Words of Advice:

"We have it totally under control. It's one person coming from China. It's going to be just fine." -- Donald Trump, 1/22/2020

“We will not see diseases like the coronavirus come here..and isn't it refreshing when contrasting it with the awful presidency of President Obama."
-- Trump Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, 2/25/20

"I don't take responsibility for anything." --Donald Trump, 3/13/20

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Not an Evil Black Rifle

Because a SKS doesn't have a detachable magazine.

The insanity of the "assault rifle" frenzy is that it is all a matter of cosmetics. The "we gotta get ridda them" folks focus on rifles that have one or more "military features": A threaded barrel, a bayonet mount or a pistol grip.

This is a Ruger Ranch Rifle:

It's a .223 rifle that does accept detachable magazines. It doesn't have any of the evil military cosmetic features, so it's generally OK everywhere. But in function, there's no difference.

Not counting Ruger Ranch Rifles and Mini-30s, there's probably somewhere between six to ten million AR-patterned rifles out there, which doesn't count other types, like AKs or AUGs or FALs or G3s. All those would have to be bought back at well above market rates in order to survive a 5th Amendment challenge. (You might recall that when Prohibition was enacted, possessing alcohol was not made illegal.) Twenty to thirty billion, or so, maybe?

So ditch the threaded barrel (even though suppressors are legal in most states), grind off the bayonet mount and replace the pistol grip and buttstock with a thumbhole-buttstock and voila! Not an assault rifle. Child's play to do.

On another note, I heard an interview with a teacher who was against arming teachers because this one teacher couldn't envision the concept that, in engaging an active school shooter, that one or more kids might get killed in the crossfire.

That, Gentle Reader, is the old Trolley Problem. Failing to act is a choice: The shooter continues to kill kids. So the teacher's choice to not have blood on their hands is to put one's self in a position of not being able to make a choice. Which is like removing the track-switch lever and throwing it out of reach.


3383 said...

And pistols are even better when you're a mass shooter- concealable, bigger magazine capacity, dual wield capable.

But nobody watches TV for rational discussions, that's boring. Emotional content rules, baby!

CenterPuke88 said...

Of course the SKS can be adapted for a detachable magazine...or a fixed higher capacity magazine. I agree the “features” focused stuff is stupid, but when time after time the high score in mass shootings is made with X, X becomes the focus. As for the media lapping this stuff up, it goes both ways.

I do disagree with your choice to highlight the teacher, she isn’t interested in guns, so why make fun of her? She’d like to just teach wi5out worrying about guns in the school, so how do we do that? Armed guards likely won’t solve the issue, gun free zones don’t, metal detectors don’t, there is one simple way to solve the issue...but that’s the problem.

As an increasingly bad (and short) tempered society continues down the current path, these killing will continue, it’s that simple. Unless we change the societal mindset, we will either end up with everyone armed (and, no, an armed society is NOT a polite society...it’s a paranoid one) or everyone disarmed. How long this will take, IDK, but the only thing that will avert that is a collapse.

So, that causes everyone to say, “hey, those heavily armed preppers were right” ...but think about it. The preppers have already accepted that they intend to shoot people when “it” happens, so what’s to prevent them redefining what “it” is? Just keep considering how our conspriracy mired, heavily armed populace will react to the next thing they don’t like, and good luck sleeping tonight, because the answer doesn’t appear to be out there.

B said...

CP: reread

The issue with arming teachers is that folks claim that they cannot be as effective as police...which is correct, assuming the police care to be effective AND ARE ON SCENE AT THE TIME. Teachers are already on scene. and the whole "arm teachers" thing is that we should do so ONLY if they wish to be armed. If not, then nothing is lost by them not arming themselves. Right now, in most places, it is illegal for a teacher to even carry his or her personal protection firearms to the school grounds. If they should choose to, and are trained in basic concealed carry rules (or further if that is the standard) then they are at least on scene with the ability do change the situation, instead of being disarmed and helpless. Armed guards WILL solve the issue, if not prevent it from happening, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ENGAGE THE SHOOTER...and if there are enough to cover the campus a=to be able to respond quickly.

Oddly, none of the "Preppers" I know (And I know a LOT of folks who plan for disorder or societal breakdown or natural disasters where the FedGov or local government will be unable to help in a timely manner) plan on shooting people if and when. They do plan on being able to keep what they have should someone (or someones) decide to steal it. And not all (or even most) are "Conspiracy mired"...they are a lot more well grounded in reality than you..I think that is something you heard, or misinterpreted, or you are bringing your own prejudices and to this over reality.....

Ole Phat Stu said...

Surely more people are killed by handguns in the USA than by assault rifles.
So the first step should be to ban handguns.
Or what am I missing here?

Comrade Misfit said...

I've owned handguns all my adult life. I've never shot anyone. So in a way, Stu, that's kind of offensive.

