Posse Incitatus

Actions Speak Louder than Words

I have frequently criticized Republicans in Washington, D.C., and to a lesser extent, GOP politicians in my home state of Michigan, for being ineffective in hammering Democrats for their multiple failures and character defects: incompetence, hypocrisy, bad policy, demagoguery, anti-Christian bigotry -- you name it.

On the national level, I can cite a few bulldogs who are not afraid to castigate Democrats and don't give a shit how badly the corrupt media portrays them (matter of fact, incurring media criticism is a badge of honor): U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio is a good example, as well as Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, among others. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis also doesn't mince words, AND he follows up his verbal barrage with substantive actions (more on that shortly).

It is great that there are those in the national limelight who have thick skins and know how much is at stake in our society's epic battle. That struggle is between statists, nihilists, leftists and woke virtue signalers on the totalitarian side, and traditionalists on the other side who believe in a supreme being, respect the rule of law, appreciate the constitution and cherish individual rights -- all on the side of liberty.

Jordan, Cruz, Cotton, DeSantis and outspoken conservative talk radio hosts like Mark Levin know full well they will be subject to vile, hateful attacks from the left. But they pretty much let it roll off their backs. The heinous garbage from the left is tantamount to annoying gnats, flies and mosquitos buzzing around your head on a sweltering summer night. Just an ugly fact of life. Spray on some Off and keep swatting.

DeSantis really made a name for himself during the COVID lockdowns of 2020-2021. He defied the conventional wisdom about masks, social distancing virtual schooling, and vaccine mandates. He correctly pointed out that children are much less likely to contract Coronavirus, are likely to have mild symptoms if they do get infected, and are less likely to transmit the virus to others. Therefore, they should not be forced to get the vaccination, and they should attend actual schools rather than engage in virtual learning.

Because DeSantisu dared to defy the cult-like groupthink of the CDC, its propagandist Anthony Fauci and the overall authoritarian left, he was treated like a pariah. News flash: He's on his way to winning re-election in a rout, regardless of who his opponent is. Florida is perhaps the most successful state in the nation, on so many levels.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey are a couple of other high profile politicians who put their money where their mouth is. For weeks now, they have been bussing illegal aliens up to two prominent sanctuary cities: Washington, D.C., and New York City. It seems the mayors of these two corrupt progressive cities are upset that their resources are being overwhelmed. (Oh, you mean it's okay to overwhelm Texas, Arizona and Nevada with 2-3 million illegal immigrants, but NOT OKAY to swamp major cities in the Northeast with desperate, destitute Latin Americans?)

The despicable New York Times ran an editorial the other day lambasting Abbott and Ducey with the headline, "G.O.P. Governors Cause Havoc by Busing Migrants to East Coast.” The Times whined that this was a "poliical effort" by Abbott and Ducey to "offload the problems caused by record levels of migration at the border." These fools don't comprehend that what's ending up in their cities is a tiny fraction of the hordes invading our country thanks to the wrongheaded and traitorous Biden administration.

Astounding stupidity. So stupid, as a matter of fact, that actions are a much stronger response than mere words. Sometimes when it comes to smug, condescending progressives -- the kind so plentiful in northeastern metro areas -- intelligence, reason and logic aren't enough. A sledgehammer is what's needed.

The Paradox of "Follow the Science"

One thing the left has done over the past couple years that is outrageously disingenuous, yet they keep getting away with it, is to pontificate about how they're all about following "the science." Implicit in this meme is that science is a singular, sacrosanct entity that is far above politics, human nature and manipulation.

As Dr. Anthony Fauci clearly demonstrates, following "the science" is often tantamount to drunkenly stumbling around in a maze of funhouse mirrors. We have received conflicting and contradictory messages about masks, social distancing, vaccinations, K-12 remote learning, and quarantine requirements, among other things.

Tests often prove unreliable, and a new Biden administration initiative to mail out 500 million COVID-19 test kits may prove useless. The reality is that by the time these get in the hands of the people, the Omicron wave will have peaked and will be rapidly on the decline. Omicron is highly contageous, granted. But its symptoms are mild, and it's pretty pointless to go hog wild over testing for an innocuous virus that is on its way out.

The federal government has mocked or downplayed effective treatments for COVID-19 such as Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, downplayed both the ineffectiveness and the dangers of mRNA vaccines, including inflammation of heart and arterial tissues, and demonstrated selective indignation about large gatherings of unmasked people. If it involves woke leftists burning buildings and raising holy hell about the latest police shooting, it's A-okay. But if it is attendees at a Trump rally, or college football fans prone to doing the "Brandon chant," then it's a super spreader event.

Why don't we hear more about treatments such as Remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies? Why the absolute, fanatical OBSESSION with vaxing everyone, and in many cases shaming and demonizing those who choose not to get vaccinated?

Many of the predictions and policies going back to March 2020 were supposedly based on "science," but what Fauci and his fellow bureaucrats and politicians call "science" is often half-baked information derived from flawed computer models and incomplete data. And when real science doesn't fit the leftist narrative of the need for centralized command-and-control, it is downplayed, ignored or ridiculed.

But all is not lost. There have been a few positive developments of late. More and more doctors and education officials on the left are finally acknowledging the devastating impact on children that long-term remote learning has. Examples include isolation, depression, alienation, alcohol and drug abuse, increased suicides, and a dramatic drop in self-confidence and the positive emotions present when in-person relationships and friendships are cultivated. Too, skepticism about the effectiveness of masks seems to also be on the rise.

