hooked on the power of the gun that they claim the answer is simply more guns, to arm more people so they can “defend themselves” and “shoot back.” Jenna Cooper was enjoying a party. The bullet that hit her in the neck and took her life first traveled through another guest’s scalp.

How in the name of blessed reason could she have defended herself from that bizarre sequence with yet another gun? The answer is she couldn’t. Sure, get mad at the guy who shot her. Punish him. But don’t fantasize about blazing gun battles to teach that punk a thing or two.

And don’t blame the wrong place and the wrong time.

Here I actually agree with Tom. He’s correct on this – single – point. But he’s absolutely wrong in his conclusion:

Blame America’s gun industry for putting the gun in his hand.

I have, over the last few weeks, written piece after piece decrying the philosophy of the gun banners. They proclaim that the guns are at fault. That if they could only get rid of the guns none of this would happen. I have shown example after example from that gun-control utopia of England illustrating how even after implementing every single policy supported by gun control forces, gun crime there went up. And as a result, because the philosophy cannot be wrong, the response has been “do it again, only HARDER!“

Tom Diaz exemplifies this mindset. Tom seems to believe that guns are the cause of this violent behavior. That all we have to do is disarm everybody, and THESE. CRIMES. WILL. STOP.

Well, he’s partly right. If the government banned all handguns and demanded that they all be turned in, it’s possible that somewhere somebody might not get shot in a fit of anger. But it’s also possible that law-abiding people might not be able to defend themselves against the criminals who will not hand theirs in. It’s one of those “unintended consequences” that they don’t bother to consider.

Tom wants us all to be safe. He wants security. That’s not a bad thing to want, really. I think Tom suffers, though, from the same problem that is exhibited by most people who hate guns – a lack of trust in their fellow man. I wrote an essay on that topic I entitled TRUST, inspired by another who feared guns, rather than the people willing to misuse them. That piece is the counterpoint to Mr. Diaz’s philippic. Give it a read.

And then think about the path England has chosen, and ask yourself if you really want us to follow them.

May 7, 2004 KevinLeave a comment

More on Airguns

This time from THIS side of the pond.

That ever fruitful well of material, Jointogether.org, reports that the recent Daisy Settlement Shows Political Influence of Gun Industry. Let us fisk:

Before the leadership of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) changed political parties late last year, the federal agency had filed a lawsuit against Daisy Manufacturing Co., a maker of air-powered BB guns, after complaints of misfirings.

“Complaints of misfirings? No, the complaint wasn’t that the guns misfired but that they actually fired when their users thought they were empty.

The fact that their users deliberately pumped up the rifles, intentionally cocked the rifles, intentionally pointed the rifles at another person and then intentionally pulled the trigger seems immaterial.

THE SHOOTER THOUGHT IT WAS EMPTY!

That’s all that matters.

To the lawyers. And the anti-gun groups.

But now, instead of a recall, the federal agency has agreed to a settlement with the company that only involves promoting safe BB-gun usage, the Wall Street Journal reported April 29.

Well, GEE. YA THINK?!?!?

RULE #1: Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

RULE #2: Never put your finger on the trigger until you’re ready to fire

AND ALWAYS TREAT A GUN AS IF IT WERE LOADED.

Follow those three rules, nobody gets hurt.

But noooooo. It must be the eeeevil gun manufacturer at fault.

In 2001, the CPSC filed a lawsuit against Daisy Manufacturing, claiming that its PowerLine Models 856 and 880 were responsible for at least 15 deaths and 171 injuries, the majority involving children. Testimony by a Daisy Manufacturing engineer confirmed that BBs could get temporarily jammed in the corners of the magazine, making it appear that the gun is empty.

The guns were responsible, not the person on the trigger.

The cult of no accountability is obviously still strong.

Obviously mommy and daddy didn’t teach gun safety. Why aren’t they responsible? It’s not like it’s difficult

Treat it as though it is always loaded, no problem.

It’s stunning how many “accidental shootings” come from unloaded guns, isn’t it?

At the time, Ann Brown, who was appointed by President Clinton in 1993, served as chairman of the agency. In 2001, President Bush (Boo! Hiss!) replaced Brown with Republican Harold Stratton Jr. Prior to the appointment, the National Rifle Association (NRA) had e-mailed a “special alert” to members warning that the government’s recall could be used in future lawsuit against all gun makers.

And were they wrong?

Under Stratton’s leadership, the agency dropped the lawsuit late last year. (The heartless BASTARD!) Instead, the government accepted an offer from Daisy Manufacturing for a $1.5 million publicity and labeling campaign to promote safer use of its products.

(If it weren’t for that meddling NRA!!!)

Administrative Law Judge William Moran strongly criticized the offer, calling it “empty.” But Stratton said the lawsuit was “burdensome and inefficient” and would have led to “years of costly litigation.”

And it wouldn’t??

Understand this: The CPSC wanted Daisy to recall 7.5 million rifles because 15 people (Children™) had been killed and some 171 people (Children™) had been injured because of the deliberate misuse of their product.

But it’s the “influence of the (cue scary music)GUN INDUSTRY” that foiled this ~~legal assault~~ humanitarian act.

Oh, and of course the (cue music) EEEEEVIL Republicans who WANT CHILDREN™ TO DIE!

I certainly hope they were responsible. It tells me that my dollars an my vote still count for something.

For further reading, let me recommend this piece, The ‘Daisy Airgun Case’—not CPSC’s finest hour. Money quote:

(CPSC Commissioner Mary Gall) stated:

“In my nearly twelve years of service with this Commission, and indeed, in my over thirty years of government service, I have never seen a more outrageous miscarriage of justice and abuse of the processes of public policy than this case … Some of the deposition testimony given by Commission employees show clearly that the previous Chairman ordered that the case be removed from the ordinary processes of Commission staff review because she did not like the conclusions that the career staff were reaching about the hazards associated with the Model 856 and 880 air rifles.

