There are two constants we can expect from the ABC News blog The Blotter.

They will report in great detail on stories involving the criminal use of a firearm.

They will invariably get significant details grossly wrong.

Whether the subject is Mexico's drug cartels, items restricted by the 1994 Crime Bill, or basic descriptions of guns used in massacres, Ros and ABC News are predictably incompetent, and their streak continued today as they try to discuss some of the weaponry purchased by Fort Hood Jihaidi, Major Nidal Hasan:

Right next door to the strip club is the gun store, Guns Galore, where authorities say Hasan bought his semi-automatic pistol and bullets and in the weeks before the shooting, 13 extra ammunition clips that could hold up to 30 bullets each.

As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of modern firearms will tell you, modern handguns do not use clips. They use magazines, and yes there is a distinctive difference between a single piece of spring steel that holds a group of cartridges together (a clip) and an enclosed, spring-loaded mechanical device that encloses and protects cartridges an actively feeds them into a firearm's chamber (a magazine).

Then there is the fact that one cannot readily buy a 30-round magazine for the Five-SeveN pistol as ABC tries to claim.

Precisely two magazines are available with the Five-seveN, a 10-round magazine for states that restrict the number of cartridges a civilian's handgun can carry, and the standard 20-round magazine that the weapon was designed to accept. No one makes a 30-round magazine for the Five-seveN, though CMMG has a 10-round extension one can purchase separately and install to the base of the factory 20-round magazines. There are no reports that Hasan actually purchased such extensions, much less used them in his attack.

But that sort of inaccuracy is par for the course for a propagandist far more interested in pushing a political agenda than actually reporting the facts, and Ross is quite consistent in framing stories in such a way to give gun control groups an edge.

After all, who needs facts?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:21 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The "clips" vs "mags" thing i can almost accept, that's just idiotic popular culture. but the 30 vs 20 round thing is pretty lame. Next its going to be a 200 round drum?

Posted by: John at November 16, 2009 01:39 PM (mAp1o)

2 Yeah, and the silly folks also think it was a nearly 6 inch diam. barrel. All they need is some square backed bullets and they'd be all set.

Posted by: brando at November 16, 2009 03:46 PM (IPGju)

3 Well the "clips vs magazines" thing is generational as well. As one who trained and carried the M1 Garand, I often find myself reverting to "clips" when I really mean Magazines. Of course the dimwit at ABC wouldn't know anything about that, and is likely just repeating whatever the anti-gun crowd has provided him as a "press release". That intellectual laziness continually pops up in the press, as they take, verbatim, the "facts" from the anti-gun groups and repeat it as fact.

Posted by: Jim at November 16, 2009 03:59 PM (WacVk)

4 "After all, who needs facts?" The above describes perfectly the liberal mindset: Facts? We don't need no Steenking Facts! Afterall, facts simply get in the way of what they believe.

Posted by: firefirefire at November 17, 2009 06:33 AM (tbYJ7)

5 The best definition I've read is "Clips load magazines". So wouldn't that make it "clips feed magazines, magazines feed guns"?

Posted by: Veeshir at November 17, 2009 04:05 PM (110Vq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The media is wasting very little time informing us that the weapon used by Major Nidal Malik Hasan in his rampage at Fort Hood was a "cop killer."

Ft. Hood terrorist used a cop killer FN-Five Seven tactical pistol—20 round clip -- Examiner

'Cop Killer" Gun though to Be Used in Ft. Hood Shooting, Offiicals Said -- ABC News

Fort Hood shootings: gunman used 'cop killer' weapon in massacre at US Army base -- UK Telegraph

Ironically, there is no known record of that weapon even being used to kill a police officer in the United States, and there is a distinct possibility that Sgt. Kimberly Munley, wounded while engaging Hasan, may have been the first American law enforcement officer ever shot with a Five-seveN.

How did the Five-seveN get it's "cop killer" reputation, then?

It was created in a Brady Campaign press release in February of 2005.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:04 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

The FN SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) that has been deployed in small numbers with U.S. Special Forces will finish an initial deployment in December. Jane's is reporting that a much larger follow-on order of 15,000 5.56 SCAR-L(ight) and 5,000 7.62 SCAR-H(eavy) modular rifles is expected to follow in 2010.

Jason Spradling of Remington addressed rumors about the 6.5 chambering listed for the much-anticipated Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle).

The Firearms Blog had assumed that the 6.5 cartridge would be the 6.5 Grendel, but an industry insider informed him that Remington was not developing a 6.5 Grendel variant, and someone else said that Remington may be developing their own 6.5 cartridge.

Jason confirmed with me via email yesterday that Remington was not actively working on a 6.5 Grnedel variant... or a 6.5 cartridge of their own.

"We have mentioned the 6.5 in our communications on the ACR simply because that platform is capable of handling the Grendel or something like it. At this point, there are no plans to chamber the ACR for the Grendel. However, that may change if we receive enough input from the marketplace to make it seem necessary."

The SCAR-L and ACR are destined for a collision course in the defense market as direct competitors as a replacement for the M-4 carbine. Both rifles are also going to be developed with semi-automatic variants for the civilian market. The SCAR-L and SCAR-H are currently priced north of $2,500 (sometimes far more).

Pricing for the ACR has not yet been released.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:55 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

A letter to the editor in the Arizona Daily Sun asks an interesting question:

If I understand it correctly, a lot of folks are saying health care is a right for all and we all should help pay for it. I'm wondering: Since owning a gun is a right, do you think everyone can chip in and get me a new rifle?

That sounds like a better use of tax dollars than most.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:56 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

I contacted several shooting industry sources regarding California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to sign oppressive ammunition restriction bill AB962.