An interesting side note that I sincerely believe is directly related to this long-running shit-show: In less than three weeks, it will be one year since Joe Biden was inaugurated. Yet there STILL is no FDA commissioner. 

Sleepy Joe has nominated several different individuals to assume the post, but strong opposition has prevented any of them from gaining Senate confirmation. Dr. Janet Woodcock has served as acting FDA Commissioner for nearly a year, but that can't go on much longer. Biden recently nominated former FDA chief Dr. Robert Califf to become permanent commissioner. His confirmation hearings got underway a few weeks ago, but his ultimate fate is still unknown.

Maybe the only people insane enough to accept this position are so out there, they cannot possibly get confirmed. And those who do have some sanity and are grounded in reality wouldn't touch this job with a 10-foot pole.

All About Guns: Universal Carry

One of the rhetorical tricks often used by gun control advocates is to liken firearms ownership to that of a car.

"We license cars," they say, "so why not require gun owners to get a license to own them, too?"

The argument is deeply flawed, but it does point to some interesting contradictions in how we regulate various activities.

The key flaw is that there is no Constitutional right to drive a car or an established natural (or human) right to use any form of transportation.  Over the years our society has recognized an implied "right of free movement," but that doesn't extend to a right to use any means of transportation you choose.

By contrast, the right to effective self-defense is a recognized basic human right that is enshrined not only in the federal but also many state constitutions.  It's a crucial difference.  Still, let's look at the analogy a little closer.

Drivers licenses are pretty easy to obtain.  People can (and do) lose their licenses and they also get them back. 

You don't actually need a license to buy a car, nor do you have to report its purchase unless you want to drive it on a public highway.  In fact, if you don't mind the legal risk, you can drive a car without a license (just check the news - happens all the time).

Cars are useful, but also dangerous.  More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.  Lots more.  We could probably reduce these fatalities by requiring stricter licensing standards and regular vehicle inspections (which other countries do), but there's no popular support for it.  The most that has happened is that some states put additional restrictions on younger drivers.

Speaking of younger drivers, in most states you can drive with a learner's permit at age 15 and become licensed at 16.  Think about that:   Our society makes it perfectly legal for a 16-year-old to purchase and operate a vehicle that can weigh well over a ton and hurtle it down the highway at 75 miles and hour, but that same person is deemed to irresponsible to buy a bottle of beer.

A car is far more dangerous than a gun and (as we saw in France), a truck can be a lethal terrorist weapon, yet unlike guns, there is no organized, well-funded lobby calling for "car control."

Another interesting thing about cars:  The license is recognized as valid in every state.  If you live in New York, your license is still valid in Hawaii or anywhere else in the country.

Why is that?  The obvious answer is convenience.  Imagine having to drive from metro Detroit to visit family in Kentucky.  The shortest route is to take I-75 south.

But what if your Michigan license wasn't valid in Ohio?  At that point you'd have to either risk a traffic stop or go through Indiana to get to your destination, adding hours to your journey.

If it sounds improbable, that was the exact situation concealed pistol licensees faced not long ago.  Michigan's carry permit was valid in Kentucky and Indiana (among other states) but not Ohio.   It was a stupid and senseless situation that has since been remedied.

But there remain states that continue this nonsense.  New Jersey infamously went after a nurse who thought her Pennsylvania carry permit was valid in the state.

Thankfully, sanity prevailed, but the incident highlight how strict gun laws basically turn otherwise law-abiding people into criminals. 

This is what 'universal carry' would prevent.  Most "gun crimes" are paperwork offenses - non-violent situations where someone simply ran afoul of a confusing array of federal, state and local regulations that serve no purpose other than to keep the prisons full and the prosecutors busy.

Once a person obtains a concealed carry license, they have demonstrated that they are responsible and law abiding.  Repressive states like New Jersey should have no authority to detain or arrest people who simply want to visit or transit their state while having the means to defend themselves.

President-elect Trump campaigned on universal carry and hopefully he will see it through.

 

The gun culture - then and now

One of the folks at ammo.com recently drew my attention to an old post from 2005 about the gun culture.

It's crazy to think that not only has that much time passed since I wrote that, but also that this blog is 12 years old!

Anyhow, a couple items in it are worth another look to see how well they held up.  Here's one:

However, one of the more interesting trends in recent years has been the evolution of the American gun culture.  Increasingly, firearms are becoming the province of non-traditional shooters.

Women, for example, are taking an increasing interest in guns as a means of self-defense.

True, and that trend has actually accelerated.  In fact, though the bullet bubble is pretty much gone (I can get 9mm retail for almost as cheap as it was 15 years ago), the calibers that remain expensive and scarce are the light ones that are favored by women.  Both 22LR and .380 are nowhere near as cheap as they theoretically ought to be.  Several gun store owners have said it's because these calibers are hugely popular with women.

Speaking of women, here's an example where I was dead wrong:

The unwitting agent of part of this is feminism.  Many female shooters fully buy into the notion that they are equal to men and should not have to rely on someone else to defend them.

Yeah, maybe that was true in 2005, but it certainly isn't true now.  Contemporary feminism now teaches that women are helpless, fearful, and generally useless creatures that need a big strong man to protect them.  Even a stray word can reduce them to tears.  They are so pathetic that even the slightest amount of alcohol destroys their sense of judgement and self control, which is why society needs to rewrite the criminal code to give these delicate flowers special protection.  In a moment of stress, they collapse into a weepy heap.

