A machine gun that "it's nearly impossible to prevent its production"

Gun control advocates don't seem to realize how gun control laws primarily prevent law-abiding citizens, not criminals from getting guns.  It isn't just an issue of smuggling guns.  It is also a question of being able to produce them, even machine guns.  Israel can't stop domestic terrorists from making their own machine guns.  From The Times of Israel:

The homemade or craft-produced rudimentary automatic weapon has been used in the majority of shooting attacks on Israeli civilians and security personnel. It’s not accurate and it has a limited range, but it’s cheap and more than powerful enough to cause mayhem and death — and it’s nearly impossible to prevent its production. . . . 

While some more advanced rifles and firearms require specialized tools, the Carlo has remained so popular because of how little machinery and technical know-how is required to produce it, according to N.R. Jenzen-Jones, director of Armament Research Services (ARES), a specialized technical intelligence consultancy. 

A drill press, some welding equipment and blueprints from the internet are all that’s needed to create one of these potentially devastating weapons, a fact that presents a real challenge for Israel and countries around the world that are trying to prevent such guns from winding up in the hands of terrorists and criminals. . . .

Not an Assault Weapon: Dallas Police murderer used an SKS semi-automatic rifle

We also know that when people are armed with powerful weapons, unfortunately it makes attacks like these more deadly and more tragic. And in the days ahead, we’re going to have to consider those realities as well.
-- President Obama July 8, 2016

Yet again, President Obama is pushing for gun control laws wouldn't have stopped the attack that is being used to motivate the new law.

Micah Xavier Johnson, the man who killed 5 police officers and wounded 7 others, used a SKS semi-automatic rifle.  The SKS is a gun that was designed 73 years ago.  It is essentially a deer hunting rifle in terms of its inside guns and the caliber of its bullets (.30 caliber).  This gun wasn't classified as an assault weapon under the Federal assault weapon ban.  The President's call to renew the ban wouldn't have affected the gun used in this shooting.  Given that this gun is functionally identical to all other .30 caliber semi-automatic rifles, one would have to ban all semi-automatic .30 caliber rifles.

Given all the discussion about magazine sizes, "SKS rifles generally have a 10 round fixed magazine that can be loaded via stripper clips. Larger capacity fixed magazines with questionable reliability are available as well. Some SKS aficionadas can load the gun with stripper clips with the same speed as loading a detachable magazine into an AR-15 or AK-47.  It does take practice, however."

These guns sell for about $400.

Most Americans Oppose Re-instituting a National Assault Weapon Ban

New surveys by ABC News/Washington Post and CBS News/New York Times show that the drop in support for a nationwide ban in so-called "assault weapons" mirrors the general decline in support for gun control that has been observed in the last couple of decades (here and here).  The  average of the two surveys weighted by the number of people surveyed shows that 6.9% more people oppose a national ban than support it.  See also here.

How an AR-15 was used to protect a gas station from looting in Ferguson

This story shows that some humanity has survived the events in Ferguson.  From Reuters:

Since looting first erupted following the August police shooting of black teenager Michael Brown, nearly all the businesses in a 2 square mile area of this St Louis suburb have had to board up. One exception - a Conoco gas station and convenience store.
At least a dozen stores have been set ablaze and others looted in Ferguson . . . .
On Tuesday night, as police and soldiers took up positions in the parking lots of virtually every strip mall and big box store around it, the forecourt of the brightly lit gas station was busy with customers.
One, a six feet, eight-inch tall man named Derrick Jordan – “Stretch,” as friends call him - whisked an AR-15 assault rifle out from a pickup truck parked near the entrance.
Jordan, 37, was one of four black Ferguson residents who spent Tuesday night planted in front of the store, pistols tucked into their waistbands, waiting to ward off looters or catch shoplifters.
Jordan and the others guarding the gas station are all black. The station's owner is white.
. . . By some accounts, the Brown shooting has heightened racial tensions in the city. But not at the gas station.
"We would have been burned to the ground many times over if it weren’t for them,” said gas station owner Doug Merello, whose father first bought it in 1984. . . .

Criminals mess with the wrong mom: "Mom [with an "assault" rifle] opens fire on home invaders in Detroit to defend children"

This mother of two young children did what she could to protect her family.  Apparently, it wasn't the first time that the family has been robbed.  From WXYZ TV:

A Detroit mother opened fire Monday night when three suspects broke into her home. Surveillance cameras caught it all.
The mother tells 7 Action News she "didn't have time to get scared." When she heard the door to her home on Woodrow Wilson being kicked in, she immediately warned the three teenage intruders and then opened fire.
One of the teens dropped a handgun on his way out the door. He then tried to get back inside the house a second time, but was again met with gunfire. Once again, he took off and all three were arrested shortly after the incident by Detroit Police.
Recalling the panic she felt, the mom says "I let them know I had a gun once they were in the house. They said no you don't so I shot off the first round. I wasn't feeling anything at the moment, I got scared afterwards." . . .

