We Are Winning - Personal Edition

My sister has never been a gun person. She did not get a gun as a child, like I did (a Remington Fieldmaster 572 that I still have and still shoot, and will NEVER sell) and to my knowledge has never shot a gun. But she has on several occasions heard me discuss my introduction to handgun shooting and training, and my views about pro-gun rights issues. I found out earlier this year that she had been listening more closely than I thought.


My parents have moved out of California and purchased land in Oklahoma for their retirement. After this, my sister and I began semi-annual pilgrimages to visit, often together to save on expenses. During one visit my Dad mentioned a few handguns he had inherited from his half brother. Would I be interested in taking a look? Sure! So he brought out a box and there were a couple of .22 revolvers, a Ruger P89, a Taurus .38 snubbie, and a strange and shrunken 1911 in .380 from Llama, which may be a Llama V. My sister was there and she watched as my Dad and I talked about the guns and I even showed my Mom how to load, unload, and handle the .38 revolver. It turned out that she kept that one in her night stand for protection when my Dad was away. On a subsequent visit I actually took her out back to shoot the gun at least once so she would know what to expect. I mentioned that she should get a holster for it, and she looked at me as if I was crazy.


The 90 minute drive to Tulsa gave us a lot of time to talk, and on the last trip out we had a surprising conversation about guns. My brother-in-law had inherited several handguns from his father, and was interested in shooting them, but did not really know much about guns, safe gun handing, ammunition selection, and related topics. My sister thought that if they were going to have guns in the house, and if her husband was going to shoot them, it would be a good idea to get some training. Then came the real shocker: she herself was interested in learning to shoot! My pacifistic, not quite anti-gun, liberal sister wanted to learn to shoot.


I asked her why she wanted to shoot, and she said that she wanted to feel safe with guns in the house, and she realized that if she was confronted by an intruder when she was alone at home she would need to protect herself for the period of time before the police could arrive, and a gun could be a life saver in that event.


Although I had talked before about my own gun hobby and how I started, we talked a little more about it, the group that taught the NRA Basic Pistol Class I attended, Bay Area Professionals for Firearms Safety and Education, BayProfs for short, and my subsequent shooting activities and training. To say the least, this was an interesting conversation with my sister, especially when she decided to get her husband the gift of two seats in the next BayProfs Basic Pistol class, one for each of them. She said it would be a “couple bonding” activity for both of them.


A few weeks went by, and while at work I got a call from my sister: she wanted my advice on a gun-related gift for her husband. She wanted to get him some kind case or container to carry his guns to from the range. While looking at items online, she was unsure the quality and suitability of various products and wanted more information. I suggested we go to a local gun store where we could ask about the products, and get some hands-on evaluation. After a little more discussion it turned out that the the Bay Area Gun Vault in Mountain View was most convenient for her. I also preferred this store because they recently expanded, taking over the space next to them, and because it is well lighted, tidy, and ordinary looking with a helpful staff. I did not want to take her to a more hardcore gunnie man-cave like the Gun Exchange or Sportsmans Supply. Bay Area Gun Vault is also the closest gun store to her house, so she is more likely to make it her “home base” store.


I met her there on a recent afternoon, and upon walking in and seeing all the rifles in the racks, her eyes got big and the said something like “Oh, my! This is a little scary.” I distracted her by suggesting we get some help, and went over to the counter. One of the clerks, who was armed, started showing, my sister the various gun cases they had in stock, and also suggested she look at a range bags that could be locked, explaining that any locked container would satisfy California law. All the while he was keeping up a conversation, asking about her shooting experience, asking about the BayProfs classes (approving enthusiastically about getting training) and also mentioning about other things she may need like cleaning kits and supplies, eye and ear protection, etc. My sister eventually selected a Boyt range bag, thinking that it would be more versatile, and impressed with the lifetime warranty.


This was when things got weird.


I took her over to the handgun display case and pointed out my pistol, a Kimber Custom II, which the counterman immediate took out and handed over to me. I explained to my sister about indexing the trigger finger along the frame, and a little about why I bought the gun, while she handled it, getting a feel for the weight and balance. This may have been the first time my sister ever held a handgun. But it did not stop there. Even though we were not buying a gun that day, the counterman got into a conversation with my sister and asked about what she liked about the 1911, and then suggested she try out a Glock. She did not like the finger rounds on the grip, so out came a Smith & Wesson M&P, which she liked better. I liked it too. And after that came a Sig P226, and then a couple of Smith & Wesson revolvers. After a short time my sister was getting pretty comfortable with all the guns around, and even appeared to be enjoying herself.


We left after about an hour in the store and went to Peet's to get a coffee and catch up with family stuff. My sister thought the entire experience was enlightening and interesting, and she is definitely looking forward to the class. I was amazed, and a little proud of her for going outside her comfort zone. While in Peet's I mentioned that women getting into shooting and guns seems to be part of a cultural trend. She offered two explanations: first, more woman are living alone because of divorce or other life circumstances, and second, women in the baby boom generation are older and more clear sighted about security, not as naive that younger women about the possibility of becoming a victim, and more confident in their ability to do something about it. In addition, my sister thinks that gun safety should begin with knowledge and respect of firearms, not fear and ignorance.


I really admire my sister.