Think I exaggerate?  Read R.S. McCain's ongoing project on feminism and be horrified.

Of course most women no longer want anything to do with feminism - even the ones who were once pillars of the movement.

Despite the fact that modern feminism has a near constant case of hot flashes mixed with hysteria, modern women are still keenly interested in defending themselves.  In that earlier post I linked to the Second Amendment Sisters, but their site seems to be abandoned.  I suspect one factor may have been the success of their project - women no longer feel the need for a special organization to represent them in the firearms-using community.

The firearms industry has  not been slow to recognize this trend.  The aforementioned ammo.com guys asked me to link to their women's guide to concealed carry and I'm happy to do so (despite the fact that they didn't pay me).

Overall it seems solid advice.  They do mention comfort in several areas (which is key) but I would maybe add some extra emphasis that caliber is less important than control.  There is a very vocal community that insists on big bore guns for every use (particularly .45 ACP) and while I get what they are driving at, shot placement is more important than making a big boom.

In my younger years I was all about using the biggest caliber I could control and I still deeply enjoy blasting away with a hand cannon, but the fact of the matter is that large calibers often turn women against using guns.  My wife loves firing the .357 Magnum, but she practically grew up with a gun in her hand.  Our daughters much prefer using a .380.  With time and experience they may choose something more powerful, but for now that what they are comfortable with and that's fine.

But that is a minor quibble.  On the whole, if you know a woman who is interested in concealed carry, the ammo.com page is a good place to start.

 

all about guns: how to buy a gun

There is an old joke that women go shopping while men go buying, but I find that when dealing with firearms, it simply isn't true.

Men love shopping for firearms.

The choice of a weapon goes beyond the make and model and includes such elements as the condition of the firearm, its intended purpose and (perhaps most importantly) its cost.

A person wishing top purchase an inexpensive personal defense pistol will go about the process of making a purchase quite differently from a collector seeking a rare piece to add to armory.

What both of these individuals do have in common is one of the most regulated markets in our supposedly free country.

The media loves to spin lies about "gun show loopholes" but in fact this is just as much a mythical media creation as "high-powered assault weapons" and "cop killer" bullets.

On the federal level, all retail firearms purchases - and this includes gun shows - must go through the national instant background check system.  Of course like all gun control measures, it tends not to work, but no worries, we just need new, more restrictive laws that won't be enforced.

In addition to these federal requirements, many states require waiting periods, special permits and so on.  In Michigan, the state used to require persons wishing to buy pistols to first obtain a permit to purchase.  This was a ten-question true-false quiz.  The permit was then good for ten days.

After obtaining the permit, the buyer could then purchase the pistol which has to be brought to the local police department (or county sheriff) for a "safety inspection" (which the resulting document explicitly spelled out provided no assurance that the weapon was actually safe.

Essentially, this created a statewide handgun registry.

As part of the revision of Michigan's gun laws in the early Aughts, this useless and time-consuming system was replaced with a slightly less useless and time-consuming one.  The permit to purchase and safety inspection are gone, but the Michigan State Police still keep a handgun registry which (depending on whether they are asking for money when you ask) is either an essential crime-fighting tool or a massive money sink.

One of the interesting trends of the last decade has been the increasing willingness of big-box outdoor outfitters to carry firearms in their stores, particularly non-sporting weapons like concealed carry handguns and sporting rifles like the the AR-15 and AK derivatives.

Back in the 1990s, these stores limited themselves to purely guns designed for hunting and target shooting.  The finish was almost always a traditional satin black finish with natural wood stocks and grips.  There might be a few long weapons with a tree-bark finish, but everything was styled in a way that emphasized a non-military, non-self-defense role.

All that is changed and even discount chains like Dunham's feature sales on 'tactical' ARs and 'combat pistols' with all manner of wicked-looking accessories.

For the discerning buyer, these retailers are an excellent place to start.

Their selection is usually limited to the larger, well-known manufacturers and their staff may not be as knowledgeable as some (since big-box stores are notorious for staff turnover), but they provide a good place to get an idea of what is out there as well as a reasonable cost estimate.

Specialized gun shops are a mixed bag.  Some can offer far greater selection, a very skilled and helpful staff and excellent prices.  On the other end of the spectrum they can be pricey, not particularly helpful and have a tiny selection.

One advantage they have is that gun shops often sell used firearms, which can be an excellent way to save money on a purchase and often is the only way to find a collectible piece that is no longer in production.

Michigan has some hybrid stores that have the size of a big-box but are independently owned.  Jay's Sporting Goods has two stores and both are excellent.  I have gotten some excellent deals there over the years and whenever I am passing through Clare or Gaylord, I take a moment to stop in.

As I said, the big box stores are a useful baseline to compare the specialized gun stores with and if you find the big box guys give you a better deal, so be it.   I will note that some of the gun shops offer other services that a big box can't, such as access to a firing range or even allowing to test a rental gun before making your purchase.  In that case, the customer service is worth a slight discrepancy in price.

Perhaps the most challenging environment to purchase a firearm is a gun show.  The deals one can find are often amazing, but as in all things, the buyer must beware.  When going to a show, it is essential to know exactly what one is looking for - not necessarily the specific item, but at least the function. 

It is very easy to get caught up in the moment and make a purchase you might later regret.

This is because unlike other products, firearm sales are final.  This is partly a function of the background check and paperwork involved.  It is also inherent in a device that is essentially powered by an explosive charge.  Once a gun has been fired, it is no longer "new."  The gun seller cannot simply return it to the manufacturer or repackage it and put it back on the shelf.

