February 27, 2008
Thus, that clarifies that the liberal gun grabbers' interpretation that gun ownership is only a right in the context of a militia is DEAD WRONG.
Why didn't anyone look into this Ratified State Constitution revelation thing earlier?!?!
Show Comments »
June 28, 2005
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Show Comments »
March 21, 2005
Someone found my site through the search string "best rifle for home defense"...
People, people, people! Readers of Brainfertilizer know if you are considering home defense, starting with "which rifle" is already on the wrong track. You don't need the long range accuracy that is the rifle's strength, and you certainly don't want the velocity of a hunting rifle's round smashing through walls to accidentally injure the people you are trying to protect, or a sleeping neighbor. A .22 doesn't have those problems, but then a .22 is way too light for home defense; it's probably only going to sting a little. [/slight exaggeration]
A shotgun is probably the best. You don't need a direct hit to incapacitate an invader; if you miss, the blast would probably scare him off...if the sound of you jacking a shell into the chamber didn't already. No one wants to face a shotgun.
But let's say you don't think your wrists or shoulders could take a shotgun's recoil. Then you want a pistol. They shed velocity fast enough that penetration is generally limited to the jerk who just violated your security. The bullets in the larger pistols still carry enough wallop to put a guy down with one shot, and the capacity of the lighter pistols means you can put 6 rounds in him and still have enough for his two friends, if they still have the sand. And a revolver is small enough to fit in a nightstand, and reliable enough to not be touched for a decade and still fire as soon as you pull the trigger.
So a rifle doesn't enter into it all. Thank you for your time.
Show Comments »
February 18, 2005
Yet more solid evidence of that fact.
When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns.
Show Comments »
December 08, 2004
I'm bringing all my rifles to Hawaii with me!!!
Best of all, it's free.
Show Comments »
November 22, 2004
Police said Vang opened fire with an assault rifle.
No. Not if Fox News is correct. It was an SKS communist bloc rifle. This is a Post-WWII-era semi-automatic rifle. It is no more an "assault" rifle than our Garand's from WWII, and a good sight less powerful. It is chambered for the 7.62x39 mm cartridge developed by the Russians in light of their recognition that conscript troops don't need rifles that can fire 6 times as far as their skills will be able to use effectively. Reduced recoil helps make training easier and cheaper, as well.
The round was developed to also be used in a true assault, the AK-47, because the reduced recoil helps with controllability somewhat.
But despite using the same cartridge, the rifles are not the same at all.
The scrollling news text bar on Fox News Channel said it was a "high-powered rifle".
No. The 7.62x39 is an deliberately underpowered round, for the reasons of recoil and range mentioned above. The same scrolling news text bar said that most of the victims were shot from between 50 and 100 yards away. That fits, because the 7.62x39 isn't very accurate, and the limit of its effective range is somewhere around 100 yards.
This will be used as an argument for gun control.
In other news, in the time since the shooting, approximately 125 people died in car accidents. Gun control activists won't even care.
Show Comments »
November 21, 2004
So I'm moving to the People's Republic of Hawaii in about 4 months, and I'm really not sure what I should do about my guns.
I've just about got a complete arsenal (14 rifles and one pistol), and while I can own weapons in Hawaii, I'm going to have to register each one of them. I don't know where I can go shooting, nor under what circumstances it is permissible to transport them in my car. If I live on base, I might have to leave them at the base armory, and I've heard horror stories about them being surreptitiously used while supposedly under lock and key.
And I have to assume getting ammunition may well be nigh unto impossible.
Suggestions? Ideas? Purchase offers? [grin]
Show Comments »
October 25, 2004
Four Killed in Teacher's Meat Cleaver Attack.
Two Killed in Beijing Kindergarten.
This is worthy of comment on several different issues.
First, why the spate of attacks? There doesn't seem to be much in common in the attacks, including the motivation, the location, the background/occupation of the perpetrator, or even the weapon of choice. The only thing in common seems to be that people are suddenly trying to kill school-children in China.