We parted then as it was getting on in the evening, but not before I told her that if she wanted to visit a gun range to try out my gun before the class in February to give me a call. I would be very glad to arrange a trip.

Does The Violence Policy Center Still Support a Handgun Ban?

While perusing the website of the Violence Policy Center, I came upon their March, 2000 study Unsafe In Any Hands: Why America Needs To Ban Handguns.  This study concludes:

"A clear-cut plan to ban handguns should be developed and implemented soon. Considering the many thousands who are killed or maimed by the handgun each year, how much more motivation do we need?"

If, as Joan Peterson claims:

 "Things have changed since that time. You won't find Josh Sugarman saying that today. The Brady Campaign is not saying it. The Supreme Court has assured you all that you have your guns for self defense and hunting. People change. Times change. Things change."

Then why is this study still on the violence Policy Center website?  Is that just an oversight, or is a handgun ban still a policy goal of the VPC?  This article seems to indicate that the VPC still supports a handgun ban:

“Their efforts at reaching out to minorities and women have failed,” said Rand, whose group advocates banning all handguns and some rifles but believes sporting rifles and shotguns should remain legal. “The industry constantly has to look for a way to make a guy who already owns 15 guns buy a new one.”

 Joan Peterson does have a point.  Much has changed since 2000.  Support for increased gun control has declined 22% since 2000, and the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment to protect the individual right, making this statement in the study hollow:

"An objection continually raised to gun control is that the Second Amendment to the Constitution somehow forbids it. This is pure myth. No gun control law has ever been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment grounds."

 What has not changed is the philosophical approach of the VPC, The Brady Campaign, and Joan Peterson: to control gun crime it is necessary to control guns.  I believe this to be wrong headed, even hilariously idiotic.  To control gun crime it is necessary to control criminals.

100th Anniversery of the 1911 Pistol

On this day in 1911 John M. Browning's famous pistol was adopted for service by the United States Army, becoming the M1911 pistol, making this the 100^th anniversary of that event. It remained the standard issue sidearm until 1985, and is still in use by Marine Force Recon and the 1^st Special Forces Operational Detachment – Delta (Delta Force) to this day. After 100 years of continuous production and use by civilian and military users, and despite the fact that more types of modern automatic pistols are available, the 1911 pistol is more popular than ever. Why is this the case?

Not being an expert handgun shooter, I cannot give a definitive answer based on my own experience, but I do have my opinions. The 1911 pistol is one half of a fine weapon system, the other half being the .45 ACP cartridge, the pistol existing solely to deliver .45 bullets onto the target. If one believes that big bullets making big holes is an advantage in a defensive handgun, then the .45 ACP is for you, and what better gun to use than the 1911? A proper grip being critical to reliable functioning of an automatic pistol, the 1911 grip is narrower than many modern pistols, allowing people with smaller hands, like me, to securely hold the gun. Being a single action pistol, the trigger pull is short, light, and crisp, although this can vary from model to model. Finally, while polymer frame pistol may be popular, the all steel “Government” model 1911 has enough weight to help the shooter control the recoil produced by the .45 ACP cartridge.

Historically, there are only two “American” handguns, and the other one is a Colt as well. To people like me who see value in using a historically superior firearm, then the 1911 pistol becomes the only semi-automatic pistol to use. There are many others who agree, including the Los Angeles Police Department S.W.A.T. And S.I.S. Units, the F.B.I. Hostage Recue Team and regional S.W.A.T. Teams, and the general shooting public, whose enthusiasm for the 1911 pistol has inspired ever more manufacturers to offer models of every price range and description. Here is a non-authoritative list of 191 pistol manufacturers:

Armscor/Rock Island
Auto-Ordnance
Les Bear
Ed Brown
Charles Daly
Colt
Firestorm/MetroArms
Ithaca Gun Company
Kimber
Nighthawk Custom
Norinco
Para-Ordnance
Remington
Rock River Arms
Sig Sauer
Smith & Wesson
Springfield Armory
STI
Taurus
Dan Wesson
Wilson Combat

Model 1911A Pistol - State of the Art in 1911, Still Competitive Today

All images on this post are sourced from the World of Guns. 
 
In the year 1911 the United States Army adopted John Browning's .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol as the Model M1911 pistol its standard side arm. It was to serve well in that capacity until 1984, nearly three quarters of a century. Still very popular almost one hundred years later, I wondered what the state of the art in semi-automatic pistols was in or about the year 1911. Was Browning's design ahead of its time, or was it evolutionary?

With this in mind, I went searching for information on pistols that existed in 1911, or in the years immediately preceding or following. A most helpful site was the World of Guns. I have listed below the pistols from that site which were in service in the year 1911 with my opinion of the worth of the pistol. All images used in this post are used with the permission of the copyright owner.

Mauser 1910 Pistol 6.35mm (.25 ACP).

This pistol is one of the more modern looking of this roundup, and unlike many European pistols it uses a box magazine instead of a stripper clip. The caliber, however is too small for defensive uses. It was not unusual at the turn of the 20^th century for automatic pistol designs to start with smaller calibers and work up to larger ones. Even John Browning started out with .25 ACP, but European designs finally settled on the 9mm Luger round, while the .45 ACP ruled the U.S. Arms market for the next 50 years.