In some instances it is possible to make an exchange after the purchase, but in my experience this is really just a trade of one used firearm for another, with the vendor offering full credit on the purchase value.

It is useful to return for a moment to the myth of the gun show loophole, which suggests that people meet at the gun show but then go out in the parking lot to make their deal, thereby circumventing the law.

This is false for several reasons.  First and foremost, there is no federal requirement for a background checks on long weapons (rifles and shotguns) between two individuals.  If I have a rifle and my neighbor would like to purchase it, I can simply sell it to him.  No paperwork, no hassle (although some states have their own rules).

This is held up to be a huge problem by gun control fanatics, yet it is only common sense.  Criminals, it should be noted, won't bother anyway, so all that will happen if this "loophole" is closed is that ordinary, law-abiding people will deal with even more red tape while the illegal trade continues to flourish.

Resources that should be directed to combating real crimes are then diverted to harassing the law-abiding.  These rules also create a new class of criminal who simply get the paperwork done incorrectly but are otherwise no threat to society.  And so we waste more resources.

If the 40+ years of the War on Drugs has shown us anything it is the utter futility of believing passing a law can eliminate a trade for something people want.  I notice that once again there has been an incident in Europe where a terrorist somehow obtained an AK-47 despite their allegedly perfect gun control laws and attempted yet another shooting spree that was only stopped by the timely and courageous intervention of three off-duty US Marines.

Another gun control failure.

A close cousin of the gun show in terms of risks and rewards is the second-hand store.  Depending on the state, pawn shops or second-hand stores may be able to sell used firearms.  Like a vendor at a gun show, one must be very cautious in making a purchase.  Some stores may have helpful and knowledgeable staff, but others are simply moving inventory. 

One can easily get ripped off, but a seasoned buyer can also obtain outstanding deals.  They are at least worth a look.

Finally there are the online retailers.  In almost every case, you will have to have the gun shipped to an Federal Firearms License holder in order to complete the purchase.  Nonetheless, I know people who swear by this method, particularly for purchasing brand-new firearms.

To follow this route, one must obtain a tame FFL, which can be a challenge.  Many gun shops will handle the purchase for you, but they will require a fee (usually around $25) for their time.  Sites like gunbroker.com also can serve as a handy price-check for something the big box retailers don't carry.

Buying a firearm is in many ways like buying a car:  There are a lot of rules that vary by state and purchases are extremely difficult to return.

That being said, firearms tend to hold their value quite well, with minimal depreciation.  In fact, several of the firearms I purchase years ago have appreciated considerably in value. 

As I said, guns are one of the few areas where men will shop and shop before making a purchase, sometimes waiting years for the exact right circumstances before closing the sale.

All About Guns: The gun show loophole

We see it all the time in the news:  the dreaded gun show loophole.

Supposedly this is a way that wanted felons and active terrorists can simply stroll into the arms bazaars known as gun shows and buy whatever they want without the shadow of a background check.

"Close the gun show loophole!" the media cries, and their argument would be compelling - if it were true.

Here I must pause to note that once again the people writing about firearms and this "loophole" are the ones least likely to actually purchase a gun at gun show.

Given the low academic requirements (and dismal career prospects), it is hard for me to beat up on the journalism school grads who peddle this lie, but I am less charitable towards politicians who almost certainly know better.

The fact of the matter is that there is no actual "gun show loophole" in either state or federal law.  Gun shows are simply a temporary market; all applicable regulations remain in place.

Thus, if you live in a police state that requires a license to own a firearm, that rule will still be in effect at a gun show.

If you are purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, an instant background check is required  - whether you are in a shop or at a gun show.

I can put it no more plainly than this:  there is no loophole.

Now there are enlightened states that allow the transfer of firearms from owner to owner without government intervention.  These sales are entirely private affairs, much as one might sell a lawn mower or chainsaw.

It is these sales that gun control advocates wish to ban.

Their logic is sketchy but their goals are clear:  To regulate every aspect of gun ownership.  Their desired end state is total prohibition, but these people are nothing if not persistent.

The fact remains that there is no loophole, but the great hope of the prohibitionists is that if they repeat the lie often enough, people will agree to what they want and they will have successfully snuffed out a little more of our freedom.

Let there be no mistake, however, this is a mythical creature fabricated by talking points.  Like the words "assault weapon" and "high-powered" it exists purely to feed on public ignorance.

 

 

All about guns: Shotguns

The American firearms industry has produced many outstanding and iconic weapons, from the Kentucky rifle of the frontier days to the Colt Peacemaker and Winchester repeater.  In fact, I could probably fill out a lengthy blog post just by listing all of the epic and timeless firearms produced by American ingenuity.

However, when it comes right down it, no weapon more epitomizes the American tradition of gun ownership than the humble shotgun.

Of all the firearms types out there, the shotgun is probably the most versatile.  It can be used to take an almost limitless variety of game, from varmints to large predators.  It is excellent for self-defense and trap shooting is a highly enjoyable sport.

Shotguns are also inexpensive to own and shoot.  While the bullet bubble has caused critical shortages in almost every caliber, the shelves were always full of shotgun shells.

But what is a shotgun?  What makes it so darn useful?  Why do Americans uniquely value them?

Shotguns are – as the name implies – a gun that fires shot.  That is to say it discharges many small bullets instead of a single large one.