The bill requires ammunition to be held behind the counter, restricts sales to individuals to a maximum of 50 rounds per month, bans direct mail and internet sales, and requires retailers to collect intrusive personal information for each sale including:

Date of transaction.

Buyer's date of birth, full address, driver's license number, right thumbprint and signature.

Brand, type and amount of ammunition purchased.

Name of the salesperson who processed the sale.

While the law theoretically affects only handgun ammunition, many rifles also shoot handgun-caliber ammunition and owners of those firearms will be affected as well. That information would be turned over to the government which would effectively be able to compile a backdoor handgun ownership database on all California gun owners.

The prohibition does not outlaw the unregistered ownership of handgun ammunition, nor does it stop individuals from crossing state lines to purchase as much ammunition as they desire. In effect, it penalizes law-abiding recreational shooters, while potentially creating a lucrative market for ammunition smuggling into California.

The California Association of Firearms Retailers (CAFR) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) are highly critical of the bill, stating:

NSSF has estimated that AB 962 would cost California at least $2.92 million annually in lost sales taxes and $629,000 in increased operating costs for state agencies. Lost retail sales in California were estimated at $35.7 million. These estimates followed the recent release of a study by the Governor's Office of Small Business Advocate that show over-regulation of small businesses in California costing the state an estimated $492 billion, almost five times the stateÂ’s general fund budget and almost a third of the state's gross product. The Small Business Advocate study also found that California's regulatory burdens costs an average of $134,122 per California business, $13,801 per household and $4,685 per resident each year. Small businesses are 98 percent of the state's enterprises and provide 52 percent of the jobs.

"Despite the excuses given this morning by the governor, nothing will change the fact that this legislation will drive many small, independent retailers already struggling in a poor economy out of business or force them to flee California's burdensome and hostile regulatory environment for greener economic pastures elsewhere-- taking with them their jobs and tax revenue," said CAFR President Marc Halcon.

I sent email to contacts within the ammunition industry, and few seem willing to talk about a possible response.

I asked them all the same specific question: Do you anticipate sanctions by manufacturers against the state of California in response for this law, perhaps similar to Barrett's refusal to sell or service CA state agencies after the ill-advised .50 BMG rilfe ban went into effect?

While anti-trust laws keeps the companies from discussing such an idea with one another, one highly-placed industry source was willing to provide his opinion off the record.

He would not rule out a decision by one or more ammunition manufacturers to refuse to do business with the State of California while the ban was in effect.

"Nothing would surprise me. I'm sure everyone is exploring their options right now."

If ammunition manufacturers do decide to go this route in response, state and local law enforcement agencies may have to find other vendors to supply their ammunition, or face running low on ammunition themselves.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:44 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Arnold has as much to do with the conservative agenda as did Bush. Which is nothing.

Posted by: David at October 15, 2009 05:39 PM (Lh/sO)

2 I thought i read somewhere that the "50 round limit" part got cut at/before the signing? the text/comments from ah-nold here: http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=68596&catid=2 imply that there's no limit. but yes, the entire thing is stupid. In that article the governator even pats himself on the back for the .50 cal debacle.

Posted by: John at October 15, 2009 07:23 PM (iaV9O)

3 Well, since I fly to CA regularly and go shooting with my daughter I will just have to bring a couple thousand rounds each time I visit. She can mark them up 100% and sell them to her friends. Thank you, CA, for some more untraceable income.

Posted by: iconoclast at October 15, 2009 08:07 PM (FGCRY)

4 Most of you sound like folks we welcome to Texas. The more honest Gun owners the better. We don't have earthquakes...Convinced?

Posted by: Marc at October 15, 2009 11:53 PM (Zoziv)

5 Well lets just let Kalifornia slide into the ocean. They elect those idiots let them sort 'em out.

Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at October 15, 2009 11:53 PM (8kQ8M)

6 with the upcoming census overcount of illegal aliens, CA looks to gain quite a few more gerrymandered ultra-liberal loons in Congress. But by then CA will be its own 3rd world country.

Posted by: iconoclast at October 16, 2009 12:55 AM (O8ebz)

7 Marc: Glad to hear that. Bought my new house in the hill country 3 months ago.

Posted by: CFM at October 16, 2009 02:39 AM (vt8Y4)

8 Actually, with the increasing large amount of money the US owes to China, it wouldn't be surprising to see China demand ownership of California if the US defaults....

Posted by: _Jon at October 16, 2009 10:19 AM (ehN4c)

9 Step 1. Open a drive through store on the road from California to Los Vegas, right on the Nevada line. Step 2. Sell bulk ammo. Let customers call ahead, use a website, or fax/email/twitter orders with Paypal or credit cards, so there is essentially a zero wait time at the store's loading docks. Step 3. Profit. And I did not have to collect underpants with gnomes.

Posted by: Mikee at October 16, 2009 11:07 AM (dChgD)

10 Yes hey should stop selling there. The truth is that in the long run it will just make Cali even more broke than they already are. They will loose all of that business and all of the taxes that go with those sales. They cant have thier cake and eat it too, if they want to be able to tax the crap out of thier citizens(oh my appolagies, SUBJECTS) they must give them something for it. If you are a decent and conservitive person VACATE the state and leave those Commie assholes to thier vices. Good luck and God speed

Posted by: Spook45 at October 16, 2009 11:53 AM (wmuk+)

