Posse Incitatus

End the college victim zones

The gun rights front has been somewhat quiet in Michigan of late, which is both good and bad. On the plus side, the gun controllers are no longer making noises about repealing the shall-issue law.

On the downside, there are still several reforms that need to be implemented. One of the foremost would be scrapping the stupid and wasteful pistol registry.

Even more importantly, though, we need to get rid of Michigan’s Victim Zones. These are state-designated areas where concealed pistol licensees can’t carry. These are essentially game preserves for homicidal maniacs looking at creating a new body-count record.

The Fort Hood massacre should have made it clear to everyone that banning guns from specific areas doesn’t make them safer. If a sprawling military base packed with combat veterans and ringed with layers of security can’t stop a shooter, a putting a sign on a movie theater or college campus classroom won’t do it, either.

State Sen. Randy Richardville introduced a bill in August to end the campus prohibition. Good for him. But the bill needs to go farther. All of the exclusions should be removed.

If private property owners wish to establish their own Victim Zones, they have the right to do so, provided they post it. They should also bear liability costs for any loss or injury resulting therefrom. This would also allow the public the right to “vote with their feet” and go to other venues.

Michigan has had shall-issue for years and the random, crazy “wild-west” shootouts predicted by the gun control lobby simply haven’t happened. There is no reason to believe that they will if more of the state is opened up to trained, law-abiding citizens who wish only to defend themselves.

For those that are interested, the hearing on Senate Bill 0747 will take place on Tuesday, Dec. 8 at 1 p.m. in room 210 of the Farnum Building, which is the Senate office building across from Lansing’s tallest building (used to be call the Michigan National Tower, but the name has changed a couple of times since then). Anyhow, show up and voice your support and maybe we’ll make Michigan safer.

The necessity of deceit

The release of the Climategate emails has been called a “smoking gun” for the global warming/climate change movement. It is perhaps the perfect metaphor, because the science behind gun control relies on similar deceptions.

Long-time readers may be shocked to know that once upon a time, I was what could be called a centrist on gun control: I supported the free use of hunting and sporting weapons, but thought that handguns and automatic weapons should be heavily regulated.

That was a mainstream position during the 1980s when I was growing up and the “science” of the time labored heavily to back it up. Shotguns were (and still are) fine for taking game or defending the home – and they weren’t particularly threatening. “Assault weapons”, on the other hand, were the province of survivalists and militia crazies. Just ban ‘em.

So went my thinking.

That began to change during the debate over the Assault Weapons Ban in the 1990s. For the first time, I began to actually study the matter and learned that the science wasn’t as solid as it seemed. When John Lott’s massive study on the effect of shall-issue laws burst onto the scene, I was skeptical but willing to be convinced if the facts were there.

Lott’s academic reputation has taken a (not entirely undeserved) beating since then, but what really pushed me into the gun rights camp was the compulsive dishonesty of the gun control advocates. These guys couldn’t ever make an honest argument; everything they said was twisted, spun or blatantly false. This got me to thinking: if your position is so strong, why weaken it with lies?

This is pretty much my rule now, and it has served me very well. Whether dealing with gun control or climate change, you can tell the strength of the argument by how much its supporters have to distort the truth to make it.

The question of climate change is, from a purely scientific perspective, a very difficult one to answer. The only way that we can even approach the truth is to take an open, collaborative attitude to research – basically we have to use the classical scientific method.

This method, where data is openly shared, where theories are constantly questioned – is what has allowed the Western world to make the quantum advances it has in less than a century. What the Climategate emails show is that the supporters of the globalwarmism are not interested in real science. Their agenda is too important.

They are driven by a moral certitude that is so overwhelming that it renders facts unimportant – it’s bigger than such trifling considerations. There is also a “bunker mentality” at work. These people simply cannot handle the thought of being proved wrong. They must be right, they have to be right, they know they are right – so they believe they are permitted to use any means necessary to win the public debate.

A few years ago, gun control was starting to falter. John Lott’s research had broken the debate wide open. Other criminologists, like Gary Kleck, were asking very uncomfortable questions about whether guns caused or prevented crime.

As the debate raged, the gun control advocates received news that powerful help was on the way: Michael Bellesiles was doing ground-breaking research to prove that guns in colonial America were rare and barely utilized, in effect undermining the core arguments in favor of the Second Amendment.

Bellesiles was an immediate hero and a great many academics fell over themselves praising him. His book, Arming America, won top prizes and became an instant best-seller.