Because of this, shotguns tend have wide barrels (“large bore”) that is smooth inside (“smooth bore”) without the grooves that makes bullets spin and therefore more accurate (“rifling”).

Thus the big difference between a rifle and a shotgun is that the rifle fires a single bullet that is spun by grooves cut in the interior of the barrel.  The tight fit of the bullet combines with the spinning motion to make the bullet go farther and straighter.

Instead of a single bullet, shotguns fire a bunch of pellets (which come in various sizes and material) that in modern weapons are contained in little plastic tube.  The tube holds the balls together until they leave the barrel when they start to spread out.  Shotguns do not have the range or accuracy of rifles, but they make up for that by spreading their damage in a wider area (this is called the shot pattern).

Because shotguns use less pressure, the barrels tend to be thinner and thus lighter.

Shotguns don’t have calibers per se, instead they are rated by “gauge.”  This can be confusing because the larger the gauge number, the smaller the shotgun’s bore.  Thus a 12-gauge shotgun is actually larger and more powerful than a 20-gauge one.  To make things even more complicated, one of the smaller sizes still uses a conventional caliber (.410).

What makes shotguns useful is their flexibility.  Shotguns generally have a smooth bore, but it is possible to fire a single sold bullet (called a “slug”) through them.  These are slow-moving and don’t have much range, but they hit very hard because the size of the bullet is huge.

Some shotguns even have special barrels designed to shoot slugs (hence the term “slug barrel”).

These types of shotgun are popular with deer hunters who operate in populated areas.  In Michigan, for example, rifles are prohibited south of the (wait for it) “rifle line”, which runs basically east-west from the bottom on Saginaw Bay.  Rifles can be used north of that, but only shotguns and handguns may be used to hunt south of it.

It is possible to have multiple barrels for your shotgun, so that you can use a slug barrel for deer, and normal one for ducks or small game.  There are even things called “chokes” that help reduce the size of the shot pattern to ensure better distance performance.

Shotguns (especially the heavier gauge ones) can have some serious recoil, but they are generally lightweight and extremely easy to use.

They also come in a number of very simple packages.

Perhaps the most basic model is a single-shot, break action.  Basically you push a lever and the rear of the shotgun (“the breech”) opens on a hinge, allowing you to insert a single cartridge.

You then snap the shotgun closed and can now fire.  Once you have fired, you break it open (which usually causes the spent shell casing to eject) and insert another one.

While this may seem slow and inefficient, compared to muzzle-loading firearms of ages past, it is remarkably quick and easy.

Even better are the double-barrel shotguns, which let you fire two barrels before you have to reload.  There are two kinds of double-barrels:  side-by-side and over-under.  The over-under is by far the more costly.  I must admit I'm not sure why, other than it may be slightly more accurate in terms of sight picture - and people are willing to pay more for them.

About a century ago the pump-action shotgun was developed and it is probably the most common.  You can insert the individual shells into a tubular magazine below the barrel and by racking grip back and forth you can eject the spent shell and insert a new one.

This distinctive noise and determined motion has been a mainstay of Hollywood movies for decades.  Of course, being Hollywood they usually get it wrong.

For example, in a moment of tension one character will point a shotgun at another and – to emphasize the drama, he will rack it and keep pointing it.  Now by doing this he was just admitting that the shotgun was unloaded so the other character could actually have just pushed it aside without fear.

If it was loaded, the other round should have ejected, which would be stupid.

One sees similar variations on this (usually in horror flicks) when a character racks the shotgun before approaching where they thing the baddy is hiding.  Again, this means that while the character was grimly approaching, his weapon was unloaded and therefore useless.

Are there semi-auto shotguns?  Of course!  Firearms genius John Browning made one a century ago that is still popular today.

Shotguns are used elsewhere and are prized sporting and game weapons in Europe.  In fact (gun control propaganda to the contrary) there are quite a few shotguns in private hands in Europe, especially France and England.

The strange thing about Europeans is that they consider the use of shotguns against people to be utterly barbaric.  Shotguns are for game, period.

During World War I, trench fighting was almost tailor-made for shotguns.  It is hard to think of a better weapon to clear a trench than a large-bore shotgun. 

When the United States entered the war, that was one of the first weapons we hit upon and shotguns were quickly modified for military use.

The German reaction to this was utter outrage.  They said it was a war crime to use shotguns against people.

You read the right, the people who brought you poison gas and unrestricted submarine warfare had a serious problem with (of all things) shotguns.

The Germans threatened to kill anyone they found carrying shotguns or shotgun ammunition, even if they surrendered.  Of course by that point in the war the Allies had more than a few German prisoners and it was pointed out that if they wanted to start killing POWs, two could play that game, so the Germans backed down.

With more states allowing concealed carry, I would have to say that a pistol would probably be my first purchase if I didn't own any firearms, but the second would have to be a shotgun.

All About Guns: How many guns do you need?

When people ask “how many guns does anyone need?” they usually intend it to be a rhetorical question.  The implication (particularly from supporters of gun control) is:  one at most, but preferably none.

However, this is actually a good question, particularly for the novice gun enthusiast.

Firearms are tools, nothing more.  Each firearm has been optimized for a certain task or series of tasks, just as other tools are.

Some tools are very specialized doing one small thing very very well.  Other tools are flexible and do multiple things.  I have a screwdriver that has extra attachments in the handle, allowing it to fit a variety of different screws.  There are firearms with similar flexibility.