11 This is the amount of incredulous influence the--OPEN BORDER--lobbyists (business power brokers and ethnic zealots)) have on certain Democratic devious rabble? Once again the senate top echelon have huddled secretly (BEHIND CLOSED DOORS), recklessly placing E-Verify worker identification system in jeopardy. The obnoxious R-O-P-E Senate group as its being called on the Internet and nationwide, who are marked as Reid, Obama, Pelosi Emmanuel have indifferently pushed American Workers in the background, allowing the millions of illegal aliens to take their jobs. They have driven into the ground amendments from appearing in the final Homeland Security "conference committee" bill. They eradicated--ANY CHANCE--of a Senate's permanent authorization of the E-Verify program. They have religiously under-funded, undermined the Senate's mandate to beef up and complete the final 300 mile Mexican border fence. Then again it was never the original border wall as designed by Rep. Duncan Hunter. Illegal Aliens would have first had to scale the--FIRST--fence, run across the two lane highway for the Border Patrol vehicles, then scale an identical--SECOND FENCE. Under funded and weakened just like E-Verify, the police 287(g) arrest and detainment and ceasing the massive ICE raids. Finally the ROPE group strangled the Senate (already) passed ability of countrywide businesses to run their previous hires employees through E-Verify. So you can guess this is a harbinger to drop on the AMERICAN WORKER YET ANOTHER ULTIMATELY EXPENSIVE BLANKET AMNESTY. THOSE TAXPAYERS WILL BE FORCED TO PICK UP A TRILLION DOLLAR TAB. Be advised that Reid D-NV , Pelosi D-CA have one of the largest population of illegal immigrants in the country, who they are subservient too. Remember to expend your frustration and anger at 202-224-3121on your lawmakers. They are juggling with millions of American Workers job lifeline, by pandering to people who shouldn't even be here? MY SUGGESTION IS DON"T BUY ANY SERVICES FROM BUSINESS THAT DOESN'T DISPLAY THE E-VERIFY PLACARD. Remember the real conniving happens in rooms hidden from the public awareness in conference committees. In addition, Remember Harry Reid as an incumbent Senator who carries the blemish of being anti-American Worker, Anti-Sovereignty must not be re-elected. Speaker Pelosi must go? So must Emmanuel? They have proved they cannot be trusted As NUMBERSUSA president says," With no chance now of E-Verify dying in any minute, because they couldn't annul the 3 year extension? The pro-amnesty forces no longer can try to use it as a bargaining chip. States, counties, cities and businesses can now be quite confident that they can set policy based on the E-Verify program being around." IT'S NOT PERMANENT YET THANKS TO ROPE. This group has given preference to illegal workers instead of the 15 million authorized AMERICAN WORKERS. COMPREHEND MORE OF THE CORRUPTION THAT CANNOT BE DENIED BY POLITICIANS AT JUDICIAL WATCH. NUMBERSUSA will explain in detail the consequences, that includes the 2010 Census, Health Care, hidden welfare programs, Anchor babies, criminals amongst the illegal immigration occupiers. CAPSWEB for OVERPOPULATION information.

Posted by: Brittancus at October 16, 2009 01:42 PM (Kc4uK)

12 Hey CA, you made your bed, now lay in it!!!

Posted by: Andrew at October 16, 2009 07:18 PM (t9+Ir)

13 Just make sure that there's a hill or a curve between your store and the California border. Don't want the CHP surveilling your place from the CA side and harassing your customers, as MA did with people who brought liquor in NH,

Posted by: PKO Strany at October 20, 2009 01:30 PM (+IzXJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.

When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?

Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of veterans far more qualified to opine on whether or not the M-4/M-16 family of small arms are the best that money can buy, but it doesn't take a great deal of qualification to suspect that the answer to this question is "no."

The basic weapon design for the M-16/M-4 is over 40 years old. While there have been modifications and upgrades during its service lifetime, it has always been prone to failure in adverse conditions. The shorter M-4 carbine, with an abbreviated gas system, is also said to be less reliable than the longer barreled M-16.

Then there is the issue of the cartridge the weapon uses. While the 5.56 NATO round can create devastating wounds at higher velocities, the shorter barrel of the M-4 reduces the velocity of the small .22-caliber bullet so that at extended ranges, velocity drops off enough that the bullet merely penetrates straight through without immediately stopping the enemy. I've written before about soldiers I've spoken to directly that had to shoot insurgents in the head after multiple shots to the torso failed to stop them.

Likewise, the cartridge has been criticized from the beginning because the high velocity lightweight bullets fail to penetrate light cover and stop the enemy on the other side. This is a significant problem, especially as U.S. troops typically encounter an opposition with 7.62-caliber weapons that have greater penetration capability.

Our soldiers are armed with a weapon advanced in years with a history of failing at the worst possible time, chambered for a cartridge with a dubious record of stopping the enemy in real-world combat scenarios.

Of course, our military knows this.

The XM-8 program developed a lighter, more reliable 5.56 weapon. The military cancelled it, but civilians can get a semi-automatic version for themselves. There are also other, more reliable weapons being used in small quantities in the field, from the HK416 to the FN SCAR.

Other cartridges are being tested as well, from the 6.8 SPC specifically developed for the military, to the 6.5 Grendel.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are not arming our military with the most modern, reliable, or potent weapons.

I'll leave it for others to explain why.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:24 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 556 words, total size 4 kb.

Tales of the gun weird:

Michael Thourot had just pulled his hand away from the warm metal when it started spewing bullets.

Moments before, Sherri Thourot had watched her husband fire and reload the Jennings 9mm. Then he set it down for her to shoot next at the range.

That's when the handgun started firing on its own, she said, spinning around in circles, landing the Thourots and an Irish tourist in the hospital.

"Nothing like that has ever happened," said Sherri Thourot on Sunday evening from her room at Lakeland Regional Medical Center.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:54 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

So I mentioned briefly Tuesday that I was contacted by the staff at Front Sight Firearms Training Institute last week, inquiring into whether or not I might be interested in partnering with them for a promotional venture.

Guess what? I looked it over, and it seems like a good deal.

Without further procrastination, let's get to it.

Here is what Front Sight is offering.