And then it all fell apart, and it was the scientific method that brought him down. As more academics sought to replicate his research (in this case his sources rather than equations or methods), problems began to appear. His defenses became more convoluted and resulted in a series of embarrassing excuses and walkbacks until even his own institution was forced to fire him for academic misconduct. His prize was rescinded; his publishing contract terminated and he went from rising star to the Stephen Glass of the history profession.

Bellisiles misconduct also brought a great deal of discredit to the gun control supporters who had endorsed him and caused a new level of scrutiny on the science behind previous studies. It is no coincidence that public support for gun rights is now at an all-time high, and that even for Democrats, gun control is now a dead issue.

Climategate may have a similar effect. The warmenists in academia have been increasingly shrill and demanding over the years. Like gun control advocates, they had a set of policies they wished to see enacted and, like gun control researchers, they profited handsomely from the resulting attention.

Of course, their policies would have utterly reordered society to an extent far exceeding anything contemplated by gun control advocates. A natural response – a rational response – was to question if all this was really necessary. Was the science sound?

The answer is: we don’t know. But “not sure” isn’t enough to justify a transformative global government that will tax and regulate every single human activity. So these folks set out to prove the science was settled even though it wasn’t.

I suspect that like gun control, the climate change movement is now headed for hard times politically. A good many scientists may be sympathetic to the case (and grants and power) accorded by the global warming theory, but the sheer crassness of the behavior illustrated by these emails will cause them to hold back. Their entire profession has been brought into disrepute.

In a time of tight government budgets, the public is ill-disposed to funding junk science. They will have to police their own – whether through tenure hearings or Freedom of Information Act investigations – or the whole university edifice will take irreparable damage.

The public is rightfully skeptical of people who have to cheat to win. Fabricating and distorting data is no way to win an argument over the long term. The intellectual argument for gun control collapsed because of it. Climate change may go the same way.

Zombies overrun National Review

Over at The Corner, Jonah Goldberg is displaying his usual willingness to go where his colleagues won't - in this case, discussing the lurking zombie peril.

The Posse of course has been way out in front of this issue and our post on shooting zombies still gets new comments now and again.

I've read the Zombie Survival Guide, and to be honest, it sucks.  The first few pages are funny and well-written, but most of the advice is pretty lousy.

He's wrong about how AR-15s work, his concept of not using machineguns or grenades defies any sort of logic, and for the life of me I can't understand how, if the shambling undead are too stupid to put up a ladder or ramp, they are going to know enough to climb an anchor chain just 'cause it's there.

Let's face it, zombies are a pretty easy peril to overcome.  One thing we are very good at killing is people.  I stand by my assertion that using a .22 to plink away at this things from the rooftop is probably the most efficient and entertaining method to take them down, but there are alternatives.

Zombies are made of flesh and bone - they are not merely animate skeletons ala Army of Darkness or some such.  That means if you shred muscle and bone, they aren't going to work as well.  If the spine is severed, the legs won't work.  Of course, we all know that the zombie will still come after you, but paraplegic zombies aren't nearly as scary.

This is particularly the case if they are the hyperfast zombies of 28 Days Later.  Tearing their legs off with Claymore mines or the equivalent would go a long way to restoring them to inanimate condition.  Besides, those freaks aren't necessarily zombies, so it should be possible to simply ventilate them like a normal human.

In any event, Goldberg is right on track when he ridicules the "superior planning ability" of gamers.  I've been gaming since elementary school and almost without exception, most post-apocalyptic planning from these folks boils down to looting the local Wal-Mart, which is of course, a stupid idea.

Hurricane Katrina was a full dress rehearsal of what a zombie outbreak would look like.  While much of the press coverage hyped the helplessness and anarchy, a few reporters found that the more intrepid residents found ways to survive - by forming tribes:

“Some people became animals,” Vasilioas Tryphonas said Sunday morning as he sipped a hot beer in Johnny White’s Sports Bar on Bourbon Street. “We became more civilized.”

Exactly.  When barbarians are at the gate and civilization wavers, the brave ones who will save it are the ones who stand fast, not those who head for the hills until things blow over.

The problem with zombies

This week Sithkitten and I saw Zombieland, which was quite amusing.  If you like zombie movies - and all the over-the-top gross stuff that they embody - this is your movie.

But it does highlight one of the genre's big problems - how the damn disease spreads so quickly.

Like other zombie films, the disease is carried by the bite.  All well and good, and it has that nice "best friend/lover/spouse/kid inevitably goes bad after a bit" vibe going on.  You know, "Kill me now, before it takes over."