I am really beginning to like Detroit's police chief.



From WXYZ TV:

Now Detroit's Chief of Police is responding to the dramatic footage and the mother's actions.
"She did the right thing" says Chief James Craig acknowledging the mother gave a verbal warning prior to firing the weapon.
As we first reported, the mother was protecting two small children inside the home. . . . 

Please explain why New York State law bans one of these guns and not the other

Cheltenham Township man uses AR-15 to defend himself from criminal breaking into his house

A many who was already facing charges of aggravated assault broke into this home.  From the Philly Inquirer.

An Elkins Park man was killed late Friday after he forced his way into a stranger’s apartment in Cheltenham Township.Jasper Brisbon, 32, wandered up to a couple late Friday at the Lynnewood Apartments as the pair spoke outside their unit. . . .
But as they entered their home Brisbon jumped between them, forcing his way in.
The male of the couple ran to get a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle and insisted Brisbon leave. Brisbon refused. Instead, as the man yelled “Stop! Stop Stop!” Brisbon moved menacingly toward the man, police said.
The man fired a shot striking Brisbon in the torso and immediately called 911, police said.
An ambulance rushed Brisbon to Abington Memorial Hospital where doctors pronounced him dead. . . .
Police said the residents of the apartment . . . did not know Brisbon and that the AR-15 was legally purchased. 

New PoliceOne's Gun Policy & Law Enforcement Survey: Police and their views on gun control

The new PoliceOne.com survey of police and their views on gun control is available here (article is here).  PoliceOne has about 450,000 members when the survey was done.  Here is information on previous surveys as well as a piece that I wrote for the WSJ.com.

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent). . . .
In addition, the survey asked, “On a scale of one to five — one being low and five being high — how important do you think legally-armed citizens are to reducing crime rates overall?”
Three quarters of you (75 percent) answered either four or five, with more than 50 percent answering five. . . .

I find myself in virtually complete agreement with the police in answering this survey.  I am not a big fan of open carry, but I am of concealed handguns.  I agree with them on the efficacy of gun buybacks, bans on ammunition magazines that hold more 10 rounds, national databases on gun ownership, and background checks.  

The answers to question #20 are extremely important: 77 percent of officers think that private gun ownership is either extremely or very important in reducing crime.  

Question #19 shows 91 percent support right-to-carry concealed carry with a background check.

New York's Seven Bullet Magazine limit will shortly become history

William Jacobson has an extremely accurate discussion of the issue available here:

. . . The limit almost certainly was unconstitutional, as it amounted to a de facto ban on most handguns. So it had to go, either by legislation or the courts.
But why via the budget?
Lumping it in with the budget deprives opponents of the opportunity to make the gun law a separate issue and to point out the haste with which the legislature acted.
Most important, this maneuver deprives opponents of the gun law the chance to vote against changing the 7-round limit in isolation? Huh, you say.
The limit is unworkable as the Governor admits, and makes a mockery of the entire gun law. By keeping the limit in place, opponents of the gun law in general would have created a situation where the gun law all but imploded of its own weight. . . .

 I was going to make the same points, but I couldn't do a better job than he has done.

Democrats want to ban veterans from having certain guns because they might have PTSD?

So if the background checks for mental illness are passed would Feinstein they all retired military veterans to own these guns?  I suspect not.  

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: If I understand this, this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military.  

The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. . . .

Dems use misleading gun control ads against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Mitch McConnell, who might be in a tough senate race next year, is the early target of ads from gun control groups.  The point is that an assault rifle is the exact same as a semi-automatic hunting rifle.  It fires the same bullets with the same rapidity, doing the exact same damage.

“I am a Vietnam vet and a hunter,” Gary Nutt of Cub Run, Ky., says in the ad. “I only shot my rifle one time this last season. One shot, one deer. But I’d be a pretty bad hunter if I needed an assault rifle to shoot that buck. I support the plan to ban assault weapons and keep ’em out of the wrong hands. Because I know these guns. I know what they can do. The NRA and the gun manufacturers have given a ton of money to Sen. Mitch McConnell. And now he’s blocking reform. Senator, whose side are you on?” . . .

Meanwhile actress Ashley Judd looks like she is running against McConnell:

"My impression is this is something she wants to do, and she is now taking the time to make the contacts she needs to make throughout the state to try and generate commitments of support and in some cases fundraising," Yarmuth said. "She is certainly acting like a candidate, a potential candidate. 

"I think in her own mind ... she has made a decision to run and she's doing the right thing and not ruffling any feathers along the way," he added. . . . . 

Proposed Washington State law would require that police go inside gun owners homes once a year to check guns

I wish that the nonsensical parts of the proposed assault weapon ban that this provision is part of would also get critically discussed, but at least this might keep the law from getting passed.  From the Seattle Times:

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around? 

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia. 

That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far. 

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.” 

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats. . . .

Assault weapon ban not going anyplace, but there might be a strong push for more background checks

The Hill newspaper points out how Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) are unlikely to push for the assault weapon ban.  But at the same there is a push for broader background checks.