Second, it highlights the ridiculousness of gun control attempts. Knives alone accounted for as many deaths and woundings as a gun could in a situation like this. In fact, if any of the teachers had been packing heat (a silly thought itself, sure, but humor me), the death toll in each case probably would not have exceeded one: the dead goblin. The problem is not the weapon of choice, but the hate/violence in the heart. If someone wants to kill, they will find a tool to do it, and guns aren't even the most efficient tool for the task. Cars and explosives are far better for killing people, and bare hands are pretty good, too.
Third, when I mentioned this to my friend in China, she said she hadn't heard anything about it. It's possible she just doesn't pay attention to domestic news, but...
I recognize that the authoritarian/totalitarian government in charge of China does suppress news. However, I cannot imagine why this news would be suppressed, especially since it appeared on the English-language site supported by the Chinese govt. WTF, over? The best part of that discussion is we got to have an interesting discussion over news not covered by the news media, and why: here we have a news media, of which a significant portion is dedicated to removing President Bush from office and enacting socialist dogma/ideology/programs. It makes for an interesting look at what news gets suppressed in each system, doesn't it?
Show Comments »
October 22, 2004
Today's date is also the nomenclature for a pretty dang good semi-auto plinking rifle?
Show Comments »
Would it still be wrong to steal election signs on Nov. 3rd or 4th?
I'm thinking it might be okay. If the owners are too lazy to clean up after themselves, why not help 'em out?
Because, despite appearances, I'm not actually suggesting you do something that doesn't benefit you directly. My thought is, wouldn't a whole bunch of campaign yard signs be just perfect to take out to some govt land and work on your marksmanship with? They are already all set to put into the ground at whatever range you need to work on. The bullet holes should show up well on a variety of colors...heck, you can aim for the "e" in Kerry, then try to split the uprights on the "y"....
...or rather than stealing, maybe you could contact owners or campaign HQ for their leftovers?
Show Comments »
October 08, 2004
I probably won't be around much today. I'm out with a scoped .22 semi-auto, striking terror into any paper that has the audacity to have black rings printed on it!
I should have them defeated and on the run in plenty of time to be at John Michael's at 7pm. I hear paper targets are good eatin', so I'll see if the chef can roll a few in flour and deep-fat fry 'em for our dining pleasure. If not, I'm sure they have good appetizers.
In any case, ya'll have a good day at work whilst I revel in the leisurely, carefree life of a public servant who has the day off.
Cheers.
Show Comments »
September 15, 2004
1) Except in a very few situations, "assault weapons" are actually less powerful and less accurate than a hunting rifle. The Washington D.C. snipers would have been far more dangerous with something like a .243 hunting rifle or a Swedish Mauser in 6.5mm than the 5.56mm Bushmaster they used. Just about the only "assault" rifles that are as accurate and powerful as a $300 hunting rifle are $1400 M-14s and AR-10s. An assault rifle just has to hit a man-sized target and take him out of the fight, whether or not it kills the individual. Whereas a hunting rifle has to hit a dinner-plate sized target and penetrate through muscle and bones thicker than a human's in order to attempt a certain kill on hard-to-kill animals like elk and moose and even bear.
2) All government programs should automatically sunset after five or ten years, just like the Assault Weapons Ban. Its proponents used scare tactics and shoddy science to get it passed in the first place, but over time it became clear that it wasn't making a difference and only impacting law-abiding citizens, not criminals and terrorists. If all government programs required an actual demonstration of effectiveness in order to maintain the political capital necessary to extend it, there's be alot of stupid programs that would have already been "sunset"-ed out of existence. We wouldn't have a deficit right now, I can tell you.
Show Comments »
September 13, 2004
ZombyBoy sums up the Assault Weapons Ban sunset nicely.
