A world without guns

Tags

2nd Amendment, gun control, self-defense, violence, weapons

I think this is a very well-considered gun control position. I disagree with where he ends up, but he at least understands ground truth up to a point.  [via National Review, 11 January 2013.]

Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. . . A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?

HB1703: “Promoting safety” by taxing guns and ammo

Tags

firearms safety, HB 1703, legislation, politics, taxes, WA state, weapons

Hat tip to Chad for pointing out HB1703, geared toward

Promoting firearm safety through an education program funded through fees on firearms and ammunition and creating a sales tax exemption on gun locks.

Who is opposed to education using some minor fees?  Everybody is for education, right?  Let’s take a closer look.

Something completely different: HB 1371

Tags

2nd Amendment, confiscation, federalism, gun control, HB 1371, politics, self-defense, society, state of emergency, WA state, weapons

Yesterday I went on at some length about HB 1588.  One of my (four?) readers commented that it will be DOA in the Senate; here’s hoping, though I can’t help but resent the idea it could even get out of the House.

And now for something completely different–The Washington State Firearms Freedom Act of 2013, HB 1371.

And so it begins: WA HB1588

Tags

2nd Amendment, background checks, confiscation, gun control, gun shows, HB1588, politics, private sales, self-defense, society, WA state, weapons, What does inalienable mean to you?

I was wondering how long it would take for the national stupidity to get to the state level.

House Bill 1588 would make it a gross misdemeanor (not a felony, as reported by the Seattle Times) to transfer your firearm to anyone at all without running a background check:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that there is broad consensus that certain people, such as felons, minors, and involuntarily committed persons, should not be eligible to possess firearms for public safety reasons. Background checks are an effective and easy mechanism to ensure that firearms are not sold to those who are prohibited from possessing them. However, because background check requirements apply only to transfers by licensed firearms dealers, many firearms are currently sold without a background check, allowing felons and other ineligible persons to gain access to them. The legislature intends by this act to strengthen our background check system by broadening the requirement for a background check to apply to all firearms sales in the state.

I’ve helpfully highlighted the stupid in red.  The first statement is rubbish; the second is blithely asserted without any supporting evidence, mostly because there isn’t any.

MadMike: Who Really Needs An AR15?

Tags

2nd Amendment, ar15, self-defense, violence, weapons

So, yes, the AR15 is made to kill people, and there are some people who need killing, so says common law, codified law, and the Supreme @#$ing Court.  Therefore, if you say, “The only purpose of a gun is to kill people,” you’re not entirely correct, but you are in fact making a statement that supports gun ownership. Thanks.  We’re glad you’ve figured it out.  One of the main purposes of guns is to kill people who need killing.

Michael Z. Williamson, on Who Really Needs An AR15?

Read the whole thing.  I don’t have one, but I’d hoped to get one this year or perhaps next.  It really is the modern equivalent of the revolution-era musket.

Everybody wants to know about the SP101

Tags

Book of the Revolver, revolver, Ruger, SP101, statistics, weapons

I think if I were to obsess about hits and reads and page views, I should probably go insane from frustration.  Despite the numerous topics and (to me, at least) interesting and thought-provoking things I have written here, 3 out of 4 people visiting are here to find out what I thought of my revolver.

Pretty consistently, the number one article getting hits here is my review of the Ruger SP101 3″ revolver in .357 Magnum (in parts the first and second).  I don’t mean by a little bit; I mean every single day.  Those two articles are the first and third most-viewed posts here since I started, respectively.  (The second is my response to the Aurora shooting.)  Aside from the home page and my review of the Book of Grant (and most of those hits came referred from Mr. Cunningham’s blog) nothing else is even close.

So clearly, if I want more readers, I should keep yammering on about it.

Sadly, I don’t have a lot more to say at the moment.  I shoot occasionally–not nearly as often as I’d like–and I am pretty comfortable with my proficiency and where the rounds are going.  It did indeed become my preferred every day carry weapon (everywhere except, alas, work).   Whether I just got used to it or it actually adjusted with wear, I’m not sure, but my Blade-Tech IWB Nano holster for it is perfectly comfortable now.  (Unless I’m wearing my older (thinner) jeans, in which case I have to go OWB, which means carrying the Sig.  I need to lose even more weight, or build an OWB holster for the Ruger.)

I just don’t think about it too much.  I clean it every once in a while.  I do visual inspections.  It’s still quite pretty.

Sorry, nothing new to report.  As you were.

Inflict this on your friends:

Tags

self-defense, society, weapons

I don’t believe in reblogging, but it is eminently appropriate here.

the munchkin wrangler.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts…

View original post 426 more words