Roth Steyer Model 1907/M.7 pistol 8mm Roth.

As in America, Europeans introduced many new cartridge designs along with new pistols. This pistol is a striker-fired design that used a stripper clip to load the weapon. European designers seemed to prefer the stripper clip with early designs, but I think they were inferior for defensive use as they are easily damaged and might increase the chances of dirt and debris to foul the action. This pistol bears the distinction of being the first automatic pistol to be adopted by any military service, the Austro-Hungarian cavalry. Note the lanyard ring at the butt of the grip, something shared with the Colt 1911 pistol.

Steyer Hahn M1912 Pistol 9mm X 23 Steyer.
An evolution of the above model, this pistol was also loaded via a stripper clip. This boxy looking pistol is a step along the road to the modern semiautomatic pistol, but consider that the 1911 pistol was adopted the year before, and one can see that this was not an innovative design. Browning designs had been using the slide for over ten years.

FN Browning Model 1910, .32 ACP and .380 ACP
Compare the above pistol to this one: John Browning's Model 1910 pistol from FN Herstal. Introduced two years before the Styer Hahn, this pistol uses a box magazine and is clearly a development of the Browning pistol design philosophy: simple design and multiple safeties: grip safety, magazine disconnect, and thumb safety. Unlike many other pistols in this post, this one was also produced for quite a long time, until around 1983. Millions of these are still in use today.

Webley Scott Model 1910 Pistol (.38 ACP)
I may have never seen an uglier pistol, but it is one with modern mechanisms: box magazine, recoil operated, internal hammer, and, in this one model, a grip safety. Only used in WW I, it was declared obsolete and relegated to civilian and police use.

Frommer M1912 Stop pistol, 7.65x17 Browning / .32 ACP or 9x17 Browning Short / .380 ACP
It may look ugly, but it seems that this pistol was a decent design. Recoil operated, feed with box magazines, this gun was quite reliable and was used until the end of WW II. It did have complicated maintenance procedures, however, and like many European pistols, used an under powered cartridge.

Bergman Bayard Model 1910 pistol, 9mm Largo
This pistol seems to be a throwback, considering that FN had been producing modern Browning designs for ten years by the time, but unlike the Mouser C-96, this pistol uses either box magazines, or stripper clips to recharge the magazine. Only a limited success, it was used only by Denmark. I think all pistols of this basic design must be very unbalanced with the weight of the ammunition forward of the trigger guard.

Mauser C-96 pistol,  7.63x25mm Mauser (.30 Mauser); also 9x19mm Luger/Parabellum and 9x25mm Mauser (rare).
This pistol is included because I was in service in 1911, but it is definitely an obsolete design. The internal magazine was loaded by stripper clips, and the forward position of the magazine must have made this pistol unbalanced. While it was one of the first practical automatic pistols, it was only used by the German Army in WW I when P-08 Luger pistols could not be obtained.

Luger 'Parabellum' 7.65mm Luger/Para, 9x19mm Luger/Para
Here we have the only pistol in the round up that can give the M1911 a run for the money. Chambered in the credible 9mm X 19 Parabellum cartridge, the Luger is a thoroughly modern firearm. Lugers used a locked breech, recoil operated mechanism, and are striker fired and loaded using box magazines. First adopted in 1900, these served at least until the end of WW II. While ergonomic and accurate, they were subject to fouling and expensive to produce.

Campo Giro pistol, 1913
This gun is the predecessor to the Astra Model 400, but it does not save this gun from being one of the ugliest guns of this roundup. Given that it was introduced after the FM Model 1910, the Colt M1911, and the German P-08 Luger, it does seem to be an inferior pistol. While it used a box magazine, it was still a blowback operated pistol, which limits the maximum caliber for which the gun can be chambered. While accurate, it was difficult to disassemble.

Colt 1911, .45 ACP

Saving the best for last, compare this pistol to all other preceding it, and then realize that this pistol was designed in 1906, and that essentially the same pistol is still in use by civilians, police departments, and military organizations (including some U.S. Units), and one can see that this was an outstanding pistol that set the state of the art in the year 1911, as well as setting a standard that few pistols can beat even in the 21^st century.

First, let me admit that I am not unbiased. I love this pistol, and I am inclined to think that it is the best close quarters combat pistol ever designed. It is chambered for the hard hitting .45 ACP cartridge, following the American philosophy that bigger holes in a target are better. Why is this pistol still in use today, while most of the others in this article are not? It is because the Colt 1911 combined John Browning's pistol design innovations that he had been developing for the previous ten years in a single pistol that was to prove revolutionary. The important innovations are:

• The slide. John Browning was the first pistol designer to use a slide that completely enclosed the barrel, that contained the cartridge case extractor and recoil spring, and that locked the barrel securely.
  
  
• Tilting barrel. John Browning was the first to tilt the breech of the barrel down, in this case using the pivoting link mechanism.
  

Every modern semi-automatic pistol, including Glock, evolved from this basic design. Everything else, like double column magazines, striker firing mechanisms, polymer frames, decocking levers, are all evolutionary refinements that do not alter the basic format of the slide/tilting barrel combination.

The Colt 1911 pistol was so advanced in it's day that it has defined what a semi-automatic pistol should look like, which is why it still looks modern in the 21^st Century.