Four Day Defensive Handgun Certificate that allows you to attend a $2,000 Four Day Defensive Handgun Course at any time in the future with no expiration date. Have better gun handling, marksmanship and tactical skills than 99% of the people who carry a gun for a living! Your shooting buddies will ask, "Where did you learn how to shoot like that?" You will proudly tell them, "Front Sight." Course Value: $2,000. Being the Best Shooter in your group of shooting buddies... Priceless!

One Day 30 State Concealed Weapon Permit Course that gives you all the training, paperwork signed off, finger prints, and certificates to apply for permits in FL, NV, and Utah. Reciprocity agreements in place allow you to carry a concealed handgun in 30 states. Course Value: $500. Comfort of being armed and trained to handle anything... Priceless!

All 7 Front Sight Dry Practice Manuals, each over 100 pages with photos of all the techniques we teach in our Four Day Defensive Handgun, Tactical Shotgun, Practical Rifle, Select Fire M16, Uzi Submachine Gun, Empty Hand Defense and Edged Weapons Courses. These manuals are your "Perfect Practice At Home Front Sight Instructor!" Manuals Value: $280. Ability to dry practice all the correct techniques and continue to improve your skills between courses... Priceless!

Limited Edition, Stainless Steel Folding Knife with Front Sight Logo etched in handle. You can't get this knife anywhere at any price. This is a special run of knives made specifically for this offer. If we sold a logo knife in our pro shop, which we don't, it would be priced at $300 or more. You get it as part of this package. Knife Value: $300. Cool factor when you whip it out to open a box, slice an apple, or dissuade an attacker... Priceless!

Front Sight Instructor Belt, Holster, Magazine Pouch, Flashlight Holder and Flashlight. All the right gear you need to wear on your belt for a Four Day Defensive Handgun Course. Gear Value: $230. Knowing you are outfitted for your first Front Sight course with the same gear the Front Sight Instructors wear... Priceless!

Front Sight Logo Armorer's Bench Mat. Neoprene bench mat measuring approximately 16" x 12" featuring the Front Sight logo and exploded view disassembly diagrams for the 1911 pistol, Glock pistol, and AR-15 Rifle on it. Armorer's Bench Mat Value: $40. Having a Front Sight padded mat to clean and work on your guns... Priceless!

Front Sight "Any Gun Will Do-- If You Will Do" Logo Shirt. I have had so many reports of people seeing our students proudly wearing their Front Sight shirts all over the country. Our students wear them to shooting ranges, gun shows, rock concerts, Disneyland and even church! You too will enjoy proudly flying Front Sight's colors. Shirt Value: $30. Wearing it to your liberal brother-in-law's house party... Priceless!

Front Sight Logo Hat. Perfect accessory item to wear with or without your Front Sight shirt. Keeps the sun out of your eyes and your mind in Condition Yellow (If you don't know what Condition Yellow is you REALLY need to take a course with us!) Hat Value: $20. The acknowledging nod you get from other gun owners when they see you wearing it... Priceless!

Right there I think that Front Sight has a week's worth of experience lined up a a reasonable price, but the other previously-mentioned take home prize makes the deal even sweeter.

Yes, your very own Springfield Armory XD, in your choice of 9mm, .40 S& W, or .45 ACP.

I've made no secret that I'm a fan of the XD, and Front Sight will give you one once you are enrolled.

Folks, this is one great offer.

What should you expect to get out of this investment in your shooting skills?

The ability to draw from a concealed holster and put a controlled pair of shots to the target's thoracic cavity from 3-5 yards away, in less than 1.5 seconds.

Folks, that is strong. Admittedly, I can't do that now. Can you?

I'm hoping that you will consider signing up.

With competence comes confidence.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:16 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 767 words, total size 5 kb.

You may notice above that there is a banner ad to FrontSight Firearms Training Institute. After being approached by one of their staff last week about promoting a training package I decided to partner up with them, as FrontSight has a excellent reputation as a shooting school and the package they are promoting includes a Springfield Armory XD that you get to take home.

I'll have more on this later tonight or tomorrow.

In the meantime, you can read up on some the links to articles about them they so graciously provided.

Front Sight

Ignatius Piazza in Small Arms Review

Ignatius Piazza

Ignatius Piazza Blog

Ignatius Piazza in Times Democrat

Front Sight in National Enquirer

Ignatius Piazza in Handvapen

Front Sight in Sierra Times

Ignatius Piazza in Forbes

Ignatius Piazza in Playboy Magazine German Edition

Or since seeing is believing:

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:39 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 2 kb.

Every once in a while I get the opportunity to test some exquisite firearms.

The last to pass through my hands was Ruger's first entry into the AR market, the piston-driven SR-556, which I was able to outfit with an Insight Technologies MRDS optic. I just returned it last week after having it for three months, and it was tough to send back. I'll post my range report in the weeks to come.

Having a newly-released gun in your hands sometimes lead you to try to get into the mind of the designer to try to understand why they decided on the features they brought to market, and in my case, that leads me to wonder about other firearms that I'd be interested in seeing developed from existing firearms, or entirely new designs.

There are two that I've been kicking around in the back of my mind in recent weeks, one being a 5.56 Garand, and the other is a user-friendly dedicated home-defense shotgun.

The 5.56 Garand

The Garand needs no introduction. It was America's premier service rifle in World War II through the Korean War, a semi-automatic firing eight .30-'06 rounds loaded from an en bloc clip.

There are millions of Garands in the hands of American shooters, with the vast majority of them chambered in the traditional .30-'06, but the .308 Winchester increasing being adopted in new rifles. Modification of Garands into other calibers is nothing new, with custom Garands chambered in .338 Magnum and 458 Magnum being available to those who can afford them, but I'd like to see development taken the other way.