Still, you're going to collect over 100 million handguns and pay for them? You make it illegal to own something that was legal, you have to pay for them.

Eck! said...

Surely more people are killed by cars and trucks...lets ban the worst offenders.
By that I men certain fast cars and trucks, not the people.

Teenagers get killed more often in auto accidents, lets make cars unavailable till they are 21. Least they can get to college age young adults.

Now the premise for EBRs is to ban guns that are "Weapons of war". Seriously?
In any state that restricts potential ownership of a AR-15 has zero problem with a 1906 springfield rifle or a M1 Garand! Surely the M1 garand is a weapon of war, if not one that helped win a war. Sure the Garand only fires 8 from a clip(not a magazine) but they are 30-06 or differently put 30 caliber rounds. Yet a lousy 22 caliber (yes an AR-15 is a centerfire 22 caliber!) is a "high power round". They even brought back the M14 in the very same M1 30 caliber which is the full auto version of the M1 with a removable magazine for use in the wars we sill live with. Why bigger bullets were needed, not some intermediate round that is at the minimum level for deer hunting.

Shall I go on?

There is so much lets ban or control XXX and NO, I mean NONE, based on if we do X then we solve Y. The loudest noises for gun/speech/whatever control come from people who are performing no critical thinking or even reasoning at a superficial level. Most parrot the same lines heard elsewhere and lack any willingness to learn the difference.

While I'm at it... Teachers with guns. They should be allowed. However not all
should be permitted. By permitted I do man controlled. Why, once you carry a firearm (any and all) your making a commitment to being responsible with it. I hold that the freedom re-enforced in 2A is about responsibility to protect others should one elect to stand with it. For a teacher it means that if your bringing a firearm to school or anywhere its for the purpose of protection of lives and you may have to injure or kill someone.

Ponder this; "purpose of protection and you may have to injure or kill someone" that is a big ethical and emotional thing and failing to do is as big a thing. Either way the result is you either act and potentially cause death or if you don't and more death results.

Now damn it take a full minute to evaluate that.

It means not every teacher will not carry, nor should they. Go read about the Trolley conundrum work it though and consider what it means if you the person at the switch.

Sometimes its best to think about can we save them all or at least lower the losses. Those that seek perfection will remain seekers, the rest of us must be
involved with doing something more than making ourselves feel good. Stupid laws that are ineffective is only feel good.


dinthebeast said...

What about letting the CDC study what works and what doesn't?

-Doug in Oakland

Deadstick said...

Sorry, Doug, that's against the law. They might get the wrong answer.

Comrade Misfit said...

CP88, I don't believe I specified the gender of the teacher.

But the point stands: Choosing not to do something is still a choice.

Anonymous said...

CP88- the press lets us down in ALL ways, yes.

Doug, Deadstick- CDC studies disease. Similes and metaphors aside, this is not a disease.
Police and the FBI collect a lot of stats. We could start with those.

Don't worry, though. The supermajority in California is allowing a doctor who disliked gunshot wounds in people to head the study you want. I am sure it will be unbiased.

B said...

If the CDC could do a true study, then yes. I'd like to find a real solution. But the CDC doesn't do studies that way. At least not in a Millenial's lifetimne.

Sadly, their studies appear to start with a conclusion and work backwards, mostly. They come up with the politically correct thing, then find evidence of it.

Their studies (and methodology) are as valid as the polls showing Hillary would win by a landslide.

CenterPuke88 said...

Comrade, corrrect, I simply assigned a female gender to the teacher based upon the preponderance of female teacher. That was a regrettable error, I apologize. I also agree a choice is made, and did not argue that.

B., there seems no point in the rereading as it doesn’t address my cogent point. There is exactly one way that school shootings will stop, and that would be the removal of guns from society. I then noted that this is neither a possible or preferable solution to the issue. I also noted that each and every other “solution” has a weakness, the human element. You statement addresses none of that.

I also take issue with your unarmed=defenseless statement, as that is certainly not true. As to your preppers, I simply pointed out that preppers have made intellectual decisions that willl allow them to shoot other humans in certain circumstances, and posited to perhaps that might cause some spillover. This may be seen in the criminal ranks, where some are much more sanguine about taking a life than others.

With regard to studies, I never referred to the CDC, in fact I specifically argued for a series of studies, by various groups, and with various focuses, using a comprehensive data base in common. Precisely by using such a common base, we can prevent manipulation of the data from being undetectable. How we come to this database is the real issue, but it would effectively be collected from public records with regard to crimes and demographics.

B said...