---

UPDATE: 3/24/2011

Edited the size of the photographs to more better fit within the text column.

Top Shot Is Back!

Now for something fun: Top Shot is back this week!

And it seems that they have corrected a deficiency from last season: the lack of the Model 1911 pistol in the show.  Their go to semi-automatic pistol was the Baretta 92FS, a good gun, but not the American gun!

Am I prejudiced?  You bet I am!  I love the 1911.  If you love some other gun, set up your own blog and write about it there.

You know, Top Shot has also ignored Glock pistols so far.  Maybe they're saving them for season three?

American Rifleman Cover Features Banned Guns

The February 2011 issue of American Rifleman arrived in my mailbox today, and I was immediately struck by a coincidence: the cover features two handguns that will never be sole in California: Springfield Armory's XB(M) Compact, and Remington's R1 1911. One new pistol built to a 100 year old design, and one new pistol built to a 21^st century design, but both are “unsafe” according to the state of California.

What make these guns unsafe: the lack of a magazine disconnect feature, required for new pistol models to meet California “safety” requirements since 2007. Note: for all you non-gun people out there, a magazine disconnect is a mechanical device which prevents a pistol from firing if the magazine is removed from the gun. All serious defensive handgun shooters believe them to be an unsafe “Mommy” feature because magazine disconnects often prevent magazines from falling free during reloads, and render a person defenseless if they cannot insert a magazine fast enough during a reload. No police department that I know of would use a pistol that has a magazine disconnect.

What makes all of this utterly galling is that my pistol, a Kimber Custom II, is functionally identical to the Remington R1 pistol, but is sold in California because it is “grandfathered” in before the new requirements of 2007. So am I now shooting an unsafe pistol. The California DOJ thinks so.
It is nothing more than a creeping handgun ban.

NRA Personal Protection in the Home Class

Last week, 11 December, 2010, I attended the NRA Personal Protection in the Home class offered by Bay Area Professionals for Firearms Safety and Education (BayProfs), and held at the San Jose Municipal Firing Range, home of the Santa Clara Valley Rifle Club. I had previously taken the NRA Basic Pistol class from BayProfs, and found it to be very valuable for a novice handgun enthusiast, and I had been looking forward to taking this class for quite some time. I was not disappointed.

Students were expected to provide a firearm, a holster, gun belt, magazine carrier, and at least three magazines. BayProfs provided the instructors, ammunition, and the venue. BayProfs also provided each student with a packet of instructional materials that included the NRA Guide To the Basics of Personal Protection Inside the Home, and the book How To Own A Gun And Stay Out Of Jail, 2010 Edition, which, in my opinion, every gun owner in California should own and read. The fee for the class was $200 for an entire day of instruction: 9 AM to 6 PM.

While BayProfs recommended standard Kydex training holsters, I had long since purchased a rig in leather, and on consultation with Tom Laye, the training director for BayProfs, got the approval to use my rig. It consists of:

• Holster: El Paso Saddlery Sky Six
• Belt: El Paso Saddlery Garrison Belt
• Magazine Carrier: El Paso Saddlery Friction Mag Pouch 2F
• Magazine: Wilson Combat Elite Tactical Magazine
• Firearm: Kimber Custom II

The class size was small, only seven people, with a mix of ages and genders. Two students in my class were women, one of whom could not have weighed more that 90 pounds soaking wet, who shot a full size automatic pistol as competently as any other student in the class. While all individuals in the class had taken the NRA Basic Pistol Class from BayProfs (a prerequisite), some had taken additional classes from other organizations. While a variety of firearms were used by the students, no revolvers were present in this class.

It is well known by any student that has taken BayProfs class that the BayProfs instructors are huge enthusiasts of the famous 1911 pistol, which was designed by the famous John Browning, and has been in continuous use and production for nearly one hundred years. Every instructor present had a 1911 pistol in their holster, and while a few joking comments about how the students should “get a real gun” were heard, the BayProfs instructors are all of the conviction that any gun in a credible defensive caliber will work just fine for personal protection. The gun is a tool, the weapon is a person with training, the correct mindset, and a determination to survive, holding the gun.

The instructor to student ratio was high, with six instructors present to help the students as well as ensure safety on the firing range. The class format alternated between lecture and shooting sessions on the range. Topics covered included, but were not limited to, firearms safety, the ethics and morality of self defense, legal aspects of the use of deadly force, the use of cover and concealment, and defensive shooting techniques. Safety was a paramount concern during the shooting sessions, with each student paired with an instructor, and a range master keeping watch over everyone. NRA rules required that the class was run with a “cold range”, which means that no loaded pistols were holstered. Students practiced the draw and presentation with unloaded pistols, and only loaded them on command of the range master after drawing, presenting to target, and then entering the low ready position. All shooting commenced from the low ready position. When a course of fire was completed, instructors required each student to clear their firearm, show the instructor that the firearm was clear, and then drop the hammer on the empty chamber.

There was as much discussion about how to avoid a gunfight as there was about how to survive one. The class emphasizes that the only gunfight one wins is the gunfight one avoids in the first place. Once the shooting starts, one does not “win”, one only survives. Awareness of ones surroundings was taught as the key discipline to learn to avoid violent encounters whenever possible, and to be fully prepared for them when avoidance fails. Awareness combined with prior planning is essential if one is to act effectively once a threat is encountered, and employment of a firearm is always the last option in any plan, used only when everything else fails.