I'd like to see a Garand design modernized and scaled to the 5.56 cartridge. Imagine a Garand at 90-percent the size of the original, with a forward-mounted short section of picatinny rail for "scout"-type scopes, with a detachable rear sight (and perhaps a folding rear backup iron site). Even scaled to 90-percent, I wold think an 8-10 round en bloc clip is quite possible.

I imagine it as a truck gun, equally suited for utility work, plinking, predator, and defense or light to medium game hunting.

The Home Defense Shotgun

While the 5.56 is a nice " want to have," the next firearm on my wish list is for a real and vital market that in my experience, is under-served.

When I was selling firearms, the most heart-wrenching work I took on was trying to help someone who had recently been the victim of a crime. A young couple just starting out was living in rough part of town, awoke one night to a someone high on drugs battering open their front door. A single older lady found signs that someone had tried to force open her apartment window. A single woman in her 20s, visibly shaken, scared that her obsessive ex-boyfriend was going to break in one night and hurt her for leaving him.

None of these customers was the caricature of a gun owner that liberals love to set up as strawmen, and none really wanted to purchase a gun. What they really wanted was the sense of security that only firearms can provide in a potentially dangerous situation.

For each of these customers, I wish I had a better option than what I had on the shelves. What I wish I had to sell was a very easy to operate, compact and nearly foolproof shotgun, one that was light and compact enough for women and smaller-statured men, without punishing recoil, and with at least 4-5 rounds in the magazine. I still don't see a perfect solution on the market (and a one-size fits all solution will never exist), but something built off the basic concepts behind the Kel-Tec RFB would certainly be a step in the right direction.

The RFB is a very compact bullpup-style .308 rifle that ejects spent shells forward, meaning it can be used ambidextrously without any modifications. A similar weapon chambered in 20-gauge with simple iron sights and larger game loads (#4-#6) could certainly be the in-home, last defense gun that I would have recommended if we had it on the shelf.

I don't know that there is a significant market for either firearm, but it would certainly be interesting to see how such concepts might work out.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 724 words, total size 4 kb.

The lefty blogs are beside themselves (indeed, Gawker John Cook seems like he is about to lose bladder control) over the fact that about a dozen open carry advocates attended the protest outside Barack Obama's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, AZ today. Much to the dismay of the commenters at many of those sites, openly carrying firearms is completely legal in Arizona.

It also appears that protestors on both sides may have been armed.

As much as I support the open carry movement in theory, I have a very hard time seeing open carry at a political event full of people as anything other than a very bad idea. It is needlessly provocative (and I suspect in many instances, purposefully so), and potentially dangerous.

While the protestors themselves may not have any intent to use the firearms they are carrying, open carry in dense, emotional crowds opens up a whole host of possible scenarios that could end in disaster. I'd be rather surprised if any were using holsters with any sort of locking retention devices.

The man who got the greatest amount of attention was carrying a Carbon-15 rifle with a 30-round magazine and an EOTech sight slung over his back; not the best way to retain and control your weapon in a crowd.

The people on both sides were of course well within their legal rights to carry at this event.

Whether or not openly carrying firearms to a political protest is intelligent is another matter entirely.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

The so-called "Thune Amendment" to provide co-equal reciprocity to concealed carry permit holders traveling across state lines will come to a vote today.

The Amendment would allow concealed carry permit holders to carry their guns in the 48 states that allow some form of concealed carry (Illinois and Wisconsin do not allow for concealed carry in any form). Permit holders would still be responsible for knowing and following all applicable laws of the individual states they visit regarding concealed carry.

Opponents of the amendment have gone for the usual hysteria, insisting that such a bill would mean blood flowing in the streets.

That sort of hyperbole and fear-mongering is of course unfounded.

There are legitimate reasons one could cite to oppose the bill, such as concerns over how Alaska and Vermont residents—which are allowed to carry concealed weapons without any sort of a permit—would be accommodated. There are legitimate reasons to question the public safety of allowing people who come from states that provide permits without any training to travel anywhere. There are also questions about whether such a bill tramples on states' rights.

Those questions need to be answered, and I suspect they reasonably can be.

By the protests sounded by many of those opposing this bill aren't based upon any sort of logical thought process. They trumpet only unreasoning fear:

"If you walk down the street in New York ... you can have the solace of knowing that if someone has a gun on them they've gone through a rigorous police background check. After this bill, you can have no such comfort," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Sunday.

Shumer is dishonest. If someone is carrying a gun in New York City, they are either a criminal or politically connected, with very, very few exceptions, and it is only slightly less difficult to carry upstate. Being a well-trained, responsible, law-abiding citizen isn't enough to get a carry permit in New York City, you need political connections, or if you are a normal citizen, you have to demonstrate need—as if a citizen can foretell in advance when someone might attempt to carjack, rob, or rape them. Even then, permitting is an altogether arbitrary process subject to whim as much as process.

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg was no more logical:

It could be drunks stumbling out of saloons packing heat that leads to another OK Corral. Or a bump on the subway that turns into a quick-draw shootout.

And the cops can't do anything about it until it's too late.

Those are some of the nightmare scenarios an agitated Mayor Bloomberg said could unfold on city streets if the Senate doesn't kill a "terrible piece of legislation."

The controversial measure says that as long as you're legal to pack heat in one state, you're A-OK to carry a concealed gun anywhere you travel in the U.S.

The proposal, an amendment coming up for a vote today, "is just an out-and-out trampling of historic states' rights," Bloomberg said in a reference to New York's tough laws against concealed guns.

"This bill is an anti-police, pro-gun-trafficker bill. This is going to put a lot more guns on the street," Bloomberg said on a conference call with several other mayors who warned their streets could also become war zones.