And they never do, and then you get the horrifying transformation, etc.

But think about it: if the zombie bites a victim once, it will probably bite again and again until the only thing that can animate is a pile of body parts.  Far from spreading easily, the zombie virus should be very hard to spread - the only ones who get are the ones who almost get caught.  Basically the walking wounded.

Some other, better vector is required.

Just saying.

What about .380?

A friend forwarded this with the question:  Is .380 heavy enough for self-defense work?

Ten years ago I would have said "No way." 

This was of course when I was young and foolish and thought that all "real" pistol calibers started with the number "4."

Since then, I've come to realize that the most important feature of a self-defense weapon is that you are able to use it.  That is, it must be something you feel comfortable using, can use well, and - perhaps most importantly - you are going to have it when you need it.

That match-grade 1911A1 in your safe at home won't help you when the carjacker strikes.

Once I actually began to carry regularly, caliber became a lot less important than things like weight and size.  Thus, after starting out with a Charter Arms .44 Bulldog, I decided upon a Taurus 85 Total Titanium.

Basically, I am sympathetic to any firearm, even a lowly .25 or .22 caliber Derringer, so long as the user is comfortable carrying it.  Personally, I find .38 Special and 9mm to be about as small as I am willing to go.  But others may prefer something even lighter.

A further thought about ammunition type is its cost and availability.  One of the (many) drawbacks with my Bulldog was it would only reliably shoot high-quality, expensive ammunition that could only be found at gun shows.

Though we are still feeling the effects of the bullet shortage, .380 is otherwise plentiful and no more expensive than the (normally) ubiquitous 9mm.

All of which is to say, unless I hear otherwise in the comments, I think it's a decent enough caliber.  In terms of stopping power, you aren't going to be using it beyond 20 feet and placement will count more than sheer hitting power.  Unloading at someone with a Desert Eagle won't do much good if you miss every shot.

Bullet shortage eases, Posse invests in more hardware

Ammo is still high, but I’m seeing it more places. My nearby Meijers, whose shelves have been bare since March, is now partially stocked. I’m noticing other stores are also carrying the highly-sought-after 9mm.

Prices vary, as to policies. Some stores are limiting purchases, some aren’t. With hunting season at hand, I expect supplies will still be tight, though 9mm and .38 Special aren’t particularly good hunting calibers. Still, more people will be in the stores and they’ll probably grab a box while they are there because it is hard to find.

In other news, we'll probably have some new gun reviews up soon.   Yes, it's been a while.

Actions speak louder than words

One of the singular features of the Obama Administration is the rapidity with which it repudiates its own promises.

George W. Bush’s administration was comically inept in its media relations, and its bungled response to the Plame Affair and the “sixteen words” about uranium in Niger played a critical role in undermining public confidence in his veracity. “Bush Lied,” eventually took root, with disastrous consequences for his credibility and thus presidency.

Of course, it didn’t help that the press was out to get him. Still, it is worth noting that even with a hyper-partisan media, it still took five years to effectively bring him down. Obama has managed to do the same thing in a matter of months. His credibility is in tatters.

Does anyone believe he is a centrist who wants to keep spending in line? Does anyone think he is interested in “net spending cuts?”

To ask the question is to answer it.

As I’ve often said on this site, don’t pay attention to what is said, look at what is being done.

And a lot of things are going on that speak volumes.

For starters, there is the run-up in gold and oil prices. Confidence in the dollar is faltering, and this is not a purely rhetorical exercise. When prices move, that is a sign of action.

Meanwhile, Americans are stockpiling firearms. It is a development that leaves me both worried and comforted: worried that people believe they are going to need to look after themselves, comforted that they are taking appropriate individual action to guarantee their safety.

Speaking of firearms, the ammo shortage continues, but in Lansing there is some easing. Prices are still high, but the shelves are starting to fill back up, even at the big box retailers.

Earlier this summer I predicted that prices would collapse once the saturation point was reached and the Bullet Bubble burst. Now I’m not so sure. Demand will likely fall, but if inflation sets in, commodities will spike, meaning that the input costs will drive ammunition up faster than most other products.

Of course, if I take Sithkitten's advice, I'll start learning to make my own black powder, since the end of civilization could well be just around the corner.  In that case, pre-industrial age weapons will be critical.  Even percussion caps will be hard to come by, so flintlocks will once again become state of the art once the existing ammo stocks are used up.

Stockpiling blackpowder: serious survivalism!

The bullet bubble has crested

 

Has the bullet-bubble passed its zenith? Based on our highly subjective survey of local stores, the Posse thinks so.