At this point, a gun control supporter might note that guns are different because all they do is kill.  This is false.  There are quite a few designed purely for target practice.  A truthful statement would be that all firearms are designed to propel some sort of projectile. 

This sense of purpose is not unique to firearms.    Every axe is designed to chop something just as every hammer is designed to hit something.  Every screwdriver (by definition) is designed to turn a screw, but the variety of screws mean that one may require a great variety of screwdrivers or ones with removable inserts.

This specialization even exists within various categories.  For example, a “hunting rifle” can take many forms depending on what game animal one is pursuing.  A .22 rimfire is excellent for smaller game, but utterly inadequate for deer.  Even within the same species, the environment the firearm will be used in matters – are you hunting deer in dense woodland or on the open plains?

Similarly, the category of “self-defense” has many different elements to it.  Is it for concealed carry?  Open carry?  Home defense?  Defense against what?  People require a lot less firepower to put down than grizzly bears.

Let us consider a hypothetical person – say a young woman.  She is concerned about her personal safety and rather than lugging around a mattress and claiming to be victim, she decides to take control of her safety by obtaining a concealed carry permit (assuming one is necessary in her state) and opts for a compact .380 which fits nicely in her hand and is lightweight and easy to conceal.

However, she also enjoys target shooting and .380 ammunition can be expensive, so she buys a .22 pistol which she uses to practice.  She also can take her friends and co-workers to the range because .22s are excellent to train new shooters.

She likes her .380, but also feels the need for something a little more robust in case of a break-in, so she gets a 9mm.  Sure, it has a little more recoil, but being a larger pistol it absorbs it better.

Let us further suppose she likes shooting skeet.  A 20-gauge shotgun would do nicely.  She can also use it for small game, either rabbits or upland birds.  During deer season, she goes up north and uses a 30-06 rifle to hunt for deer.

Even within these categories, there is reason to have more than one example.  As she moves forward with her career, she might upgrade any one of these firearms and choose to keep her older purchase as a spare or simply because she enjoys the variety.

In my experience it is very rare for someone to have only a single firearm if they have any enjoyment of shooting.  Income may be an issue, but generally once one begins shooting regularly, the desire to try something else and fill one of the niches mentioned above becomes irresistible.

I should also note that there are firearms that are modular - like the screwdriver I mentioned earlier.  The AR-15 is perhaps the most famous example of this.  One can change just about everything on an AR-15, including the caliber.  It is the Swiss Army knife of firearms.  That is why it is so popular.

Finally, it bears mentioning that people who painstakingly collect firearms are statistically among the least likely to be involved in a crime.  While the firearm-phobes may live in terror of people with an "arsenal" of a dozen weapons, it is the gang member with a single stolen pistol that they should truly fear.

All About Guns: Sex and Firearms

How's that for a provocative title?

No, this post isn't about gaming search engines for traffic (not that I'm averse to such a thing...).

The purpose of this post is to address some of the psycho-sexual ideas that seem to have attached themselves to firearms.

We must begin our discussion by noting that firearms are nothing more than tools.  The choice of which firearm to use for a given task is no more fraught with erotic tension than selecting the appropriate socket for your wrench or the correct type of screwdriver for the job at hand.

People who use firearms understand this.  They know that someone who owns a long-barreled handgun isn't trying to "compensate" for anything other than the longer range at which they expect to engage their target.

All weapons carry about them a mystique.  Swords in particular have a lengthy catalog of stories about them, whether one is speaking of Excalibur, Anduril, or the real-life Sword of Stalingrad.

The reason for this is quite easy to understand:  Weapons are powerful instruments that carry with them the ability to take away life.  A warrior is only as good as his weapon.  Should his weapon break during the heat of battle, his death would surely follow.

Still, we live in a secular age, and gun control supporters (being overwhelmingly leftists) are also overwhelmingly secular.  They can't really wrap their heads around firearms as sacred objects of defense, so they turn them into pseudo-Freudian sex objects.

If there is a sexual side to firearms, it is in the sense of power they provide to physically weak or small-framed shooters.  Before any lurking gun-control partisans raise their voices in triumph I will spell this out for them:  I am talking about women.

Anyone who has ever introduced a woman to the shooting sports will confirm what I am writing.  Once a woman has received the proper training (so that she feels comfortable) and is using a weapon appropriate for her experience and stature (a .22 is perfect for this) she will in every case express exhilaration and profound satisfaction at the power now under her control.

I wish to be clear:  This phenomenon does generally not attach to girls from rural areas where shooting is a way of life and something that the whole family does.  No, I am speaking of women (that is, adults) who have been sheltered or perhaps fearful of firearms.  They may even support gun control in their ignorance.

And then they feel the power.

People who have been following polls on support for gun control know that this is not mere anecdotal data.  Women are buying firearms and learning to use them like never before.  There are women-only shooting associations and "girls nights" at firearms ranges.  The firearms industry has responded with an array of products to appeal to this growing market - weapons designed to be more ergonomically comfortable as well as aesthetically pleasing. 

For the longest time firearms were limited to blued/black and stainless/nickel finishes.  Stocks and grips were black or natural wood.

Now there is a dizzying array of options - not just pink but also purple, blue, yellow and so on.

Another segment of the shooting population are urban young men - hipster types who are finally coming to understand that the police will not always be there to protect them (particularly since the federal government seems to want to demagogue every police shooting).

With all of these facts, the whole "guns are men trying to compensate for sexual inadequacy" argument falls apart.

