Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Logical questions

With remarkable predictability the Bamster has once again done the sort of thing he is indicated previously that he would not do. He comes before us pleading that we must do something about guns in America "for the children." Somehow the fundamental rights of our Constitution do not impair him. Certainly we must be concerned for children, but we also must recognize that it is impossible to have an entire society live in a Republic which is restricted to only that which might not conceivably harm a child.

No one ever notices the fact that the Second Amendment mentions not a single word about hunting, target shooting, self-defense, home protection, or collecting. The amendment doesn't apply to any of those things. The security of a free state is about protection from the oppression of the government. The armed citizenry is to safeguard of all of our rights.

As we read the newspaper or listen to the TV reporting we must continually be astonished at the ignorance of the journalists. None of them ever seems to validate a fact or even to define a term. If we seek to apply a solution shouldn't we ask if that solution has been applied in the past? If it is been applied the past shouldn't we ask if it worked? And if it didn't work shouldn't we wonder why?

What is the significance of "semi-" when placed before the word automatic in describing a gun? Everyone knows what an automatic weapon looks like. We simply must go to a movie and we will see the chattering machine guns in every scene which doesn't include several automobiles rolling over. An automatic weapon is one which starts to fire when the trigger is depressed and continues to fire without further action so long as that condition is maintained. Trigger down gun shoots.

Semi automatic is one which fires one shot each time the trigger is engaged. And hold the trigger you get one shot and no more. You must release, reset, and reengage before the second shot is fired. That seems simple enough for the average adult to comprehend. Because a particular weapon looks like an automatic or machine gun does not necessarily mean that it is.

Stop at the magazine counter in the grocery store and pick up one of the dozen or so gun magazines from the rack. Don't worry a magazine cannot shoot you. As you page through the magazine you will be astonished to notice that the form of guns characterize by either the American M-16 or the Soviet AK-47 has become common in a wide range of characters and with an incredible selection of supporting equipment to render it as a very reasonable and appropriate choice for a wide range of shooting activities. The cliché that the only purpose is "to kill people" is a joke.

Next week California Sen. Dianne Feinstein will introduce a reiteration of the 1994 assault weapons ban. That was 25 years ago. Much has changed in the design and application of modern firearms since then. That law was in effect for 10 years and we can show no demonstrable effect in reduction of violent crime. In fact the only result that we can confirm is that the attractiveness of the AR and AK style rifle increased exponentially with the prices trailing only slightly thereafter.

Sen. Feinstein proposes to restrict the sale of 100 designated brand-name "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines. She proposes to create a list of 900 exempted firearms. It's difficult to see how that can result in a significant outcome regarding crimes against children in mass murder of atrocities.

Along the way we will hear the arguments about high-capacity "clips" meaning ammunition magazines.Once again somehow relating that statistic to lethality. Whether the shooter has a 10 round, a 20 round, or a 30 round magazine it only takes one shot to seriously injure or kill the victim. Postulate a situation in which the killer is armed with a 20 round magazine. He fires the magazine out, slaps the release, and as the magazine drops free jams a replacement in. Have we saved many lives by outlawing 30 round magazines?

Three days ago the Dallas morning news reported that the Glock handgun was favored because its light weight reduced recoil. It seems that the modern journalist never got to that basic part of high school physics which offered the formula F = MA. A lighter firearm does not result in lower recoil. It sounds simple enough but yet the world of American journalism appears unable to apply the concept.

That same reporter indicated that the Glock is commonly available-for-sale in the range of $500-$800. It then noted that the other handgun involved at Sandy Hook was a Sig. And the Sig was available for under $300. I was going to send a letter to the editor asking for a list of local gun dealers offering an array of Sig firearms at that price.

Somehow facts have little to do with this debate. In that respect it looks quite a bit like the fiscal cliff issue or even the recent presidential election.


Old NFO said...

Correct as always sir... Sigh... And they STILL won't address the real mental health or school security issues...

Mike K said...

If you can find a supply of SIG's for $300 let me know, we'll all do a group buy...

bongobear said...

Your next to last sentence says it all...'Facts have little to do with this debate.'. The media don't care about facts, they care about their liberal agenda. I can't figure out why some people have always got to be screwing with other people's lives. I wish they would just leave me the hell alone.

tballard said...

It's truer now than ever, gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. That is why the arguments for increased gun control are not based on rational facts, but are based on fear-mongering memes that are repeated over and over by ignorant "experts" in the media and clueless celebrities. For the crowd that re-elected Obama, that may be all they need to know.

Anyway, if you find that supply of $300 Sigs, I'd be interested also!

Robman said...

The media, per Obama's orders, are all but ignoring the most important issue related to this shooting.

It was briefly reported that the shooter, 20 years old (that's still a kid in my book, with rare exceptions), suffered from some degree of autism, Asberger's syndrome, I believe.

As the parent of a high-functioning autistic myself, I can attest to the extreme fragility of people with this disability.

We'd like to think that all such children will have supporting and doting parents, but just as many "normal" kids are neglected and abused, and given the epidemic levels of autism today, it just stands to reason that in some cases, autistic children will also be neglected and/or abused.

It seems to me that this was one such case. And I can tell you, someone as disconnected from the world as an autistic, with their sense of isolation compounded by uncaring parents/family, as this one was, was a bomb waiting to go off.

This in no way excuses his crime, which was monstrous by any standard. But he was as much a victim as the kids he murdered.

It is sickening to me the way this aspect has been ignored, and Obama along with his media lackeys are simply using this tragedy as an excuse to promote their own agenda of gun control.