As Bloomberg should know, carrying a firearm in New York City would still be prohibited even when the Thune Amendment passes; it only apply to state laws, and local prohibitive ordinances such as NYC's would presumably still apply.

As for the Wild West hyperbole of shootouts on every street corner over the slightest offenses, well, that bit of dark fantasy has been debunked no less than 36 times. The same fear-mongering has been made in response to every state that implemented a concealed carry law, and the claims have always fallen flat.

Concealed carry permit holders are far less likely to commit a crime than the general population, and though there are millions of concealed carry permit holders in the United States—there are more than 1.4 million in Florida alone—the best that the anti-gun Violence Policy Center could do to suggest that concealed carry was dangerous was to point out 31 instances where concealed carry permit holders have been accused of violent crimes.

The VPC was so desperate to get even this scant amount of evidence that they were forced to include allegations of wrong-doing in cases that had not been adjudicated, cases that concealed weapons played little or no part in, and at least on case were no weapons at all were used.

Far from showcasing gun violence caused by concealed carry permit holders, the VPC report instead serves to show that carry permit holders as a group are far less violent that those citizens that are not licensed to carry firearms.

38 states allow concealed carry. 28 of them already have reciprocity laws that allow permit holders to carry in various states.

Thune's amendment is an attempt to add some consistency to an often confusing hodgepodge of state-mandated and constantly changing reciprocity agreements, while keeping every individual state restriction and concern in place about how and where guns can be carried within those states. It seeks nothing more or less than extending to law-abiding citizens the opportunity to follow the laws of another jurisdiction.

That hardly sounds like a situation that should earn the shrill hyperbole we're hearing from some politicians and media elitists.

But then, we aren't dealing with rational people.

Update: Why am I surprised that irrational fear wins in a Democrat-controlled Senate? The vote fell two votes shy (58-39) of the 60 needed.

And the victorious dolt speaks:

"Lives have been saved with the defeat of this amendment," Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, a leading opponent of the amendment, said in a statement. "The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault weapons ban."

The ten year (1994-2004) "assault weapons" ban did not save one single life.

While 19 guns were banned by name, every single domestic manufacturer had variants of pre-ban guns on the street the day after the "ban" took effect, with no decrease in accurate, power, or rate of fire. Many manufacturers of assault weapons expanded their domestic sales during the ban due to high demand, and there were always plenty of these firearms legally available for sale on gun shop shelves.

The "ban" can fairly be credited with the creation of a new class of handguns, subcompact semi-automatics that packed duty-grade calibers (9mm, ..40S&W, .357 SIG, .45 ACP) into ever-smaller frames, so that far more powerful bullets can be launched from guns not appreciably larger that the low-powered and often ineffective &qout;mousegun" calibers of previous generations. If anything, a good case can be made that by making guns ever smaller and more powerful, the assault weapons ban encouraged people—both law-abiding citizens and violent criminals—to carry firearms more frequently.

How many homicides associated with this new class of weapon do you want credit for, Chuck?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1204 words, total size 8 kb.

If Chuck Shumer and the New York-based media are against it, it must be good for America:

A measure taken up by the Senate Monday would give people the right to carry concealed weapons across state lines as long as they obey the concealed gun laws of the state they are visiting.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said his proposal would reduce crime by providing reciprocity to carry concealed firearms. "My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws," he said.

...

Thune's bill, supported by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, would allow people with concealed weapons privileges in one state to transfer that right to other states, contingent on their following the laws of those other states. Many state gun laws specify locations where concealed weapons can, or cannot, be carried.

It does not, Thune said, provide for a national carry permit and would not permit the concealing of weapons in the two states — Wisconsin and Illinois — that do not allow the practice.

Gun control advocate Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the amendment "could endanger the safety of millions of Americans."

He said in a statement that "to gut the ability of individual states to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense," he said.

This may come as a shock to the uninformed, but most states with concealed carry permits already have some sort of reciprocity agreement with other states. For example, my North Carolina concealed carry permit is honored in 31 other states. New York concealed carry permits have considerably less clout, being honored in only 13 other states.

Critics that insist this amendment would lead to violence are all predicted on the absurd illogic that a person who is licensed to carry a firearm in his home state would be overcome with a murderous desire urge to commit a violent felony the moment they cross the border into another state where they did not previously have reciprocity.

It's a laughably foolish premise that an educated, rational person would ignore, and yet the apparent de facto position in a number of editorials in northeastern news organizations.

The echo is so harmonious that almost makes me wonder if news organizations have been orchestrated in some manner—perhaps by a panicky senior Senator from New York?

On second thought, I'm sure I don't want to know.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Rather pathetic considering their history of small arms development, but perhaps to be expected from a now-neutered nanny-state that thinks normal kitchen knives are too dangerous.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Glenn Reynolds linked to an article in the Christian Science Monitor about the growing prominence of gun-bloggers among the old media and how these sometimes cranky and contrary souls [We don't know anyone like that, do we?] are even forcing the hand of the NRA on occasion.

The very first comment on the article was from someone using the name Susan Gill. I'm sure you'll recognize someone you know in her reply:

My goodness, it's hard to know where to begin. In Seattle, there is an increase of gang shootings, often by teenagers, right out in the open on the University of Washington Ave., Alki Beach, Golden Gardens, the South end at bus stops, etc. Kids should NOT have guns. Nationally, we have people in the same families shooting one another. People go off the deep end and shoot fellow workers or students with machine guns they should NEVER have access to.

The logic is we all have the right to protect ourselves. But, maybe we need to be thinking through the best way TO protect ourselves. Some good ways are living a wise lifestyle, trying to be harmonious with all, listening to your intuitions, staying out of trouble spots, leading a good purposed meaningful life and providing opportunities for others to do the same.