Shooting sessions started with a marksmanship check of each student, and proceeded to a demonstration of combat accuracy, and the explanation of the “flash sight” picture. As the day went on, more elements were added the shooting problem: shooting from cover, shooting around corners from both the strong and weak sides, shooting from the kneeling position, and transitions between standing and kneeling. One of the final shooting exercises was two fast shots to the center of mass of the target, with aimed shots into the cranio-optical cavity. This exercise was very challenging, and some students had to reload a more than once to accomplish the task. After the very first shooting session all students were responsible for keeping their magazines loaded, and for reloading their firearms as required during all courses of fire, further simulating the conditions that might be faced during a real firefight.

One of the final exercises of the day was BayProfs version of the Teuller Drill, a demonstration of how fast an attacker can close to knife range before an armed defender can draw and fire. With a shooter in the low ready position and facing down range, another student, the runner, placed his hand on the shooters shoulder and faced up range. The runner would start running up range at a moment of their choosing, and the length of distance covered before the shooter could place an effective round on the target was measured. In almost all cases the runner could cover 20 to 30 feet before the shooter could react and fire, demonstrating why all police agencies and defensive shooting instructors consider an attacker with a knife a deadly threat within 7 yards of a defender.

One instructor, fresh from a defensive shotgun class, gave a short talk and demonstration of defensive shotgun usage, including shooting a few rounds to demonstrate the spread of the pellets and effectiveness of the weapon in self defense. Each student was then invited to shoot the gun, a modified Remington 870 Police Magnum. I must say that I was very impressed with the gun, and with the effects of the Vang Comp ported shotgun barrel. Seeing the spread of 00 buckshot at 7 yards clearly showed why shotguns must be aimed for maximum effect, not simply pointed as so many people assume.

The class ended with a recap of the most important points covered that day, and with tips for both dry practice and range drills for the students to use to hone the techniques introduced in the class. Dry practice drawing and presenting the firearm to the target and reloading the fireatm help develop “muscle memory”, making these operations automatic in a defensive situation. Emphasis is placed on correctness of each motion, not on speed. As one instructor said, “Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.” Range drills included a sight flash shot at center mass, followed by a head shot using a 3”x5” index card as a target.

My final impression of this class is that it was a very good introduction to practical, defensive shooting. The quality of the instructors was evident, as well as their enthusiasm for the subject. Instructor demeanor in the class is supportive and consultative, without the “boot camp” mentality that I have heard other instructors use. This must be especially comforting for female members of the class who might be intimidated by strident instructors. An amazing amount of material and new concepts were presented, too much to master in one day, or even adequately absorb. Should this class be offered again, I would be tempted to repeat is because I am sure I would come away the second time learning things that I missed in the first session, and with a deeper understanding of things that I thought I knew. I do know that this class has changed how I will practice at the range, and during dry practice at home.

A Liberal Learns About Guns

I found a fascinating article on Molly Blogs Baltimore about a young woman's first experience shooting a handgun.  Here is what I wrote in reply:

Molly,

I highly commend you on stepping out of your comfort zone to get some firsthand knowledge about guns, recreational shooting, and the people that enjoy the sport.  Most admitted liberals would not risk their preconceived notions by seeking out the experience.

I would like you to expand a little bit on gun control. You saw and experienced for yourself that people can use and enjoy firearms for lawful purposes, but you say you still favor gun control.  What gun control would that be.  there are many different types of guns control laws, and like all laws, they mainly impact the law abiding.

Do you not see that pretty much every gun control method does not work? I am sure that the vast majority of the 1058 murders in Baltimore were committed by felons, all of whom are prohibited from possessing guns, but they found them and used them anyway.

So, what gun controls do you favor?  Handgun bans? "Assault Weapon" bans?  Background checks? Licensing?  Registration?

Here is what I think: the problem is not guns, but violence in society.  I am not disposed to be violent toward anyone with anything, from fists to guns.  But there are others who are predisposed to violence, and it is these people who I want to identify and deprive of firearms.  for this reason I favor prohibiting felons from possessing guns.  I also favor age restrictions. I think training is a very good idea, but I think that it should not be a legal requirement.

Most every other gun ownership requirement, licensing, registration, training requirements, ammunition limitations, carry restrictions, and all measures that intend to make gun ownership so burdensome, onerous, or expensive, that people simply quit.  The gun control crowd wants to slowly strangle the gun culture in America.

Here is a great site, Women of Caliber, that explains all of the above, and much more, far better than I can.  It is worth the time to take a look:

http://womenofcaliber.wordpress.com/

So, Molly, now that you have gotten a taste of shooting, are you going to go again?

We often hear stories about shooters taking a friend to the range, but it is pretty cool to read about the reactions of the visitor to the new experience.

The Three Stupidest Gun Owners Ever

In this video clip posted on YouTube, you actually see a live body armor test, in which one person shoots a living test dummy, who is wearing body armor, with a semi-automatic pistol. After taking off the armor, a small round wound and a trickle of blood can be seen on the targets chest.  The test dummy also coughs a couple of times afterward.

