|
Alphecca is a member of "the lunatic fringe of the US right" --Guardian (UK) 6/26/06 *******************
Email me at:
gunnut -at- alphecca -dot- com Check it out:
My Latest Blatherings...
Do We Need "Assault Weapons?" DC Congressional Seat Tied To Gun Rights Go Stats Installed Grass Roots & Gun Rights Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes. . . Gun Control Bills Advancing Bye-Bye SiteMeter Gun Rights in Texas KS Bill Would Overrule City Gun Laws Some Good News More on Alphecca and IE 7 More on Giuliani on Gun Control Bloomberg Pushes Pelosi on Gun Control NY: Now it's Bullet Control Trouble Reading Alphecca With IE7? Hit Job on Gun Rights Lawyer WaPo & Guns: A Good Question SCOTUS Review of DC Circuit Could Sidestep Central Issue George Will Warns Dems on Gun Control Meanwhile in Knife-Free Scotland. . . Dell Computer Support Howler of the Day Friday Bear Blogging Idiot of the Day on Gun Rights MO: Bill To Prevent Gun Confiscations Advances Proximity Laws Against Guns? No Slippery Slope? Stuck in Massachusetts Please Welcome... NY: Gov. Spitzer to Promote Hunting?
Care to comment?
Take your best shot:
Note: Comments close-down on posts after seven days.
Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer" Alphecca gets noticed! Check out these GLOWING REVIEWS I've just made up:
|
November 29, 2004Weekly Check on the Bias...Welcome to the November 29th edition of the Alphecca "Weekly Check on the Bias" by media regarding guns, gun-rights, and the Second Amendment. In the best tradition of public speaking, I usually try to start off with a quick, flippant joke but given the gravity of the news story involved that has somehow evolved from being a simple and tragic crime into a political football, I'll skip that. The story is that of the hunter in a tree stand on private property in Wisconsin who was (or did) confront and then shoot at a party of eight hunters, killing six of them. This was the scene:
Most of you have already heard "the story" as much as is known or alleged, and I have no intention of trying to sort the facts of it out here. That's not the purpose of this report and I wasn't there... Unfortunately -- if not unexpectantly -- some in the press are now using this as a call for -- I'm sure you'll be shocked -- more gun control. Much of the sudden interest in "liberal" media involves the rifle that the accused, Chai Vang, used; a Russian-built Saiga 7.62 mm, SKS-style semiautomatic rifle. Here's what the New York Times' resident "expert", Fox Butterfield (yes, I'm being sarcastic) has to report:
So this shooting was President Bush's fault! Here are the actual facts that NY Times reporter Butterfield ignored: 1) The SKS rifle was NOT included in the now-expired phony "assault weapons ban" passed during President Clinton's reign. This is admitted even by Ms. Rand in the press-release issued by the Violence Policy Center here. Firearms similar to the SKS were. 2) The claim that the Bush administration "has specifically authorized" importing these rifles is based on the assertion that a trade bill allowed some goods to be imported from China and other countries and more importantly, that supposedly, Bush "allowed" the AWB to expire. Rand conveniently ignores the fact that an extension of the AWB never crossed the President's desk. She admits as much when she calls on him to:
Somehow, Times reporter Butterfield also left those quotes out of his "article". The Madison, Wisconsin newspaper, The Capital Times, joins the fray:
Let's take their first myth which is that "A semiautomatic weapon is just another kind of gun." Well, unless they've just returned in the Time Tunnel from a century ago, it actually is not only just another "weapon" but is in fact the preponderant type firearm owned and used today. Main Stream Media loves the term "semi-automatic" because it sounds scary and evil but in fact, all it means is that when you pull the trigger, ONE bullet fires. The gun then reloads itself from a magazine that holds several (usually 5-10 in most rifles) rounds of ammunition. I've said this before but although it isn't classified as a "semi-automatic", a revolver's cylinder uh, revolves, to place another bullet in-line with the breech and is ready to fire again too. The action, or trigger-pull and other mechanics might be different but the result is the same. So when the Capital Times asks if we need a ban on all semi-automatics and feebly answers itself with "not necessarily" -- which could also mean "maybe", -- they imply that life would be better and safer if we all returned to and only had muzzle-loaders and bolt-action rifles. Their second myth says that folks such as myself claim that when folks are allowed to arm themselves, all