“… The record shows that this is a case that should not have been brought in the first place, and which has now been settled on terms substantially similar to those that Daisy proposed over fourteen months ago. Students of government who wish to see how the regulatory enforcement process can be used to harass a small company to no good purpose need look no further than this action for a splendid case study …”

They Never Ask ME

April 16, 2004 KevinLeave a comment

Jointogether.org reports that Children in South (are) More Likely to Die from Gun Violence, commenting on a newspaper story in the Florence Times Daily (annoying registration required). Let’s fisk:

Gun violence more likely to kill kids in Alabama

By Emily Eisenberg
Medill News Service

WASHINGTON – In Alabama, a child is three times more likely to die from gun violence than a child in the Northeast, an expert at the Harvard School of Public Health says.

Decreasing this grim statistic is not just a matter of getting rid of guns, but it is treating them as a public health issue, said David Hemenway, director of Harvard’s Injury Control Research Center.

Oh, how nice. Not just a matter of getting rid of guns. No, instead we must innoculate against gun violence?

The Centers for Disease Control reported in January that most deaths under the age of 40 are caused by an accident.

The most common cause of accidental death in the United States is automobile accidents. The second most common cause of these deaths is firearms.

Really? And the name of the report is? A link to the report is provided, where? And now we’re defining “children” as “under the age of 40?“

Let’s check the CDC, shall we? They have this wonderful tool called WISQARS that allows anybody access to the CDC statistics in really useful ways. So, let’s check the most recent data, year 2001 for unintentional death, under the age of 40, entire U.S, all races, both sexes: 39,365. Now, what was the portion due to automobile? 23,663. Now, what was the portion of unintentional death by firearm? 470.

BUT, to be fair, the report does say “gun violence,” however I don’t think you’re supposed to really grasp the difference. (Edit: Screw it. I don’t want to be “fair.” This writer certainly didn’t intend to be.

Study carefully the construction of this story. You’re supposed to assume that the “second most common cause of death” is firearm accident. HORSESHIT! Note how carefully the writer juxtaposes “accident”, “automobile accident” and “firearms” – this time without the modifier, “accident.” End Edit.)

This is, after all, a story about children, remember? I’ll come back to this.

“Where there’s more guns, there’s more gun homicides; where there’s more guns, there’s more gun suicides,” said Hemenway.

Well! There’s a tautology for you. I guess it takes a Harvard doctorate to state something as obvious as that.

“I wouldn’t expect it any other way,” said Florence Police Chief Rick Singleton. He said the problem with weapons is the way “people handle and treat them.”

Hemenway, while presenting the findings of his new book, “Private Guns, Public Health,” said government should regulate guns the way it regulates traffic. Guns differ from almost all other consumer products because there is no regulatory agency in charge of managing their manufacture and distribution, he added.

Uhh…. What? “Government should regulate guns the way it regulates traffic??” I wasn’t aware that the Consumer Product Safety Commission was in charge of traffic control. Harvard, eh?

Just out of curiosity, what government agency is responsible for managing “manufacture and distribution” of automobiles? Isn’t that the purview of the manufacturers themselves? There’s a government agent in each manufacturing facility controlling the production lines and approving the distribution plans?

Since the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration was established several decades ago to make automobiles safer, automobile fatalities have decreased 80 percent. The Harvard School of Public Health reported a regulatory agency would have a similar impact on firearm deaths.

One problem with that. Automobiles are designed to transport passengers from point A to point B. Firearms are designed to hurl small metal projectiles at high velocity in the general direction they’re pointed when the trigger is pulled. How do you make them safe? Make them fire Nerf balls? Make them not fire when the trigger is pulled? Kinda defeats the purpose, no?

Another point: There are maybe 250 million vehicles on the roads today (I didn’t go look it up, it’s a wild-ass guess.) Most of them are less than 20 years old. They wear out. They’re replaced on a fairly regular basis. The safety improvements applied to vehicles were not statutorily required of older vehicles on the road. If you own a 1955 Chevy, it has seatbelts only if YOU put them in. There’s no law requiring it. No airbags, either. No third brake light. But there are (by several estimates) 250,000,000 firearms in private hands. New “safety requirements” would affect only the additional two million long guns and one million new handguns that enter the market each year. And those older guns aren’t built with “planned obsolescence” in the design. My 1917 Enfield still works perfectly. So does my 1896 Swedish Mauser, built in 1916. A Colt 1911 made in 1927 probably works just as well as the one I bought new in 1999.

The argument that guns need to be regulated so that they will be “made safer” is asinine. It is false on its face, yet reports like this one keep putting the idea out in front of the public as a “common-sense” proposal.

But keep reading, because this piece is just like all the others in inflating just what that “federal oversight” needs to encompass.

Because the trafficking of illegal firearms between states is such a large problem, Hemenway said that such a regulatory agency should be at the federal level rather than with the states.

Another bait-and-switch. First, the agency is supposed to regulate the design of firearms to ostensibly make them safer, but now the agency is supposed to be responsible for illegal trafficking? Isn’t that just a bit of a leap from the original “regulatory” function? I wasn’t aware that the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration was in charge of “regulating” automobile theft and chop shops.

“There are lots of things we could do, lots of policies that wouldn’t affect people’s ability to own guns for hunting,” Hemenway said.

However, the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. I own at least a dozen firearms, and I don’t hunt. What about my guns?

Oh, right. “Decreasing this grim statistic is not just a matter of getting rid of guns.”

Gotta ban and confiscate those “non-hunting” weapons.

He said federal regulation of firearms licensing and childproofing are some possible ways to address gun danger from a public health standpoint.

More mission-creep, and we haven’t even established the regulatory agency! NOW the agency is responsible for: “safer” gun designs, illegal trafficking, and licensing!

And this is for public health, remember.

Alabama, like many other states in the South, is among the states with the highest levels of gun ownership in the country. The Rocky Mountain region also has high levels of gun ownership, while the northeastern part of the nation has a relatively small amount of guns.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s annual report card gave Alabama an “F” in keeping kids safe from guns.

“Alabama does not require child-safety locks to be sold with guns, does not hold adults responsible for leaving loaded guns around children and does not have any safety standards for handguns,” the Brady Campaign said recently. A spokesman at the organization said it strongly supports Hemenway’s suggestion for a federal handgun regulation agency.