Did the test dummy just get shot through the lung?  Unknown, because the video is too short to determine the extent of the wound, and a lung shot is not immediately incapacitating.  Are these three young men the stupidest gun owners ever? Oh, yeah!

How many of the Four Rules of gun safety have these guys violated?  Here they are for reference:

1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.3

Another Open Carry Event in Bay Area

This article reports that another Open Carry event was held in the Bay Area recently. The tone of the article is pretty neutral, with coverage from both the pro-gun rights and anti-gun rights side.

Open Carry aims to make it possible for Americans in every state to legally carry loaded guns in public. The loosely organized Bay Area chapter is igniting powerful feelings among law enforcement agencies, gun control advocates and ordinary residents.

I won't argue with the goal, but I am still skeptical of the methods used to attain it. This article shows that too many people are fearful of seeing guns in public, especially in suburban California, where they are never seen. Perhaps the Open Carry movement is right: if enough people see others carrying guns without causing problems, peoples opinions might change.

UPDATE: I just viewed the video associated with the source article, and I recommend anyone reading the article to view the video as well. It is very interesting to see the range of reactions to people open carrying: supportive to negative, the reactions of the public are worth seeing.

Democrats and Guns - Silent Minority Favors Self Protection.

This Gallup poll on gun ownership and usage contains all of the usual data: more Republicans than Democrats own guns. But there is a fascinating split in the reason people own guns that is given at the end of the results: among people who own guns, Democrats cite personal protection as the reason more than do Republicans, and all three categories, Republican, Independent, and Democrat, poll at 64% or greater for personal protection.

So, while the liberal narrative holds that guns are the cause of crime, and restricting access to guns would decrease crime in the United States, there is a significant minority of Democrats who own guns for personal protection. I think anyone you owns a firearm for personal protection would not be sympathetic to increased gun control laws.

That little factoid in this poll just might be a decisive factor explaining why gun control is increasingly unpopular, while laws bolstering the ability of citizens to protect themselves, like liberalized concealed weapon laws, have been passed in almost 40 states.

Democratic Party leadership is mostly composed of the most liberal members, like my own Senator Diane Feinstein. But even they have stopped pushing for more gun control laws simply because they have been slapped down too hard by the voters, and the reality that not every Democrat is against gun ownership.

Everything You've Heard About Gun Control is Wrong - From Both Sides!

There is one thing that I have learned researching gun-rights issues: one must be very careful believing "facts" reported by partisans of both sides. And, if there are two groups whose claims I am automatically skeptical of, they would be the National Rifle Association, and the Violence Policy Center.

An object lesson in the malleability of "facts" on this issue was played out in the main stream media aver the last few weeks. The Violence Policy Center published Iron River: Gun Violence and Illegal Firearms Trafficking on the U.S. - Mexico Border in which the following "fact" was stated:

U.S. and Mexican officials report that, based on ATF tracing data, the cartels obtain 90 percent or more of their firearms from the United States.

The mainstream media took this and ran like Hell with it, but it was later shown to be the worst type of lie: the half-truth. As reported in this story FoxNews revealed that the truth is that 90 percent of the arms that Mexico requested the U.S. to trace came from the U.S., but those weapons were only a fraction of the total seized from drug cartels. The percentage of total weapons originating from the U.S. is closer to 17 percent, not 90 percent.

The NRA is not above such shenanigans, either. Check out this fact sheet, More Guns, Less Crime (Again) in 2007 published by the NRA. In the three paragraphs they cite separate statistics on relaxed gun control laws, increased gun ownership, and reduced crime in the U.S. The implication that the reader is supposed to take away is that increased availability to guns has reduced crime and made the U.S. safer.

In fact violent crime has been going down in the U.S. for decades, in both areas with lax gun laws, and in areas with strict gun laws, as shown by FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2007.

Part of the problem is that both of these organizations are political pressure groups with agendas to advance. Another is the lack of definitive, conclusive research on the links between gun laws and gun violence. Most "facts" on both sides of the issue come from research studies, but many, if not all of these studies may be flawed. The Centers for Disease Control conducted a study of the studies published on the issue of gun control to determine the effectiveness of gun laws. Their results, summarized in First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, can be summed up in one sentence:

Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons.

The CDC goes on to explain why all types of gun bans, waiting periods, liberalized concealed carry laws, etc. all cannot be shown to have the effects on violence claimed by their proponents. The reason is that pretty much all previous studies are based on faulty methods, or on incomplete data.

Other studies have shown similar deficiencies in methods and data, undermining the positions of both sides of the issue. The National Academies concurred that research in this area is weak and needs much improvement. In their study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, they reach the following conclusion, deflating the claims of both gun-rights and gun control groups:

For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

Is there ANY solid ground to stand upon? I think so, but I must approach it from both a logical position, and a values position.

My logical argument starts by saying that there are more guns in the U.S. than ever, and yet violent crime is down, and in fact has been decreasing for decades. More guns does NOT cause more crime. In states that have shall-issue concealed carry laws, violent crime has likewise been decreasing, so that while we cannot prove, or credibly claim, that shall-issue laws reduce violent crime, it seems pretty certain they have not increased it either. I think these are the only valid statistical conclusions I can reach about guns and violence in U.S. society.