This pressure and lobbying from the NRA has been escalating for years. I don't like it at all. I'm to the point I'm more opposed to the pressure than the availability of guns. Why not more pressure for a harmonious society? Why not more pressure to provide for larger police forces? Why not more regulated laws that oversee gun sales, and limit gun sales to the appropriate parties, those who are professionals in the service of protecting our cities and country? (I won't even try to talk about the "hunting" aspect. I cannot in a million years imagine shooting an animal!)

I simply cannot believe our Founding Fathers' intent with the 2nd Amendment was to indiscriminately pass out guns to anyone who wants one. There MUST be more intelligent scrutiny and stricter laws on who may carry a fire arm.

Let us for a moment look past her sincere ignorance and the fact that there have been precisely two murders documented with legally-owned machine guns since 1934, that children are already barred from purchasing all manner of firearms, that "harmonious living" never stopped a hardened criminal, and that criminals should not circumscribe your freedoms. We'll look past all that to focus on what all too many outside of her moonbeams-and-unicorns world view also misunderstand about what our nation is, and the role firearms were intended to play.

To her and others like her I would write:

Ms. Gill,

I'd like to direct you to The Federalist Papers and other documents written by our Founding Fathers. They did indeed mean for every law-abiding reasonable man be armed with small arms suitable for military use. They created the Second Amendment not to sanctify pheasant hunting or target shooting, but to make sure American civilians always had access to small arms for the defense of their communities and against tyrannies foreign and domestic.

They recognized the militia as the citizen, not the National Guard, and the contemporary use of the phrase "well-regulated" in their time meant "well-trained."

The Founders wanted America to be a nation where the citizenry itself was a well-trained deterrent to tyrants abroad and would-be tyrants at home, recognizing that blood needed to be shed from time to time for liberty to remain and free men to remain free.

What the media glibly calls "assault weapons" today are the very arms that most closely mirror what the founders would have regarded at the proper armament for a free American citizenry. Our Founding Fathers, Ms. Gill, were what you would regard as right-wing extremists.

They wanted us armed and well-trained with those arms, knowing that any government security force sufficiently large and powerful enough to protect us from any crime is large and powerful enough to strip us of our freedoms. There is, after all, a reason why totalitarian nations are known as "police states."

Our Founders were men of action, and require action from us. They do not expect us to shirk our duties and responsibilities, and would be ashamed of those of you who think so much of your own self-worth that you would put another person's life on the line to assure you safety.

If you truly love your nation and your God, procure a weapon, and learn how to use it to defend the one sacred life that your Father gave you to lead, and freedoms that our Founding Fathers hoped to enshrine on parchment three centuries ago.

Thank you for your time.

Bob Owens

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:37 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 795 words, total size 5 kb.

More outright fabrication from The Daily Beast (my bold, of course):

At the gun show in Reno, I witnessed the sale of rocket-propelled-grenade launchers and bazooka guns; I watched a California-based dealer demonstrate how rapidly he could field strip his .308-caliber sniper rifle, then stash it in a deliberately innocuous-looking backpack and a briefcase that "looks just like a camera case."

Mr. Blumenthal, I'll make you a deal.

Produce a functional gun show-purchased RPG-7 launcher and grenades or a functional "bazooka gun" (whatever that is), and I'll either eat it, or let you shoot at me with it. The simple fact of the matter is that such weapons are not available at guns shows, though replicas— non-firing essentially 1:1 scale models—sometimes are.

The take-down rifle design he shows with forboding isn't particularly innovative and has been around for over a hundred years. I just watched the Clint Eastwood classic Joe Kidd over the course of a weekend, where a western set in 1900 featured a scene where the title character assembled a similar weapon transported in a compact presentation case, and then used it to kill a rifleman sniping from a ridge hundreds of yards away.

As for Blumenthal's crockmentary, I'm less than impressed with tired leftist tactic he used of finding a small number of crackpots from multiple events and presenting them as being a fair representation of the overall group. Whether used by Blumenthal or Riefenstahl, it is purposefully dishonest.

You'll note that though he claims to have attended two shows, he came back to the same 2-3 guys for the bulk of his interviews, most prominently the old Alex Jones fan and the young Paultard. Those interviews were culled from out of what must have been thousands of potential attendees he could have chosen to talk to. I have little doubt his intention was to isolate and fixate upon those he thought would be most useful fodder for a smear out of what was sure to have been thousands (for example, there were 8,000 people attend a gun show in Raleigh over the course of the weekend, and I suspect I could find several dozen conspiracy theorists or more that would give similar stories to what he culled, but that doesn't make them representative of the larger group).

It's a smear job from a shameless propagandist, and yet another blow to the credibility of Tina Brown's Daily Beast, which seems to be trying to emulate the kind of journalism that is leading the New York Times into both irrelevancy and bankruptcy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:53 PM | Comments (58) | Add Comment
Post contains 432 words, total size 3 kb.

Jimmy Carter needs to be disarmed:

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. ThatÂ’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

President Carter doesn't go on to mention precisely what kind of firearms he owns or what calibers they are chambered for, but I feel confident asserting that every single firearm he owns, in every caliber he owns, has been used to kill people, and I suspect we can include police officers wearing bullet-resistent vests in that tally. I'm equally confident that weapons strikingly similar to what Carter owns can be directly linked to some of the worst mass killings in American history, most of which did not use "assault rifles."

Carter claims that he has no desire to " kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives."

But can we really trust him?

After all, Carter admits to owning two handguns, and it was with two handguns that Seung-Hui Cho committed 32 murders at Virginia Tech before taking his own life, and Jiverly Wong recently used two handguns to kill 13 befor taking his own life in Binghampton, New York.

Carter also admits to owning an arsenal of four shotguns, and it was a pump-shotgun that Eric Harris fired 25 times at Columbine High school; his perverse partner Dylan Klebold was found with a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun beside his body as well.