And now we’re back to the supposed heart of the article: The Children™

You remember: “Gun violence more likely to kill kids in Alabama”? “In Alabama, a child is three times more likely to die from gun violence than a child in the Northeast”? Where “kids” is apparently defined as “under 40.” Read that paragraph carefully: Child–safety locks. Loaded guns around children.

So, how many accidental deaths of children were there in Alabama to justify a new federal regulatory agency with sweeping powers to control firearm design, illegal firearm trafficking, and gun owner licensing?

Well, if you define “children” as those 17 or younger, there were six in 2001.

Of course there’s the obligatory mention of the writer’s attempt to be “balanced:”

Organizations like the National Rifle Association argue that the regulations the Brady Campaign proposes would decrease gun-owners constitutional rights, but a spokesperson at the NRA was not available for comment about Hemenway’s findings.

Here you go, Ms. Eisenberg. All the commentary you’d ever want.

Not that you’d ever print it.

March 16, 2004 KevinLeave a comment

There’s a Police Force that Still Issues REVOLVERS?

Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, here’s another example of the cluelessness of the media when it comes to firearms, and the double-standard between the honorable law-enforcement community and we mere peons.

And, of course, the obligatory reference to evil “assault weapons.”

The Corpus Christi Caller-Times reports on the police force’s desire to upgrade from revolvers to semi-autos. Let us fisk:

Police may switch to semi-autos

Rank and file police officers could soon holster identical firearms if the police chief gets his way. He’s developing a standardized gun policy to better protect officers with concern for not risking public safety, he said.

Remember that point.

“We must provide officers with the tools to combat the crooks who are better armed than we are,” said Police Chief Pete Alvarez. Alvarez’s officer survey indicates semi-automatic weapons are the gun of choice.

A cost of approximately $500 to $700 per gun for officers will be paid for using drug seizure money allotted for the police department, the chief said. Police officers are initially issued revolvers and now pay for their own semi-automatic weapons.

That’s a pretty sucky policy, I’ll grant. But here comes the evil “assault weapon” bit:

Police ability to protect and defend the public wanes when they’re caught in the open and run out of firepower while facing a bullet-spitting SKS assault rifle wielded by a gang member, Alvarez said.

It’s a semi-automatic rifle that fires more accurately from long-range.

“The SKS is a common weapon in Corpus Christi, and police are definitely outgunned,” said John Hornsby, 36, Corpus Christi police ballistics’ identification supervisor. “But I’m not a fan of the ‘one-size-gun-fits-all’ mindset.”

(*Sigh*)

First, the SKS is NOT an “assault rifle,” even by the (admittedly loose) Federal definition. It has a fixed magazine, no pistol grip, and only holds ten rounds.

It is a semi-automatic rifle, but then, so is the Ruger Mini-14 – a weapon excluded from the AWB that does take a detachable magazine. They both “spit bullets.”

Aren’t all firearms “bullet-spitting?”

And what, exactly, does “fires more accurately from long-range” mean? More accurately than what? What constitutes “long range”? The switch to semi-auto pistols is supposed to make the police equal to SKS-toting gangsters? Um, the SKS is a rifle. A pistol is what you use to fight your way to your rifle.

I’m supposed to believe the author of this is a Texan? Must be a Yankee transplant.

Gun uniformity is a law enforcement agency trend recently adopted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, FBI, Parks and Wildlife wardens and others, Alvarez said.

Because they are often in rural areas and might be chasing vehicles, the Nueces County Sheriff’s Department often uses weapons designed for more long-range use. The DPS already uses a semi-automatic weapon.

As a long-range handgunner myself, I call “BULLSHIT!” Revolvers are by far more suitable to long-range shooting than semi-autos, second only to single-shot specialty pistols. Semi-autos are better at “bullet-spitting,” though. (Remember that “public safety” quote, now.)

Benefits of standardizing

The benefits outweigh the concerns, Alvarez said. A standardized weapon policy would:

Enhance officer safety

Save costs by not duplicating training

Better protect the public

The Corpus Christi Police Department provides cadets with either a .357-caliber Magnum or .38-caliber revolver that holds six bullets and trains them with this type of gun. But about 80 percent of the 437 officers have received secondary training to carry semi-automatic weapons that have cartridges holding 16 rounds. The department has nine models and calibers approved for use, police officials said.

Uh, right. Well, he didn’t call them “clips” at least. Anyway, the cops have the choice of carrying a six-shot revolver, or a sixteen shot pistol. I know what choice I’d take. I’d much rather spit sixteen rounds between reloads.

When officers choose to shelve the department-issued revolver and purchase, out of their own pockets, a semi-automatic weapon, they have to complete a 10-hour automatic weapon transitional course before they’re allowed to use it in service. If the department adopts a standardized firearm policy, only the initial 40-hour academy weapons training would be required.

“This standardized firearm policy would save the department about $350 per officer by eliminating secondary training,” said Cmdr. Bryan Smith, in charge of police training. It will also reduce the ammunition inventory kept in stock at the firing range, he said.

“The benefit is creating one method of training with one trigger-pull that every officer would be expected to master,” Smith said. Guns come with different trigger pressures and grips.

Now there’s a newsflash.

Most buy own semi-autos

Most Corpus Christi police officers have chosen to buy their own semi-automatic weapons in the past 20 years, but opinions regarding the use of revolvers and semi-automatic guns are as varied as the types of weapons being used.

Assistant Chief Ken Bung has been reviewing responses from officers regarding a change to standardized weapons and says that most officers seem to prefer a .40-caliber semi-automatic weapon.

“We want a weapon that the biggest majority of our officers can shoot effectively,” Bung said. Of 58 responses to the chief’s survey, some of which represent several officers’ opinions, more than half favor a standardized weapon, Bung said. Twelve respondents thought more than one weapon should be authorized, and almost all wanted a semi-automatic weapon, he said.

The department is also reviewing research material from other police agencies, and Bung said they should make an educated decision “fairly soon.”