This leads into my values-based argument: in many individual cases, guns have been used to defend lives from violent criminals. In these cases, and for those individuals, the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes far outweighed any nebulous claims of gun control advocates of the harm gun pose to society at large. Because they were armed, the self-defenders survived to go home to their families.

Unless and until better research comes to light about the effectiveness of gun control laws, I am going to support the right to keep and bear arms, because on one terrible day, it might be mine, or my wife's life I will have to defend, and a gun is the most effective means of self-defense.

Assault Weapon Ban - It Really Works!

A terrible tragedy occurred in Oakland yesterday: three police officers were killed, and another seriously wounded in separate shootings with the same criminal. USA Today carried the story from Associated Press.

The shooter, Lovelle Mixon, was only 26 and had "an extensive criminal history". I am sure there will be plenty of people ready to explain how he was a victim of is socially and economically disadvantaged background, instead of admitting that the system failed to keep a piece of walking, talking shit in prison where he so richly deserved to be.

And now the gun grabbers will call for ever more restrictions on waepons. But guess what? In California, a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, Mixon, presumably a convicted felon, coould not legally own any type of gun, nor ammunition, and assualt weapons are already banned!

That's right ASSAULT WAEPONS ARE BANNED. But the criminal got one anyway.

Yep, gun bans really do work at keeping guns out the the hands of crmininals. Let's revive 1994 Federal ban!

SB 746 - Gun Safety Board Proposed.

State Senator 746, introduced by Mark DeSaulnier, would create a gun Safety Board within the Department of Health.

What would this board be charged to do? Here is the relevant law:

 (2) The purpose of the board would be to oversee and implement a
strategy to reduce the incidents of gun violence and accidental
shootings, including the number of homicides, injuries, suicides and
deaths in order to save money on gunshot related deaths, nonfatal
injuries, medical costs, incarceration and the devastation to society
as a whole.

How would the board accomplish these goals? The legislation lays this out as well:

(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that any legislation
enacted to create the board would also require the board to do all of
the following:
(1) Implement programs, and adopt standards, rules, and
regulations in accordance with the provisions of this act to reduce
gun violence.
(2) Conduct research into the causes of, and solutions to, gun
violence, and systematically attack the serious problems caused by
gun violence.
(3) Provide grant money to reduce gun violence.
(d) The board would do both of the following:
(1) Contract for technical advisory services and other services as
may be necessary for the performance of its powers and duties.
(2) Appoint advisory groups and committees as it requires.

And how would all of this be paid for? By gun owners, of course:

 (e) It is the intent of the Legislature that any legislation
enacted to create the board would also provide funding for the board
by imposing a twenty-five dollar ($25) fee on all retail sales of
firearms, or transfers of firearms between persons who are not
licensed firearms dealers, and that moneys generated pursuant to
those provisions would be deposited in the Gun Safety Board Special
Fund.                                      

What "regulations" might this board enact? Who can say in advance, but I am sure they will not be friendly to gun owners, and I am not at all convinced that such a board is necessary in any case. This bill is in the very preliminary stages, but it is not too late to write to you State Senator noting your opposition to this bill.

SB 585 - Gun Sales Prohibited at the Cow Palace

SB 585 introduced by Senator Mark Leno (D - District 3, San Francisco) would prohibit gun sales at a popular event venue in the Bay Area, the Cow Palace. Here is the operative part of the legislation:

SECTION 1. Section 4132 is added to the Food and Agricultural
Code, to read:
4132. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no officer,
employee, operator, or any lessee of District 1-A as defined in
Section 3853 may contract for, authorize, or allow, the sale of any
firearm or ammunition on the property or in the buildings that
comprise the Cow Palace property in San Mateo County and the City and
County of San Francisco or any successor or additional property
owned, leased, or otherwise occupied or operated by the district.

Two things are interesting to me about this:

First, it attempts to get around the problems being hashed out in the Nordyke case by not banning possession of firearms, just the sales of firearms and ammunition. Second, this act amends the Food and Agricultural code, not the Penal code, for reasons that are unclear to me.

One might think that is intended to eliminate gun shows at the Cow Palace, and thereby close the "gun show loophole" The irony of this is that all transfers, private and dealer sales, must go through a dealer in this state, so there is no "loophole" to close in this state.

Mark Leno seems to simply dislike gun shows.

AB 1167 - CCW Reciprocity for California

Assembly Member Jim Neilsen (R - 2nd District) has introduced a bill to add Section 12058 to the Penal Code that would direct the Department of Justice to enter into reciprocity agreement with other states to honor California CCW permits.

The text of the bill is short:

12058. (a) Persons holding a valid permit or license to carry a
concealed handgun from any state or a political subdivision of a
state shall be deemed a licensee under subparagraph (A) of paragraph
(1) of subdivision (a) of Section 12050.
(b) The Department of Justice shall enter into reciprocity
agreements with all other states that have the legal authority to
enter into those agreements so that licensees under Section 12050 may
carry firearms in those states pursuant to the conditions imposed by
Section 12050. The department shall each month maintain and publish
a list of those states with which this state has established
reciprocity.

Clearly, holders of permits issued in other states would have concealed carry privileges in this state if this bill becomes law.

The white elephant in the room is that some states shall issue concealed weapon permits to residents of other states, including California. Most notable in this regard is Utah, a popular state for concealed carry permits because of Utahs wide reciprocity agreements.