CP: You weren't the only one I was responding to re: CDC. . Kinda self centered there, arentya? Others DID mention the CDC. If the shoe fits, then by all means...but if not....You din't exactly make the point well about removing guns from society....
One other point: An armed society IS a polite society. I live among gun people, work with and socialize with them. Gunshows and such are a significant part of my income.
Those folks are very polite. Not out of fear, just out of goodness. They aren't paranoid. Now, admittedly, no one tries to enrage any of the folks around them, add yes, they are indeed all armed. But people CAN be polite, rather than defensive, simply because they have LESS to fear. Everyone is on even level.

I like hnow now you include Preppers with Criminals. Nice. Project much?

I think you speak about things which you don't know when it comes to guns and gun culture.

Eck! said...

Reality check! All to often based on the news its not an abstract discussion.

CP, removing guns is an absurdity. If you could collect all the legal guns what have you left? A large budget deficit for paying for over 100 million of them.
Not going to pay 4th amendment is a good start. But efter that those that hid theirs and the "other criminals". The "other criminals" are those that do not abide by the law for the use of committing crime, those are not about to turn
in a tool they have over the "good guys" or even those that hid theirs.

What do you have then, no effective self defense, and still no shortage of criminals with them and lesser weapons.

Why check Australia, they still have legal guns and there is a booming black market for homemade and illegally imported firearms. Also self defense in Australia is not an affirmative right there, it is a legal defense that most be proven in court.

The CDC is not interesting in guns save for they are reflective of suicide. Suicide is mental disease and therefor they have a legitimate stake in the total problem of mental disease and how to treat it. Guns are incidental, as cars, pills, poisons, knives, water, and cops are also employed.

Look at it this way. I'm from the government, your car has been deemed dangerous, surrender it now. I really don't think the collective "you" will go along and permit that. Likely some cash will be involved.

Speaking as someone over 60 and with a bad back how long will I last against against an criminal with a bat, knife, machete, or maybe a .22 hand gun? Long enough for a cop to arrive? Its only 5 minutes of hard fighting for life. Me I figure reality is slightly less time than the students at Stockton. The cops will not even see them leave.

What do you think? Quicky now, someone is busting in your front door. What have you to stop them? Anything, even a broom handle?

Oh, dang a broom handle is a deadly weapon soon as you weild it in that case.
Minimall if you hurt the perp you will be sued, kill him by dumb luck, shut
up and get a lawyer.

Maybe it can't happen to you, or have you just ignored that it is possible.
Or your privileged enough to have an armed guard? Maybe they will take something and just leave, like, money, TV, your back pain meds, time with a family member?..
Remember that is a criminal at the door.

The choice is always the same self defense, or submit and take your chances.
Are you going to get lucky today?


CenterPuke88 said...

B., when you start a post with CP: reread, the implication is the post is directed at the named party.

I suspect your “group” is of like minded individuals, resulting in the politeness you tout. Interactions with other groups and individuals introduces other aspects, I stand by my viewpoint.

You conflate again my use of an example group as suggesting one group is equivalent to another, you are the one projecting.

Finally, I suspect the gun culture I am immersed in is as much, if not more so, involved than yours. I have worked closely with multiple Class 3 dealers, and the majority of my associates have pretty good collections.

The CDC statement leads from the first point.

Eck!: Note my point was exactly that. I pointed out that we couldn’t remove all the guns. I also said we DON’T use the CDC to study guns.

Eck! said...

CP, its sometime hard to follow a thread of who said what first if I said something offensive. Sorry, the medium on a good day is crummy. I'd offer an argument over coffee but its a long walk from here.

What I said in its content however is directed more globally in nature.
The people that wish away guns are not based in the real world. When
faced with that reality buy countering it they plug their ears and
hum loudly, tell you your offensive to them, call you nuts, or in web
terms filter you out. They are entitled to their feelings but you
are not, same for opinions. They spread rumors, lies, or advocate
aggressive stances that if followed though on then they are criminals.
They want to shut down any discussion and use what tools they can to
foster a division or laws to mandate their world view.

Guns are indeed dangerous but so are cars, chainsaws, machete, strong stick,
length of chain, nevermining a can of flammable liquid, or explosives. To
them its only gun and never the person behind it, and likely enough its
their own projection of what they are afraid the might do if one was in
their hand at the moment. I've never heard of a gun using a person, the
crime is always a person did xyz employing a gun.


CenterPuke88 said...

Agreed, Eck!, it’s confusing sometimes. As for the issue, what frustrates me is people who demand complete freedom for X without accepting responsibility for fixing the problems it causes. (e.g. Ban all guns, what replaces the guns role? Any and all guns should be legal, but what solves the issues that brings?)

Eck! said...

CP, I think we are on the same page.

When you accept dangerous things that require care to insure no one is injured, that brings a responsibility to take care. If that is done then most problems are solved.

Some seem to think freedom is the same thing as anarchy. You can do anything don't get caught. Freedom is not a free pass, it comes with responsibility to do right, not do wrong, or accept what happens based on those actions.

For those that have a problems being responsible, we have laws. There is indeed
no shortage of laws.