Surviving with revolvers

Some officers have survived tense situations with the standard-issue six-shooter.

“One officer was shot a few years ago before he cleared leather with his weapon,” said Cmdr. Jesse Garcia, the uniform police supervisor. “He emptied his .357 returning fire and had the barrel in the guy’s stomach when it finally clicked empty.”

But last November Officer Phillip Bintliff, 34, ran out of ammunition in a shootout in the 4000 block of Schanen Boulevard when a suspect shot him in the abdomen, Garcia said.

In the same shootout, officer Jose Smith, 28, was shot in the forehead and dropped his weapon, a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun that holds 16 rounds, and the suspect retrieved it to shoot police officer Israel Carrasco, 32, in the shoulder and leg, Garcia said.

“Hands down, the semi-automatic is the way to go,” Garcia said. “But it’d be like the department buying one size rain coat for everyone.”

Err, perhaps a poor analogy Commander. That way you end up with some officers enveloped in their raincoats, and some with their limbs sticking out in the rain.

It’s more important that the officer be able to shoot what he or she carries, as New Mexico State Trooper Lt. Don Day recently demonstrated when he used his single-action revolver – loaded with only five rounds – to stop a bank robber.

Some semi-automatic weapons have been known to jam.

“It depends on the quality of the gun,” Garcia said. “Any automatic has the possibility of a jam, but proper caretaking minimizes it, and officers are trained to clear jamming.”

Well, yes and no. If you’re wounded and “limp-wristing” the reliability of semi-auto pistols is definitely less than that of revolvers. Revolvers can fail, though it’s rare, and they’re far less sensitive to ammo quality, but when a revolver fails, it’s usually a major failure, not a “tap, rack, bang” semi-auto jam.

Calls for variety of weapons

Other high-ranking police officials voiced concerns.

“We don’t buy one size pair of pants,” said Capt. Mike McKinney, communications supervisor. “I don’t think we can buy one handgun and everyone be able to shoot it competently.”

Apparently Captain McKinney isn’t fond of the single-size issue raincoat.

McKinney thinks the department should have gun manufacturers provide a variety of guns for extensive testing.

“We need different size officers, with different skill levels, men and women, to shoot several hundred rounds from each firearm,” McKinney said. “That’s the only way to compare a cross-section and decide what’s best for the department as a whole.”

There’s a variety of ammunition to choose from for use with semi-automatic weapons, and it is an important consideration for public safety, Alvarez said.

Some agencies have different requirements.

“FBI agents use ammunition that penetrates and exits the suspect,” McKinney said. “Their thought is that the suspect will bleed out and drop sooner with two wounds.”

For local police, the ammunition of choice for semi-automatic weapons is a 124-grain hollow-point bullet made by Federal called Hydra-Shok, McKinney said.

Hollow point bullets take in fluid and tissue while tearing through a body, which causes the slug to expand and slow down, Hornsby said. Depending on the angle of the shot, distance and how it hits, the slug often doesn’t exit the body, he said.

Alvarez said the nature of the hollow points lessens the possibility that a bullet could exit an intended target and strike another person.

“We need to select ammunition with enough knock-down power to get the job done,” Alvarez said. “But not powerful enough to continue trajectory to others.”

“We’ve got to change with the times,” Alvarez said. “Criminals are better equipped and we shouldn’t be left behind.”

OK, now remember the bit about public safety? Check the graphic that came with the story:

Yet New Jersey makes ~~civilian~~ peon possession of hollowpoint ammo illegal, calling them “cop-killer” bullets, although the NYPD uses the 124 grain 9mm Hydrashok. But this article explains that hollowpoint ammo is safer for the public – that’s why the police use them.

I love the ignorance and logical inconsistencies the anti-gun crowd constantly exhibits.

It would be more entertaining if they weren’t so dangerous.

Speaking of Teddy Kennedy…

March 12, 2004 KevinLeave a comment

Let’s fisk his little rant from his Senate testimony on S. 1805 concerning armor-piercing ammo:

As we all know too well, the debate about gun violence has often been aggressive and polarizing with anti-gun violence advocates on one side of the debate, pro-gun advocates on the other. There are deep divisions in the country on the issue of gun safety, and the current debate on the gun immunity bill has thus far only served to highlight those divisions.

I believe, however, that there are still some principles on which we can all agree. One principle is that we should do everything we can to protect the lives and safety of police officers who are working to protect our streets, schools, and communities.

The amendment I am offering today is intended to close the existing loopholes in the Federal law that bans cop-killer bullets. Police officers depend on body armor for their lives. Body armor has saved thousands of police officers from death or serious injury by firearm assault. Most police officers who serve large jurisdictions wear armor at all times when on duty. Nevertheless, even with body armor, too many police officers remain vulnerable to gun violence.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, every year between 50 and 80 police officers are feloniously killed in the line of duty. In 2002, firearms were used in 51 of the 56 murders of police officers. In those shootings, 34 of the officers were wearing body armor at the time of their deaths. From 1992 to 2002, at least 20 police officers were killed after bullets penetrated their armor vests and entered their upper torso.

Some gun organizations have argued that cop-killer bullets are a myth. The families of these slain police officers know better. In fact, we know that armor-piercing ammunition is not a myth because it is openly and notoriously marketed and sold by gun dealers.

I direct my colleagues’ attention to the Web site of Hi-Vel, Incorporated, a self-described exotic products distributor and manufacturer in Delta, UT. You can access its online catalog on the Internet right now. Hi-Vel’s catalog lists an entry for armor-piercing ammunition. On that page you will find a listing for armor-piercing bullets that can penetrate metal objects. The bullets are available in packages of 10 for $9.95 each. Hi-Vel carries armor-piercing bullets for both the .223 caliber rifles such as the Bushmaster sniper rifle used in the Washington area attacks in October 2002, and the 7.62 caliber assault weapons. Over the past 10 years, these two caliber weapons were responsible for the deaths of 14 of the 20 law enforcement officers killed by ammunition that penetrated body armor.