The only point I would add is that most anti-gun advocates speak about "high powered" assault weapons, saying that you don't need assault rifles to go hunting. But, in fact, assault rifles are usually less powerful and often less accurate than the average hunting rifle. The point of an assault rifle is that you usually engage the enemy at less than 200 yards, and often at less than 100 yards, so reducing the power of the cartridge makes auto-fire easier and makes it easier to train recruits. Thus, someone wishing to create mayhem and wreak death and destruction from a distance safe enough to retreat would be far better off using a hunting rifle than an a "scary-looking" assault rifle. ...because fully automatic rifles haven't been legal for a US citizen without a specific license since the Roaring 20s.
Idiots.
Show Comments »
August 31, 2004
Re: Airsoft Guns
On 28 August, (scroll down), Mickey Kaus asks about airsoft guns.
Trend I most need explained to me: Airsoft guns. They shoot plastic pellets, not BBs, right? Who buys them? Adults? Children? What damage can they do? Are they somehow an artifact of gun control laws? Don't the people who use them risk getting shot by cops who think they are regular guns? Instapundit will know ...
As a recent convert to Airsoft, I believe I can explain what I understand.
Airsoft guns were developed in Asia, where people wanted to own guns but where prohibited by national gun-control laws. Apparently, there is something about the look and heft of guns that speaks to the spirit of a person. But CO2 guns are dangerous; they can break windows, injure people and pets, etc. Airsoft weapons shoot the softer plastic pellet at velocities that allow useful target practice at distances up to 100 feet (sometimes more), but won't result in damaged property or injured people.
There are three types of airsoft: Spring-powered (must cock each time, shortest range), Green-gas powered (you refill from a canister rather than using cartridges), and electronic propulsion. The last method uses batteries and a mechanism that is weighty and balanced enough to feel like a real weapon. They are also the most expensive, usually more than $300 each. But they also have the longest range and best accuracy. These are also usually constructed out metal rather than the plastic of the cheaper models, which further adds to the verisimilitude.
Who buys them? Well, kids and adults. The accuracy/range of the pellets rivals paintball but the lack of velocity allows one to dispense with much of the protective gear, so both teens and adults use Airsoft in tactical war games. The problem of knowing for sure whether you hit is more than made up for by the realistic appearance of the guns, adding to the fun of the fantasy. Moreover, the industry is currently developing paint pellets that can be fired without breaking that will burst reliably when it hits a person without breaking the skin. Once that happens, I think you will see paintball be completely superseded.
Personally, I purchased a few handguns and a few rifles so I could work on basic marksmanship skills in my basement rather than having to go to the gun range, expend ammo at the rate of a dime a round, and then having to spend a few hours cleaning. The recoil is not realistic at all, obviously, but I do have the opportunity to work on steady aim, good sight-picture, breath control, and not changing the orientation of the weapon with my trigger squeeze (my biggest problem). It's a nice bonus that I now have realistic-looking weapons that I can use to teach my children safe gun-handling techniques without the possibility of a drastic mistake.
Show Comments »
July 21, 2004
I have four rifles up for sale over at Gunbroker. I'd rather sell them to one of you than to a stranger. I'm selling a French MAS 36/51 7.5mm, a British SMLE .303, an 1891 Argentine Mauser 7.65mm, and an AR-180b 5.56mm. I think I have decent prices on all of them. Take a look and put in a bid, if you'd like.
Show Comments »
July 14, 2004
I picked up my L1A1 from layaway on Monday. I haven't had a chance to take it to the range yet...
Sometimes I think I like the idea of owning guns more than using them. But in any case, based on an article by Kim du Toit on what rifle he would give the average US military rifleman, I researched and fell in love with the VEPR. Here's a pic:
It's based on the AK-47. More accurately, it uses the RPK squad automatic weapon receiver, which is based on the AK-47. The thicker metal and heavier weight of the machine gun receiver, plus a hammer-forged and chrome-lined barrel help to make this a very accurate weapon.