Manchin is part of a quartet of legislators working to tighten background checks required to purchase a gun. The other members of the group are Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). . . .

What worries me is Manchin's discussion about these background checks: "What we are trying to do is have a well balanced piece of legislation which I think makes sense and do an awful lot of good."

For my concerns about the push for background checks see this discussion here.

Nancy Pelosi will bring student from Newtown to Obama's State of the Union, but what would the proposed rules have done to stop that attack?

Newtown continues to be used as a prop for more gun control, but what proposal being put forward by Democrats would have prevent the attack if it had been in effect?  Can anyone explain to me which proposed regulation would have stopped the attack?  Yet, Nancy Pelosi will bring student from Newtown as a prop for Obama's State of the Union.

"Universal background checks" -- The killer didn't buy the gun.  BTW, would this rule have stopped any of the attacks this last year?  No.  Of course, even if one of these killers would have been prohibited from buying a gun, that is not the same thing as saying that they would have not gotten a gun.  When people have 4 months of planning and have the time to put together dozens of bombs they don't even acknowledge how difficult it can be to stop such a person from getting weapons.  As Jamie Fox at Northeastern University correctly writes: "Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends."

Assault weapon ban -- The gun used in the Newtown attack wasn't even banned under the Connecticut Assault Weapon Ban.  It wouldn't have been banned under the feature set that would ban guns under the Feinstein bill.  New sales of the Bushmaster would have been banned by name under the Feinstein bill.  Of course, banning guns by name and not objective features shows how arbitrary the law is.

Magazine size -- Even if you somehow believe that magazine size would have altered the rate of fire in the Newtown attack, the key point there is that it took 10 minutes between when the first 911 call was made and first responders showed up outside the school.  

UPDATE: Here are a couple other relevant facts on these points.  From the Hartford Courant:

"It's just weird [that he popped in earplugs] given what he was about to go do," a source said. "It's not like he had to worry about long-term protection of his hearing because he had to know he wasn't coming back out of the building." 

As police wrap up at least the crime-scene portion of their investigation into Lanza's murderous spree that left 26 people dead in the school, including 20 first-graders, the earplugs are not the only evidence that shows Lanza might have carried habits either from the shooting range or the virtual world of video games into his real-world massacre. 

Lanza changed magazines frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots from a 30-round magazine, sources said. . . .

Vice President Joe Biden makes impassioned plea for more gun control

Surely a lot of states are going to pass very stringent gun control laws.  I don't know about federal regulations, but we will have to see if Biden is right there.  From The Hill newspaper:

. . . “I’m not asking you to vote for something you don’t believe, but I don’t want to hear about, ‘well we can’t take it on because it’s too politically dangerous.’ The world has changed,” Biden said in a 25-minute address to Democrats at their annual retreat in Leesburg, Va. 

Biden argued that the political and media climate had shifted dramatically from 1994, when many Democrats blamed their support for an assault weapons ban and other gun-control measures on the party’s loss of its congressional majorities. 

“There’s an overwhelming consensus about the need to act that didn’t exist in ’94 and a general consensus about the kinds of thing we have to do,” Biden said. . . . 

“It’s not acceptable for us to do anything other than try to do all of them,” the vice president said of his task force’s recommendations. . . .

A useful analysis of Obama's Speech on Gun Control in Minnesota

Powerlineblog has a useful discussion of Obama's dishonest gun control speech on Monday (click here).  It is amazing that he can make so many false statements in a speech and yet the media isn't pointing out all these errors.

Senate doesn't seem interested in Assault Weapon Ban, will push for expanded background checks

From CNN:

President Barack Obama on Monday reiterated his call for a comprehensive package of steps against gun violence as the focus on possible Senate legislation appeared to narrow to expanded background checks and limited ammunition magazines, rather than a ban on semi-automatic rifles that mimic assault weapons. . . . 

Reid told ABC on Sunday that he backed expanding background checks to private gun sales at shows and other steps, but he refused to endorse a ban on what are called assault-style rifles modeled after military weapons. . . .

Judge Jeanine gives an impassioned plea for why banning weapons to prevent crime doesn't work

In case the video isn't shown above, her video is also available here.

The difference between a machine gun and a semi-automatic

One warning: this piece presents a somewhat confused discussion of the 1986 federal law dealing with machine guns.  The law banned increasing the number of machine guns in circulation.

Sean Hannity on Fox News: "Celia Bigelow vs. Zerlina Maxwell Debate DHS Video Lesson"

There were a couple of points that I wanted to make about Zerlina's comments.  The main way that gun control regulators argue is usually through hypothetical cases.  In Zerlina's case, she just asserts certain things as true.  For example, the case of the person with the permitted concealed handgun being more likely to be shot by police.  In fact, there is not a single case where a permit holder has stopped one of these multiple victim public shootings that has occurred.  Nor in her example of the permit holder will shoot bystanders has that ever occurred in these multiple victim public shootings.