Check the sleight-of-hand here. Hi-Vel does indeed sell “armor piercing” ammunition designed to penetrate steel. But police vests aren’t made of steel. They are made of kevlar fiber. The police wear relatively soft, relatively flexible National Institute of Justice Class II, IIA or IIIA rated vests at best. These vests are designed to stop 9mm, .357 Magnum, and .44 Magnum handgun rounds, respectively. In order to stop any centerfire rifle round, “armor piercing” or not, would require moving up to the heavy, rigid Class III and Class IV vests worn by our military personnel. You’ll remember the Class IV vests from the “embedded” journalists during the invasion of Iraq. They were those very heavy vests with the splatter-deflecting collars that looked so uncomfortable, like this one:

But Senator Kennedy, like all gun control zealots, wants to convince you that it requires special “armor-piercing” ammunition to penetrate a soft Class II, IIA or IIIA police vest. He wants you to believe that the officers killed with .223 and 7.62mm so-called “assault weapons” were using ammunition like Hi-Vel’s ammo, and not off the shelf standard hunting ammo or even more common military surplus full metal jacket rounds. He expects his listeners to be ignorant, and to believe what he doesn’t say.

In a recent report, the ATF identified three, .223 and the 7.62 caliber rifles, as the ones most frequently encountered by police officers. These high-capacity rifles, the ATF wrote, pose an enhanced threat to law enforcement, in part because of their ability to expel particles at velocities that are capable of penetrating the type of soft body armor typically worn by law enforcement officers.

“Particles”? I think the Senator meant “projectiles.” What he doesn’t say is that any centerfire rifle “expels particles” at velocities high enough to penetrate soft body armor. That’s why the National Institute of Justice classifies vests as it does. But the facts are just too inconvenient for the Senator.

Here’s where he really goes off into the twilight zone, though:

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers’ armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

Say WHAT?

The .30-30 was introduced in 1895 as the .30 Winchester Centerfire, chambered in the “high-capacity assault weapon” of its day, the Winchester 1894 lever-action rifle. This is a ’94 Winchester:

Scary, isn’t it? It was one of the first commercial cartridges loaded with then-new smokeless powder, but it was stuck with the cartridge naming convention of the era – bullet diameter and black powder load equivalent: A .30 caliber bullet and 30 grains of black powder. According to my copy of Hodgdon’s No. 25 reloading manual, the standard .30-30 load pushes a 150 grain bullet at about 2200 feet per second out of a rifle with a 24″ barrel. The bullet used in the .30-30 normally has a blunt, flat tip because of the tubular magazine normally used in lever-action rifles. Yet Teddy Kennedy wants us to believe that this magical round – responsible for the deaths of three officers – is capable of penetrating “600 pounds of safe armor plating.” Whatever the hell that means. Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? Here’s some comparisons:

The .30-30, 150 grain bullet, 2200 feet per second.

The .308 Winchester (7.62NATO), 150 grain bullet, 2600 feet per second

The .30-06, 150 grain bullet, 2800 feet per second.

The .300 Winchester Magnum, 150 grain bullet, 3100 feet per second.

The .300 Remington UltraMag, 150 grain bullet, 3400 feet per second.

.30-378 Weatherby, 150 grain bullet, 3500 feet per second

Here’s a picture to give you some idea of the cartridges.

From right to left, smallest to largest: .308 Winchester, .30-06 Springfield, .300 Winchester Magnum, .300 Remington UltraMag, and the .30-378 Weatherby.

Remember, the lowly .30-30 is fast enough to penetrate a Class IIIA vest.

Yet Senator Kennedy doesn’t want people to think that he’s interested in banning hunting ammunition, just ammunition that can penetrate a soft police vest.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America. Armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States.

“Assault weapons” like the ’94 Winchester.

A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well. Anyone over the age of 18 may purchase this ammunition without a background check. There is no Federal minimum age of possession. Purchases may be made over the counter, by mail order, by fax, by Internet, and there is no Federal requirement that dealers retain sales records.

Note all these things that the Senator wants: Background checks for ammunition sales. A minimum age for possession of rifle ammunition. Dealer record keeping for ammunition sales – a record keeping requirement that would convince most retailers that it was simply too much trouble to sell ammo.

And now he goes off on the current boogeyman, the evil .50BMG rifle:

In 1999, investigators for the General Accounting Office went undercover to assess the availability of .50 caliber armor-piercing ammunition. Purchasing cop-killer bullets, it turned out, is only slightly more difficult than buying a lottery ticket or a gallon of milk. Dealers in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia informed the investigators that the purchase of these kinds of ammunition is subject to no Federal, State, or local restrictions. Dealers in Alaska, Nebraska, and Oregon who advertised over the Internet told an undercover agent that he could buy the ammunition in a matter of minutes, even after he said he wanted the bullets shipped to Washington, DC, and needed them to pierce an armored limousine or theoretically take down a helicopter. Talk about homeland security.

The .50 BMG round, by virtue of its weight and velocity (750 grains at 2800 fps) will penetrate any body armor, and even if it didn’t, that much kinetic energy would most probably kill a human being from mere shock. Kennedy has pulled a sleight-of-hand here – he’s not talking about protecting officers in soft body armor any more, but he hasn’t bothered to tell anybody.

In a single year, over 100,000 rounds of military surplus armor-piercing ammunition were sold to civilians in the United States.

And there were how many officers shot through their vests and killed? Twenty, between 1992 and 2002, according to the Senator. That’s two per year, versus one million rounds of “armor piercing” ammunition sold. And not one of those officers was killed with an “armor piercing” round. They were killed with standard, everyday centerfire rifle ammo.

And now he goes off on Smith & Wesson’s horrible new .500 S&W Magnum, the new weapon designed, in his eyes, specifically to kill cops:

In addition, the gun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, recently introduced a powerful new revolver, the .500 magnum, 4-1/2 pounds, 15 inches long, that clearly has the capability of piercing body armor using ammunition allowed under the current law.

Well, it is bigger than the .44 Magnum, I’ll give him that.