The effect of this bill would be to circumvent Section 12050 of the Penal Code, so of course AB 1167 has no chance of passing. California LEO agencies simply hate the idea of citizens with concealed weapons, despite the favorable history of such laws in other states.

AB 962 - Internet Ammunition Sales to be Made Illegal?

Will purchases of ammunition over the Internet become illegal in this state? It certainly seems so if Assembly Bill 962 becomes law.

What this law proposes is, after July 1 2010, to make sales of handgun ammunition regulated. They would have to occur in a face-to-face transaction, and certain information would have to be collected by the vendor, and records maintained by the vendor.

Vendors would also have to obtain a license to sell handgun ammunition.

Information to be collected are

(3) Commencing July 1, 2010, a vendor shall not sell or otherwise
transfer ownership of any handgun ammunition without at the time of
delivery legibly recording the following information on a form that
is in a format to be prescribed by the department:
(A) The date of the sale or other transaction.
(B) The purchaser's or transferee's driver's license or other
identification number and the state in which it was issued.
(C) The brand, type, and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise
transferred.
(D) The purchaser's or transferee's signature.
(E) The name of the salesperson who processed the sale or other
transaction.
(F) The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee on the
above form.
(G) The purchaser's or transferee's full residential address and
telephone number.
(H) The purchaser's or transferee's date of birth.

The bill also states that the transaction must be made face-to-face:

SEC. 6. Section 12318 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12318. (a) Commencing July 1, 2010, the sale or other transfer of
ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face
transaction with the seller or transferor being provided bona fide
evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee.

It seems to me that these requirements would make sales of ammunition over the internet illegal, even though such sales are not specifically mentioned in the bill. It is certain that at a minimum this will cause the price of ammunition to rise even further, and probably not make a dent in crime, since a black market in ammunition will undoubtedly arise.

The authors of this bill are Kevin De Leon (D - 45th District) and Bonnie Lowenthal (D - 54th District).

This bill is scheduled to be read in committee on March 29th, 2009, and it would seem to be one we need to keep an eye on.

California Microstamping Bill

One thing that has had many Californians fearful for their continued 2nd Amendment rights is the signing into law of AB 1471, Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007, effective January 1, 2010.

This law requires that new concealable weapons to have a means of imprinting the make, model, and serial number of the weapon on cartridge cases fired by that weapon.

The text of the law may be found here.

At first blush it may seem that this law would end the sale of handguns in the state, unless firemarma manufacturers started making boutique guns just for the California market. But calguns.net has an interesting analysis on this issue here.

If this is true, then it would seem that we have nothing to worry about, right?

David Codrea has an update that indicates that the patent loophole may not be as large as we would wish, and I have great faith in the capacity of California to implement any law, no matter how practical, to further a politically correct idea.

And guns are about as politically incorrect an area in California as one can find, with the exception of opposition to gay marriage.

This was one large reason that I hurried forward my purchase of a handgun. It may be the only one I'll ever get to own in this state.

I Took The Plunge

Well, I did it, and it turn out differently than I thought: I am now a handgun owner.

I wanted more than the minimum amount of training required by the state to qualify for an HSC (Handgun Safety Certificate), and document that is required to purchase a handgun in California, so I sought out more comprehensive training in my area, Santa Clara County.

BayProfs is a local organization that offers classes in firearms safety and personal protection. I signed up and took the NRA Basic Pistol class, a 10 hour, single day session that was quite valuable for people like myself who have not had much exposure to firearms in the past.

There was a good mix of lecture, demonstration, and hands-on practical handling of revolvers and pistols. The instructors were all very experienced and knowledgeable, most with years of experience in shooting competitively, law enforcement, military, and attendance on famous firearms schools like Gunsite, FrontSight, and Thunder Ranch.

At the end of the evening, the last unit of instruction was a firing range session in which all students were able to shoot a variety of handguns, both pistols and revolvers, in various calibers. Some of those available were models on my short list, and I look forward to shooting them as an evauluation prior to purchase.

Something surprising happened: there was one 1911 style pistol, and I not only shot better than with it any other pistol, I shot much better. In fact, I saw that the 1911 was the most comfortable in my hand, and if I could shoot it well, then what more is there to think about?

To make a long story short, I went out to the local gun shops, perused the available models, and am now the owner of a Kimber Custom II. And I got all of this done just prior to President Obama's inauguration.

This is not to say that I am paranoid about new gun control legislation, but i do live in California, and I wanted to be armed before any new restrictions were put in place, and I think that they are comming.

I'll have more on that later.

Armed Citizens Against Terrorism

I have had one nagging thought ever since I got over the sheer awfulness of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington D. C.: why have we not seen the type of suicide bombings that Isreal suffered, or the type of terrorist attack inflicted on Mumbai last year?

It turns out that someone is thinking about it, and possible counter strategies, as described in this New York Times article .

But my reaction to this article is that they may be over looking a potential resource: armed citizens. Does anyone think that terrorists could shoot up Dallas, Texas, with the same impunity that they had in Mumbai? I have faith that not only would are police shoot back, but some of our concealed weapon permit holders would as well.

Perhaps, as in Isreal, we should encourage more citizens to go about their daily business armed.