I got it because it's also in .308, just like my L1A1, but this one is already drilled and tapped for a scope (and comes with it). I expect I'll have lots of fun with the L1A1, but this will be more of a serious rifle for me: serious hunting, serious accuracy practice, etc. I'm sure I'll work up accurate handloads for this baby (when I finally start handloading!!), because it's a rifle with which I should be able to see the difference.
I think I'll have fun.
The only thing I'm still not clear on: I recently learned that the reason Stoner used direct gas impingement to cycle the rifle in the M-16 system (like the MAS 49/56), rather than the piston of the AK-47 system, is that the motion of the piston itself throws off accuracy more than a small blast of gasses. I guess the FN-FAL (L1A1) mitigates this by using a short-stroke piston. The 6.8 SPC version of the M-16 apparently was designed with the gas port in a "sweet spot" midway between that of the AR-15 (in 5.56mm) and the AR-10 (in .308/7.62 NATO), so perhaps it is possible to make several choices to maintain accuracy in piston systems...? Dunno. I'll post some range reports after I get familiar with the rifle. That might not be for a month or two...
Show Comments »
» protein wisdom links with: Surrendering to my inner interior decorator
May 07, 2004
Here is a great discussion about the 5.56mm and its drawbacks. I was already against it, but reading this taught me a few things:
(click "next comment" to follow the entire discussion)
This is a little dryer and more academic, but discusses why the 7.62x51 NATO (.308 Winchester) is what we need:
Show Comments »
May 06, 2004
...well, not this gun, specifically.
A friend of mine who owns a pawnshop picked up a Century Arms R1A1 and is selling it to me for $350. A gunsmith who is a friend of his says it is well-made and doesn't seem to have the quality-control problems the earlier Century Arms FAL-clones had. It's a little bit of a gamble, but we'll see...if it is as good as it seems, I got the rifle for about $180 under the going rate, and I'm quite excited about it. Reasonable accuracy, excellent reliability, great range (it's chambered in .308). I can't wait to get it out to the range. I've got it on lay-away, however, and won't take possession until August, probably.
Links to read about FAL rifles
Show Comments »
May 02, 2004
...so I'm thinking...while more than a little tipsy, which is dangerous...that I've been looking all over the place for articles about pre-WWII bolt-action military surplus rifles.
The problem with most magazines and books is that they are attempting to push new rifles...advertising dollars and all....
But while I have experience with 20+ different types of old military rifles, in many cases I've only sent bullets down-range on one example of each type. Do you think I'm qualified to write a book regarding my experiences? I know I'd buy such a book, just to get somebody else's impression of these fine old rifles...but wouild my experiences be considered worthwhile?
...heck, I guess I can write it and let the editors decide.
Show Comments »
April 26, 2004
Raising Kids the NRA Way:
Show Comments »
April 17, 2004
I fulfilled my obligation! Sort of...
I didn't complete the purchase on the 15th...it was more like the 10th. I didn't take delivery on the 15th...it probably won't arrive for another week or so. I buy nearly all of my guns online through Gunbroker auctions, so actually purchasing one on an exact date is problematic. But since the whole process bracketed April 15th nicely, I consider my duty discharged.
So which gun did I buy?
Read More "April 15th was "Buy A Gun" Day" »
Show Comments »
April 12, 2004
(If you don't, you should)
The question is which gun?
So probably the best place to start is by asking yourself what you want a gun for. For what you want a gun. You know what I mean.
Read More "So You Want to Buy a Gun?" »Show Comments »
April 11, 2004
I've said before that I agree with many of the criticisms of the 5.56mm round for a battle rifle, but that in the final analysis, I think the US military has a specific aim in mind that the 5.56mm fits perfectly:
1) a concept of enemy suppression by rapid fire, allowing maneuver tactics that allow you to get in close enough to kill with other weapons, and
2) a wounded enemy is better than a dead enemy, because it takes more enemies out of the fight to take care of 1 wounded soldier than to bury a dead one.
Show Comments »
HammerHead