Over the last week, I’ve noticed ammunition returning to local store shelves. It is an uneven process to be sure – some merchants have more than others – but the trend is there.

Those stores with the lightest inventory are also those who have raised their prices the least. Again, this makes perfect sense. Walmart hasn’t hiked its prices, so people will continue to buy up all they have. Other stores that have increased their prices are able to keep more ammunition in stock because the price is simply higher than most people are willing to pay. The fact that the ammo is there to be bought also is eliminating some of the panicked hoarding.

I also noticed that the quota signs are disappearing. A month ago, customers were limited to a box maybe two per day. Now you can buy all you want – if you’re willing to pay through the nose.

This provides yet another lesson in basic economics: demand for a product outstrips supply, two things can happen.

If the price is increased, the quantity demanded will fall, which brings supplies back into balance.

If the price is not increased, the result will be a shortage, which some stores have sought to remedy by using a rationing system. If it wasn’t so inconvenient, I would enjoy this neat little episode in microeconomics.

I’ve read on other sites that the backorders are still quite vast and that it may be a while for prices to reach their pre-election levels. To a certain extent, this is true.

On the other hand, the pessimists stating that current prices are “the way it will be from now on,” are utterly wrong. Barring some new political or macro-economic development (federal ammunition taxes rising, gun control being pushed by Congress or a surge in commodity prices, for example), I expect ammo prices will slowly settle back down to where they were.

It was a bubble, and bubbles burst. They did it with tech stocks, housing and now bullets. To put it another way, a 200 to 300 percent price increase in something as easy to manufacture as ammunition is simply not sustainable over the long haul – especially when the actual inputs in production are getting cheaper. Metals are a lot lower than they were this time last year, and with unemployment rising, labor costs are also flat or falling.

To put it another way, ammunition manufacturers and retailers can make plenty of money at last year’s prices.

Eventually the hoarders will have as much as the think they need while the more casual shooters will hold off on purchases.

Meanwhile, the shelves will slowly refill. As they do, the sense of panic will fade and buyers will become even more sensitive to price – after all, what’s the hurry? Maybe they’ll buy a box or two instead of a case, which means that inventories will continue to build.

As the ammo begins to pile up, store owners will come to the conclusion that it’s better to sell product than have it lying around with large price tags.

I don’t have a time frame on this, but anecdotal evidence suggests the process is already in its first stages.

Archery redux

It has been a while since I discussed archery on this blog, largely because I haven’t had much time to enjoy the sport.

Over the weekend, I built a cardboard target suitable for the light recurve bows we have. Yesterday I finally got to try it out. It was excellent.

Because the ranch isn’t particularly large, the range to the target isn’t very great, but it’s a sufficient challenge for the younger Posse members (and my own out of practice self) to make it worthwhile.

As noted before, archery is an excellent sport in its own right, but it’s also a great way to introduce youngsters to the shooting sports. Many of the same fundamentals apply: range discipline, good judgment, and hand-eye coordination. I must have spent a half an hour shooting with the Senior Princess and it was highly relaxing. Tonic for the soul.

It has the added advantage of being very affordable: you can use arrows again and again the replacement costs for a set of basic target arrows will run you less than a box of most ammunition – assuming you can find any.

A gun control learning curve?

We've been somewhat pessimistic about whether the Obama administration is foolish enough to push gun control, but this column by the Wall Street Journal gives us renewed hope:

No fewer than 27 Democrats voted for Mr. Coburn's amendment [to allow loaded firearms in federal parks], and the ayes included Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is up for re-election in Nevada next year.

It's not much, but we'll take it.

Meanwhile, closer to home, Michigan's gun laws got a little more sensible.  Public Acts 194, 195, and 196 of 2007 remove the requirement that pistols purchased in Michigan be physically inspected by local law enforcement.  It is now sufficient to mail the forms in.  This is an improvement, though given our current budget crisis, it seems a good time to simply eliminate the worthless pistol registry outright.

Still, if a heavily Democrat House and Democrat Governor (who, lest anyone forget, originally vowed to overturn Michigan's shall-issue concealed carry law by ballot initiative) will sign on to this, it is indicative that gun control isn't viewed as a winning issue even in a rapidly bluing state like Michigan.

This is not to suggest that we should become complacent.  As the WSJ article indicate, gun control is still a deeply held value for the liberal Democrat leadership in Washington.  No, our goal should ultimately be to achieve such a consensus in favor of gun rights that the issue disappears altogether -after the gun control laws have been repealed, of course.