The publication, Gun Week, reviewed the new weapon with enthusiasm: “Behold the magic, feel the power,” it wrote.

Many of our leaders will buy the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum for the same reason that Edmund Hillary climbed Mt. Everest: Because it is there.

Note the ad doesn’t say:

Many of our leaders will buy the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum because it will penetrate body armor and kill cops.

Teddy just hates it because people will want it, and the proles shouldn’t own guns.

Current Federal law bans certain armor-piercing ammunition for handguns. It establishes a content-based standard. It covers ammunition that is, first of all, constructed from tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium, copper, or depleted uranium or, secondly, larger than .22 caliber with a jacket that weighs no more than 25 percent of the total weight of the bullet.

However, there are no restrictions on ammunition that may be manufactured from other materials but can still penetrate body armor. Even more important, there are no restrictions on armor-piercing ammunition used in rifles and assault weapons. Armor-piercing ammunition has no purpose other than penetrating bulletproof vests. It is of no use for hunting or self-defense. Such armor-piercing ammunition has no place in our society–none.

Except you don’t need “armor piercing” ammunition to penetrate “bulletproof” vests. Standard soft-point hunting ammo from a .30-30 will do the job, as Teddy pointed out.

Armor-piercing bullets that sidestep the Federal ban, such as that advertised on Hi-Vel’s Web site, put the lives of American citizens and those sworn to defend American citizens in jeopardy every single day. We know the terrorists are now exploiting the weaknesses and loopholes in our gun laws. The terrorists training manual discovered by American soldiers in Afghanistan in 2001 advised al-Qaida operatives to buy assault weapons in the United States and use them against us.

Terrorists are bent on exploiting weaknesses in our gun laws. Just think of what a terrorist could do with a sniper rifle and only a moderate supply of armor-piercing ammunition.

Just think what he could do with a .300 Magnum bolt-action rifle and some decent 168 grain match rounds. But Teddy doesn’t want to take away sporting ammunition, right?

My amendment amends the Federal ban on cop-killer bullets to include a performance standard and extends the ban on centerfire rifles, which include the sniper rifles and assault weapons responsible for the deaths of 17 police officers whose body armor was penetrated by this ammunition.

My amendment will not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles. To the contrary, it only covers ammunition that is designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability. That is it–designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability, such as armor-piercing ammunition that is now advertised on the Hi-Vel Web site.

Bullets that are designed or marketed to be armor piercing have no place in our society. Ducks, deer, and other wildlife do not wear body armor. Police officers do. We should not let another day pass without plugging the loopholes in the Federal law that bans cop-killer bullets.

This is an issue on which mainstream gun owners and gun safety advocates can agree. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.

Except we “mainstream gun owners” understand that standard rifle ammo will immediately become a “loophole” because, by design or not, it can penetrate police vests.

And if the lowly .30-30 is “capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating” then we know he’s going to go after our 7mm Magnums, our .30-06 bolt-actions, and every other centerfire rifle cartridge extant.

All he needs is an open door, and a law that the lawmakers “don’t realize all that was in it.”

A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.

Henry Louis Mencken

And Teddy’s a prime example.

—

UPDATE: As of August 6, 2013, due to the herculean efforts of reader John Hardin, the original JS-Kit/Echo comment thread for this post (read-only) is available here.

Spin, Spin, Spin

February 12, 2004 KevinLeave a comment

A couple of posts down is the story of Caroyln Lisle who shot an intruder in her Rancho Cordova home. Quoted in the story is one William Vizzard, described as “chair of the criminal justice department at California State University, Sacramento.” One commenter called him “a gun control flunky” and suggested Googling to prove it. So I did.

I found this interesting transcript from PBS’s Newshour from October 18, 2002 where Mr. Vizzard, described as an ex-employee of the BATF was one of the panel. The discussion was about “ballistic fingerprinting,” and was inspired by the fact that the DC snipers were active at that time.

This will be kinda long, but I’m going to fisk it.

RAY SUAREZ: The recent sniper attacks in the Washington, DC, area have revived a debate over a technology that helps authorities trace ammunition found at crime scenes. The technology is called ballistic fingerprinting, and it’s based on the idea that every gun leaves unique markings on its bullet casings.

Um, not quite so unique. Modern manufacturing methods and tooling mean that guns coming sequentially off a production line are very likely to have very similar tooling marks.

Gun makers would be required to register those fingerprints so a national database could be compiled. Until recently, crime labs relied solely on the human eye and a microscope to look at evidence from bullets, but now bullets, bullet fragments and shell casings are scanned into a computer and compared against thousands of other bullets or casings.

SPOKESMAN: When a barrel is produced or a firearm itself is produced, it’s made by other tools. The metal is formed and moved around, scraped away, and those imperfections of each of those tools in the manufacturing process have accidental characteristics it imparts on the gun. It’s still a needle in a haystack, but now we can get through the haystack faster. These comparisons from bullet to bullet are into tenths of seconds.

This assumes that there’s enough left of the bullet to allow identification. On top of that, the bullets being compared must also be of similar composition. For example, a .45 caliber 230 grain full metal jacket bullet made by Speer will have much different markings than a 185 grain hollowpoint bullet manufactured by Federal when fired from the same gun. Especially if the first was fired into a water barrel and the second recovered from a corpse after impacting a major bone. A computer probably wouldn’t be able to get a match. A human eyeball Mark I might. But the human eyeball takes a lot longer than tenths of a second.

RAY SUAREZ: Law enforcement officials back the idea of ballistic fingerprinting and so does the federal Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco and Firearms. Several lawmakers have called for legislation requiring gun makers to record the ballistic markings. The National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates oppose legislation, saying the fingerprinting is an unproven science.

The Bush administration was also skeptical, saying earlier this week the technology might not be reliable and could infringe on privacy. But on Wednesday, Spokesman Ari Fleischer said the President does want to look into creating a national registry.

ARI FLEISCHER: The president wants this issue explored. And to that end, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been meeting, and met yesterday afternoon with White House staff to start to discuss the various issues: The technical issues, there are feasibility issues, the pros and cons about how this could possibly… may be effective, whether it could work or whether it would not be able to work.