Of course it never really worked in the first place.  If a man with a 7.5-inch .44 magnum was compensating for his small penis, what did it say about the other men who were afraid of his gun and wanted it outlawed?  I have several times heard people arguing in support of gun control because they personally weren't sure they could control themselves with that kind of power.

Thus if one wants to get psycho-sexual about firearms, gun control supporters were projecting their own sense of inadequacy on others.

The irony is also rich when one considers that the Dirty Harry image was the creation of Hollywood, one of the most sexually twisted places on earth where perversion and pederasty is rampant.  The People's Republic of California may be one of the most regulated states in the country, but only recently got around to preventing sex offenders from working with child actors. 

No normal person uses a long-barreled .44 as a carry gun.  The thing is awkward to draw and heavy to lug around.  The biggest firearm I've seen someone carry is a Colt 1911 - venerable weapon and the standard sidearm for the US armed forces for 70 years.  In other words hardly something extraordinary in terms of power.  I've also met more than a few shooters who started out carrying a full-sized pistol and downsized to something lighter.

At this point, the gun control psychologists may ask:  So given the issues with having a hand cannon (like the mighty .500 magnum) why would anyone purchase one?

The answer is that they are tools optimized for a specific kind of shooting.  Long-barreled, high-caliber handguns are primarily used to hunt medium to large game - deer, bears and similar sized animals - in an environment where sight distances are small.  These guns are also good at stopping large predators - such as bears - when one is out in the wilderness.

This is particularly the case in Alaska, where bears can wander into town.  Alaska has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country and I am told that large-caliber pistols are often worn openly because of the bear population.

In states like Michigan, there are certain areas where hunting with rifles is prohibited due to the population density.  This means hunters have two options:  Shotguns firing slugs or handguns.

Handguns are a popular option because they are lighter to carry and one can practice at an indoor range where long weapons are often prohibited. 

Just to be sure I've made the point, those long barrels aren't phallic symbols, they add extra velocity and range to the bullet that comes out of them.  They also add weight, which helps absorb recoil. 

In yet another case of irony, gun control supporters have the idea exactly wrong:  Shooters would love to have a pocket-sized firearm that has the power and range of a .500 magnum with an 8-inch barrel.  Physics, not some psycho-sexual need to compensate, is the reason these weapons have their considerable size and weight.

I will conclude by noting that a great many men are attracted to women who are comfortable around firearms.  The reason for this is painfully simple:  They want to associate with someone who shares their interest and won't be pressing them to give up their hobby.

Shooting is a fun and very social activity.  In my opinion, going to the range and then having dinner afterwards is a much better date night than watching some crappy movie in a theater.  Certainly the post-date activities were better.

It also promotes domestic tranquility.  The stereotype of a anti-gun wife who constantly complains about having guns in the house and who uses the gun collection as leverage in a divorce has, alas, a strong basis in reality.  I've known too many men who have been compelled to give up an enjoyable hobby by firearm-phobic harpies who ended up leaving them anyway.

Those that didn't ditch the collection during the marriage often find it split up as a marital asset, with the wife selling it off at rock-bottom prices - not for the money, just out of spite. 

At a local gun store some time ago I found a Smith and Wesson 629 in excellent shape being sold for an absurdly low price on consignment.  I asked the saleswoman behind the counter about it and she sighed:   "A woman brought it in here.   She got it in the divorce settlement.  She didn't know what is, didn't care and wanted it priced to sell immediately." 

Having shooting in common may not guarantee marital bliss, but it does at least remove and often problematic point of friction. 

Since we are focusing on the psycho-sexual aspects of gun ownership, these anti-gun harridans are, from the pseudo-Freudian perspective, castrating their husbands. 

Because humans are still animals, we can sexualize just about anything.  Because of the power they possess, firearms can also carry some of the same mystique that has attached to other weapons.

The fact remains, however, that guns are just tools.  People can purchase things for many reasons, but experienced shooters look at what the tool is designed to do when making their decision. 

Yes, sometimes shooters will purchase collector's pieces of historical and cultural interest.  Han Solo's blaster in Star Wars is a modified Mauser C/96 "Broomhandle" and many people want a Walther PPK because it is the gun used by James Bond.

These purchases do not make up the bulk of the market.  The Walther PPK is an outstanding weapon in its own right (which is why real-life covert agents use them) and the Mauser Broomhandle is an excellent weapon that counted Winston Churchill among its users.

People who want to find sexual messages in everyday life will never be disappointed because they are projecting their own obsessions.  Freud may never have said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," but the statement remains true.

All About Guns: Kinetic Energy Poisoning

One of the most misunderstood things about firearms is how they actually inflict harm.  There is a lot of gun enthusiast jargon that purports to describe what bullets do when they hit something, but most are in fact just so much blather.

Sad to say, I personally used many of these pseudo-scientific terms, some on this site.

The fact of the matter is, no one is 100 percent sure exactly how ballistics work.  There have been many, many studies on trauma and the findings are still in dispute.  The big reason is that there are simply so many variables, particularly in combat situations.  Some academics try to mimic this by firing shots into gelatin blocks or even using life (soon to be eaten) animals, but the problem here is that none of this tells you how a person will react, particularly if there is a surge of adrenaline (as would happen in combat).

This article therefore focuses on stuff we know, the absolute no-kidding basics about what bullets do.  There are theories (usually pushed by ammunition manufacturers trying to sell their wares) but that is open to dispute.

As anyone who has ever seen a bullet strike a tin can or bottle of water knows, bullets strike with considerable force and this often inflicts severe damage on the target.