As for Carter's scoped rifles, why are his any different than the weapons used by Charles Whitman in his Texas bell tower attack that left 14 killed and 32 wounded?

Perhaps it is safest to err on the side of caution and view Carter's angry letter to the editor as a final cry for help before he embarks on his own killing spree.

Jimmy Carter owns weapons have been used in more mass killing sprees than the assault weapons that that the former president is somehow convinced contain a malevolent soul, and Carter's record of incompetence has been unmercifully skewered for three decades as being one of the most incompetent Presidents in American history, giving him a far greater reason to go on a random killing spree than almost any mass shooter in American history.

Perhaps America does need more gun control.

Let's start with James Earl Carter.

Update: Jimmy has killed before, shooting his sister's cat. Don't profilers claim that animal cruelty is one sign of a sociopath?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:55 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 3 kb.

It is more than a little sad that a man like Mr. Crumbo put his life on the line in dangerous combat missions in the service of a Constitution and Bill of Rights he clearly knew nothing about.

As various other posters to the op-ed linked above have made clear, the 1994 "assault weapons" ban did not ban so much as ONE assault weapon or machine gun capable of firing one shot per trigger pull. It was, for all intents and purposes, a law to ban scary looking features on some firearms, and did not in any way affect their lethality or rate of fire.

The Second Amendment that Mr. Crumbo so clearly does not understand was not written to protect your hunting rights. It was written by a group of very wise men who had just watched a army comprised largely of civilian militiamen defeat one of the most formidable land armies on the planet. The Second Amendment was expressly written to protect the rights of following generations to own arms that would be suitable for them to use as militiamen if the need again arises, as it has repeatedly through American history, most recently (to my knowledge) in the Battle of Athens/McMinn County War in 1946.

The semi-automatic intermediate-caliber rifles that mimic the look and feel of today's modern military weapons, far from being something not protected by the Second Amendment, are the very weapons that should be most protected by a Right that ensures Americans never again need feel the boot of a tyrant on their necks. It is perhaps the Right most singularly responsible for ensuring that our United States boasts what may be the oldest continuously-functioning government on Earth.

The Second Amendment was never about home defense, or hunting, or target shooting. The clear purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to create a nation of riflemen, a citizenry armed with weapons suitable for use as a militiaman.

If former Navy SEAL Kim Crumbo is the weapons expert he claims to be, perhaps he can point out a civilian weapon more suitable for the militia use imagined by our Founding Fathers that the very semi-automatic rifles that he now says should be banned.

I thank Mr. Crumb for his service, and hope that he uses his retirement to educate himself about a Constitution he defended, but so clearly never understood.

(h/t NC Tea Party Revolution)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:00 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

The Mexican police have captured another cache of weapons from a drug cartel, and their apparent instinct was to hype their find as being something more than what they captured, which the Daily Mail bought into entirely.

The "anti-aircraft gun" in the picture is an old M1919 in what appears to be an A4 configuration, and is mounted on a low-tripod for its designed use, allowing infantry to take on ground targets, not aircraft.

Far from the 800-rounds-per-minute claim in the Daily Mail, the cyclic rate of fire was rate of 400-600 rounds per minute, but because the gun was air-cooled and would overheat if fired continuously, it was fired in short bursts, resulting in a rate of fire that was much less.

This is as much an anti-aircraft gun as Margaret Thatcher is a Victoria's Secret model. Sure, all the basic parts are there, but pressing this configuration into a role it was never designed for is a recipe for disaster, and the over-hyping Mexican Police should be ashamed of themselves.

(Via Instapundit.)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:57 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 2 kb.

No, ABC News didn't put explosives in a gas tank, but they certainly stacked the deck in creating Diane Sawyer's "guns are bad, guns are useless" self-fulfilling prophecy, which AWR Hawkins deftly exposes at Pajamas Media.

The scenario is worth watching, if only to point out the flaws in the contrived scenario, starting with neophytes playing the role of CCH holders, the CCHs being forced to wear a holster in a position where they could not draw their weapon in a sitting postion (and would not think of carrying a weapon in real life simply for reasons of comfort).

And of course, ABC rigged an outcome where the only possible outcome was the death of students in the scenario, with the only question being "how many?"

In real life, of course, there is never just one possible scenario or possible outcome.

As I noted in a comment at PJM, what ABC News pointedly didn't run is what I would dub the "Virginia Tech" scenario.

Have a student with a concealed weapons hear shots in another classroom, draw his weapon, and cover the door. Then tell me how far the shooter gets through that classroom door, compared to rooms without a CCH.

Alternately, think about the possible reaction of CCH to seeing an agitated man pull a weapon or enter the hallway brandishing the weapon on the way to a classroom. Frankly, if I was a student or faculty member with a CCH and saw an agitated man pull a weapon as he entered a class room in front of me, my immediate reaction would be to draw my sidearm and draw a bead on the back of his skull and close the distance.

It isnÂ’t always that the CCH closest to the threat is immediately on top of it, or that in a mass shooting, the perp will always have the element of surprise on his side.

People who legally carry concealed weapons are not going to magically prevent attempted mass murders. There are simply too few of us in the general population, and well-meaning but ignorant people in positions of power make it far too difficult to carry in the very settings (schools, businesses, civic buildings) where such attacks are most likely to occur.

But just because a concealed carry permit holder can't be everywhere a shooting takes place or prevent people from always getting killed in these rampages doesn't negate their potential to alter or terminate a threat in some scenarios.

It's funny, but the same people who rail against concealed weapons because they are concerned about the rare instances of CCH permit holders becoming violent never seem to want to talk about the possible lives that could be saved by them.

It's almost as if they have an agenda...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:56 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.