Gee, thanks Mr. President.

RAY SUAREZ: While the national debate continues, two states, New York and Maryland, have already enacted laws requiring a ballistic fingerprinting for handguns.

Neither of which has yet to have a match that didn’t identify a crime gun already in their possession, contemporary with the crimes, and firing ammunition that matched that found at the crime scene.

We pick up the debate with Joe Vince, the former chief of the crime guns analysis branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He now has a consulting company in the Washington area. And William Vizzard, a former ATF agent, now chair of the division of criminal justice at California State University at Sacramento.

Well, since the speculation, Joe Vince began with the Washington area sniper, let’s take a look at how ballistic fingerprinting may have been useful in a case like this, in investigating a case like this?

JOE VINCE: In a case like this, Ray, this right now, the ballistic evidence is your best evidence. It’s almost your only evidence. So it provides a lead for law enforcement. And any time you’re working an investigation, law enforcement officials are looking for leads that take them to the next step.

You build your case incrementally. And for this, knowing that it was a .223 what type of firearm it could come from, is very useful.

RAY SUAREZ: But would you, if you had this database, have been able necessarily to narrow down what firearm?

Note, now, how Mr. Vince artfully dodges answering the question:

JOE VINCE: With a database like this, the possibilities multiply. And we have to remember that law enforcement today needs to rely on 21st century technology. In 1890, if you wanted to get in law enforcement, you received a badge, a gun and a club, and said go out there, enforce the law.

Well, that was towns of hundreds. Now we have metropolitan areas of millions. Law enforcement has to leverage technology in order to help them solve crimes — as the gentleman said on your earlier piece, to take the haystack and eliminate as much hay as you can to find the needle.

Simple question, wasn’t it? Would the technology help narrow down what firearm? Answer? Evasion, obfuscation, and haystacks. Is he called on this? Don’t be silly.

RAY SUAREZ: William Vizzard, would this have been a useful tool in this investigation?

WILLIAM VIZZARD: Well, it conceivably could be although — given the circumstances — an individual who apparently has planned these shootings in advance, it’s most likely not in the sense that we have about 200 to 250 million guns in circulation in the United States today.

And it’s possible for an individual simply to acquire one of those and use it, knowing that it’s not in the database. I mean, if we were to begin a database, for instance, today, or at whatever point Congress would cease debating it, presumably, it would start recording bullets and cartridge cases from that day forward.

Now one could of course try to collect the 250 million existing samples out there. But I don’t hear anybody really advocating that because the mechanics of simply trying to track down those guns and get some sort of record on them is extremely difficult. So Joe is certainly right about the technology; it’s extremely useful technology.

It’s proven very useful in a number of crimes involving suspect firearms and bullets or cartridge cases recovered from crime scenes. And had we been doing this from the 1930’s on, and of course in those days we didn’t have in way of cataloging it, we might have some utility at this point.

Hey! An actual answer! No wonder he’s no longer in the ATF.

RAY SUAREZ: But given the plans that are under consideration now this gun would have had to have been either used in a crime before or purchased and profiled at the time of purchase in order to get a hit in a database, is that right?

WILLIAM VIZZARD: It would have to be placed in the data base through scanning in either at time of manufacture or when it was picked up by the police.

Of course unlike fingerprints when you fingerprint an individual and they’re subsequently released and you have their fingerprints, in the case of guns, normally when police get their hands on a gun, they don’t release it and so it’s usually useful only for checking against previous crimes as opposed to building a database for future crimes.

This, too is factually accurate. So far I’m impressed.

RAY SUAREZ: I’m sorry, Joe Vince, go ahead.

JOE VINCE: Well, a good comparison is over 100 years ago when we started fingerprinting. We had no database and we were doing everything in a card file. However, we said this is a good tool to use and it has been extremely useful. Now we have a computerized AFA system; that’s a national system that has fingerprints computerized.

And we don’t only put bad people into that system of fingerprinting. Every man and woman who enters our armed services is fingerprinted. Schoolteachers are fingerprinted.

My wife is a schoolteacher; she’s in there. The reason for that in the military is to obviously check their background, check the teacher’s background but also, God forbid, if they were injured or killed in the line of duty, we could identify them.

This is the same thing we have to do. We have to take incremental steps now and build our database up so we have the same capability that we have with fingerprints.

Yet no one suggests that we fingerprint and DNA scan every single individual so we can pick criminals out of the population from crime scene evidence.

RAY SUAREZ: William Vizzard notes that there are some 250 million guns already out there. How long would it take until you had a database that was actually useful, a body of profiles that was large enough to be useful compared to the number that’s already out there?

And, once again, Mr. Vince dodges the very simple question: “How long?”

JOE VINCE: Well, I agree with Bill, there are a lot of firearms out there. But we have to take the next step. (And there is ALWAYS a “next step.”) I was in Palm Beach, Florida, last week and I talked to the sheriff’s office there. Six months ago they received the IBIS equipment and that has already linked seven or eight different homicides and shootings together that they did not know it was related.

So you can see, in a short period of time you can have some success. We have to start somewhere. Congress wisely already allocated the money. We’ve put the equipment everywhere in the United States. Now we have to effectively use it as a law enforcement tool.

Uh, Mr. Vince, you matched crime scene evidence. You did not identify the firearm or its possessor. And YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION.

RAY SUAREZ: Mr. Vizzard, you’ve used the fingerprints analogy. To carry it one step further, it’s pretty hard to change your fingerprints. Is it hard to change the so-called fingerprint that a firearm puts on a shell casing?

WILLIAM VIZZARD: It’s difficult. It’s more difficult than the opponents have characterized. Firearms are made of extremely hard steel and it takes a long time to wear them enough to significantly alter them. But they are capable of being altered, unlike fingerprints and DNA.