In terms of doing harm to animal life, this damage does two things:

1.  It destroys the immediate impact area, which can lead to near-instant death if it is a critical area like the brain.

2.  It causes blood loss, which also can lead to death.

That's really all guns can do.  They don't fling people backwards, propel people into the air, you can't snap your wrist and make the bullet curve around a wall and generally you're not going to cause a car to explode by firing a handgun at it.

In fact, we can get even more simple:  Bullets make holes in things they can penetrate and bounce off of thing they can't (though sometimes they will just lodge in it).

Now if you go and read up on guns (particularly for combat or self-defense use) you will get all kinds of nonsense about "knock-down" or "stopping power" or "over-penetration."

Only the latter phrase even has any actual meaning.  The other two are just cool-sounding nonsense.

Let's deal with knock-down first.

The idea behind this phrase is that a bullet will hit so hard it will actually knock someone down.  I believe the concept is that in combat, sometimes people who are hit by bullets fall down right away.  (Sometimes they don't.  Read some Medal of Honor citations for a number of amazing exceptions to this belief.)

Of course it is perfectly natural for people who are being shot at to duck down to the ground or otherwise take cover.  Some do so while being unaware they were hit.  The notion that someone can take even a large firearm and physically blast someone backwards, knocking them to the ground is pure Hollywood.

The closest thing that could happen is that at extreme close range the muzzle blast (say from a shotgun) might cause someone to flinch backwards and stumble, but there is simply not enough energy in a hand-portable firearm to physically hurl a 200-pound man through the air, much less cause one running at you to be blown backwards by the impact. 

Can a cannon do that?  Absolutely.

A hand gun?  No.

But it does look cool in the movies so we buy into it.

A close cousin of "knock-down" is "stopping power."  It's basically the same concept:  the cartridge in the gun is so powerful it stops an attacker dead in his tracks.   It even has its own wikipedia entry.

Yes, it is true that people may stop abruptly when the see a gun pointed at them and they may stop even more abruptly when it fires (particularly if it close to them), but this has more to do with their reaction to the flash, smoke and noise than the impact of the actual bullet. 

Going back to what I wrote above, remember that bullets can have only a limited effect, even if they are big and coming very fast (say a .44 magnum).

They can injure and even kill because if they hit a vital area, they can destroy that vital area and without it, a person will die (hence the term "vital").  We are talking primarily about the brain and upper spinal column.  If either of these areas are struck, there is an instant usually lethal effect.

The heart and major arteries are also vital, but it may take a few seconds for the effect to be felt.  I witnessed a deer hunter score a direct hit on a buck, effectively obliterating the animal's heart.  The animal was still able to run 20 yards before it expired.

Hits to organs can also be lethal, but they take much longer.  Before the development of modern surgery, hits to the abdomen were feared because they usually caused a slow, painful death.

There are actually lots of places where one can be shot without significant injury (though obviously it still hurts).  This is why the number of wounded almost always outnumber the killed in combat.  People can survive quite nasty gunshot wounds and even fully recover.

If you happen to have clicked that link, you will note that it uses other jargon like "man-stopper" and offers various completely made-up definitions.  That's exactly the kind of thing I am talking about.  It is the worst kind of caliber fetish.

One of the big questions in terms of a wound being lethal is whether it causes a lot of blood loss.  Without blood, animals die.  One way to ensure that the animal loses a lot of blood is to make the largest possible hole.

To do this you need a lot of energy and a large bullet. 

One thing about bullets is that the shape matters.  More than a century ago firearms experts came to realize that a flat or hollow-pointed bullet would make a bigger hole than a pointed one.  Bigger holes of course mean more damage, either further wrecking a vital area or causing blood loss.

This brings us to the third widely-abused term:  Over-penetration.  Any time a shot goes through a target, it has over-penetrated.  This is generally not much of a problem unless there is something behind the target that you didn't want damaged (hence the gun safety rule about knowing what is behind your target).

There is a school of thought that the energy imparted into the target should transfer as completely as possible - any extra energy caused by the bullet passing through is wasted.  Thus, over-penetration is a really bad thing.

In my youth I bought into this until I realized that the bigger the hole, the better.  Period.  A bullet that lodges halfway in an animal by definition isn't doing as much damage as one that cuts completely through.  All other things being equal, you want that bullet to come out the other side as it offers more opportunity for blood to lead out (and can hit more vital organs).

This is not to say that all firearms are equal because they clearly are not.  Nor am I going to argue that a .380 has the same lethality as a .500 magnum, because it doesn't.

What I am saying is that shot placement is more important that what you use.  Missing with a .500 magnum is a lot less effective than hitting the target with a .380.

Closely related to that is the fact that lighter calibers are a lot easier to control, making you more likely to hit what you are aiming at.

I will also anticipate some comments by pointing out that I know a lot of military people and the controversy over whether the army should keep the 9mm pistol or go back to .45 is a valid one.  Particularly in a combat situation with adversaries who might we bearing some sort of armor (or lots of gear that functions like armor) it is entirely reasonable to bring the biggest gun you can carry to the fight.

However, most of our readers are not probably not military procurement officials.  They may own a firearm or want own one and are concerned about making an appropriate purchase.  Or perhaps they are wondering if they should get something else because their current firearm seems a bit much to handle.

Hopefully this article has helped clarify things.  I will close by pointing out that while lighter calibers are often derided, I have seen far too many articles on self-defense news sites where these supposedly inadequate weapons stopped an attack.