Not exactly true, Mr. Vizzard. For example, take two identical Glock model 17 handguns manufactured three years apart, both of which had been ballistically fingerprinted at manufacture. Run 10,000 rounds through gun #1. Then replace the barrel with a new one you can buy – without a background check, via mailorder. You won’t get a ballistic match on the bullet any more. You might be able to get a shell casing match, but after 10,000 rounds I’d imagine the breechface, the extractor, and the firing pin would be quite worn and the last two items might have been replaced. Add to that the fact that the hardness of the brass and the primer cup has a significant effect on the markings put on the case and you just decreased the possibility even more. Finally, swap the slides and barrels between gun #1 and gun #2. It’s the frame of the pistol that’s considered the “gun.” But it’s the slide and barrel that leave the ballistic markings. Your trail just went cold.

WILLIAM VIZZARD: I think the real issue probably here is that the devil is in the details. It’s a question of cost/benefit analysis, not a question of whether it would be desirable to have this data. I think it would be. I’m not an apologist for the NRA. I’m not morally opposed to the idea.

I simply think that if you consider the cost and the benefits, for instance, we aren’t currently, I believe, scanning into AFIS, any of the prints– any of the non-criminal prints that Joe mentioned, either at the state or the federal level. Some local agencies do.

We are taking DNA only on a very small number of samples from serious offenders. It varies from state to state, depending on what the state law is. We would probably solve far more crimes collecting DNA from everybody in the United States than we would from collecting ballistics from every gun manufactured, so I think you just have to weigh what’s the cost going to be, how is it going to work. (I stand corrected. Someone has suggested it.)

Is there going to be a chain of custody issue, which I haven’t heard anybody discuss; you can get a lead without a chain of custody issue, but if you want to actually make the comparison and you don’t recover the firearm, that’s going to be a problem.

So I don’t think it’s a case of it being a bad program in the sense that it’s evil. I think it’s just simply a very difficult program. And before you rush into it, you sit down and you figure the cost and you figure the benefits. And you say what would we do with the money if we didn’t spend it on this. That’s my only point.

And a good one it is.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Joe Vince, how would it work? A lot of the firearms sold in the United States are made overseas. There are domestic makers and sellers as well. At what point in the life cycle of a gun would we check the markings that it puts in the firearm?

JOE VINCE: It would have to be when the firearm sold. Right now in Maryland and New York, they’re doing it with new handguns. And it really is not keeping a database of names. It refers back to a serial number of a gun and then back to the records of that dealer.

So the government really doesn’t have the information. But we do it in a way that’s very similar to the tracing of firearms that we do now for crime guns, which has also been very useful. But again I really think we have to look at integrating this, too with the various information systems we have in law enforcement.

Like, say a gun registration database? That would be the logical “next step” would it not?

JOE VINCE: The idea is that law enforcement collects enormous amounts of information. This is just one piece and DNA is another. But it’s getting knowledge from all that information. That’s what we have to look at. So it is integrating this so we can get those leads consistently and so that crimes like the sniper in Maryland can be swiftly apprehended.

RAY SUAREZ: How about that, Mr. Vizzard, the idea not being that it would provide absolute information, but when cross referenced, when overlaid with a lot of the other sources that police use, it might be useful?

WILLIAM VIZZARD: It would clearly be useful in some cases. My guess is that for sometime what you would get are rather poorly planned crimes, particularly among younger offenders who tend to acquire new guns more readily than older offenders.

I suspect– I really would question Joe’s characterization of collecting at the time of sale. Frankly collecting at the time of import or manufacture would make more sense. We’re talking about a lot of guns here and I envision ATF being back where they were when they used to put personnel at the distilleries — simply putting somebody at the factory and scanning the data in there, but without a national gun registration and licensing system, you’ve got real limits on the value. (Thank you for making my point, Mr. Vizzard.)

And of course that’s why the NRA gets so exercised by it. I’m as not offended by a licensing and registration system as they are. But without that information, private sales very often result in guns just simply being swallowed up and disappearing.

And we do oftentimes trace guns to individuals. We oftentimes lose the track, also. So I think you just have to again analyze the worth of the system as it relates to the specific kind of information you’re looking for. Nobody, I think at this point, can estimate the cost.

Every computer system ever built has turned out to be different than people expected and I realize we’re running the system on a small scale today. But if we start running on a much larger scale, we’ll probably gain some economy of scale and probably also run into problems we didn’t know we would have. All of those things have to be addressed.

Thus endeth the transcript.

All in all, I thought Mr. Vizzard was quite fair, and Mr. Vince was the typical official-line-spewing, job-justifying government flunky.

For further reading on the efficacy of a ballistic fingerprinting database for identifying firearms in the general population, I strongly recommend the initial ballistic fingerprinting study report to the California legislature, Feasibility of a California Ballistics Identification System , the follow-on AB1717 report – Technical Evaluation: Feasibility of a Ballistics Imaging Database for All New Handgun Sales, and the Maryland State Police Forensics Division IBIS report (a 2.5Mb scanned document in PDF format. Maryland never officially released this report as far as I can tell.)

When Vizzard said “Nobody, I think at this point, can estimate the cost” he wasn’t kidding. What he didn’t say was nobody can estimate the effectiveness, either. Without those two crucial bits of information, it’s damned hard to do a cost/benefit analysis, isn’t it?

UPDATE, 2/12: Reader Kevin P., who was the commenter that characterized William Vizzard as a “gun control flunky” has withdrawn that comment, and instead states: “I withdraw that term unreservedly and apologize to Mr. Vizzard should he ever read this.

“However, I will stand by the assertion that he is a gun control advocate. He is a rarity, an informed and knowledgeable gun control advocate, probably because of his career in the ATF. His performance in the PBS ballistic fingerprinting debate was fair and accurate – but it is something that should be expected and demanded of everyone.”

Yes, it should. Kevin P. also links to this quite interesting review of Mr. Vizzard’s book Shots in the Dark: The Policy, Politics, and Symbolism of Gun Control by Dave Kopel. Give it a read.

Thank you, Kevin. Stuff like this makes my day.

January 12, 2004 KevinLeave a comment

I LOVE a Good Fisk

The Angry Clam does a very nice job disassembling an anti-gun op-ed from the Detroit News. Good stuff!