crime will disappear or be thwarted. Well, I can't speak for others but speaking for myself, NO I HAVE NOT! All I've said is that it gives the law-abiding a "chance" to defend and protect themselves. But the un-named editorial writer goes even farthur and says that the claim of "more guns" equals "less violence" is "absurd". Really? Then how to explain the dramatic drop in violent crimes in most states that have allowed -- or recently allowed -- concealed-carry? The editorialist also doesn't explain why Chicago and the District of Columbia, which both prohibit (ban) handguns for the law-abiding, are ranked first and second in firearm murders! Apparently they (he, she, it) hasn't read John R. Lott, Jr.'s two excellent books, More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns. By the way folks, you might consider buying those essential pro-gun arguments books and (after reading them yourselves) sending them to the editors of your local newspaper or TV station. It might help us all! Getting back to subject... So IS the SKS an "assault weapon" rarely used for hunting? Fortunately, not all newspapers were buying it. From the Post-Crescent (WI):
Exactly! When you cut through all the din raised by the liberal media, what we really have is simply a tragic and terrible crime where the blame must lay with the perpetrator. I have my own thoughts on the matter but will confine them to another post. In the meantime, we see here the bias of two newspapers who have used the event as a spring-board for their own biases. Here's what some other pro-2A bloggers are chatting up: Countertop Chronicles reports on a stabbing at a gun-free church. FreedomSight elaborates on a report that Tulsa police will be totin' AR-15's. Good choice, actually. Well, it's not exactly about (or anything about) guns, but Hell in a Handbasket picks-up on a Field & Stream survival article about keeping yourself warm with, er, toilet paper. I found it interesting but then I still have all of my Y2K supplies rotting away in a closet somewhere... Heartless Libertarian has a new scope. I like the rifle its on. Publicola writes about the problem of the pro-2A crowd and public relations. He echos what I've said before about the need for us to get OUR message out and define the terms. Anyone can attach the label "high-powered" to a gun but what does it really mean or better yet, in the newspaper accounts I report on above, one claims the Wisconsin gun was "high-powered" and another says it isn't. One calls it an "assault weapon" and the other says otherwise... Kevin of the blog The Smallest Minority has a review up at the Shooter's Carnival reviewing his new CMP Garand. Lastly, because my ego demands it, remember that tomorrow (Tuesday, 2:20 pm EST) you can listen to me doing this "Weekly Check" LIVE (a regular feature!... *ahem*) on the Cam Edwards Show on NRA NEWS or on Sirius Satellite radio, channel 141. You know the expression, "a face made for radio"? I have a voice made for telegraph. But I do the best I can. Thanks for stopping by! Comments
Couple things: 1 - the SKS import ban was enacted by Bush 1 2 - police reports indicate that the rifle used was not a SKS but was an EAA Saiga 7.62, which is built on a sporterized Kalashnikov action that lacks feed ramps (i.e., doesn't take AK mags). Posted by: SayUncle at November 29, 2004 09:53 AMEven Fox News botched this on SU 11/28 bigtime. One of their commentators noted anyone walking into the woods with that sort of gun was intending to kill people. The idiocy! Posted by: MA Framness at November 29, 2004 11:33 AMMeh. Maybe they should ban all semi-auto rifles, for all the good they do me. I just spent 4 days in the woods of Northern NH with my Rem 7400 and didn't get one opportunity for a buck. Any chance that I would have had better luck with a bolt-action? I kid, I kid. When I speak with people about the absurdity of the AWB they are surprised when they see a picture or description of a 7400 or similar firearm. My rifle doesn't differ much from an SKS besides looks and perhaps magazine capacity. So what does this tell us about the AWB? Dumb law drawn up by dumb people. The only reason to ban guns like the 7400 is weight. That damned thing gets heavy after a long day in the woods! Posted by: Bill in Boston at November 29, 2004 11:35 AMFYI, if the guy was using a Saiga, then it was likely chambered in .308 Winchester. Posted by: Eric at November 29, 2004 12:03 PMSaigas come in 7.62X39, 308 and 223. And the shotgun versions come in 20 and 12 guage. Posted by: SayUncle at November 29, 2004 12:28 PM
Kalashnikov did copy portions of Simonov's SKS (the sights, gas system, and some receiver similarities), so it would hardly be news to him, eh, Andrew ? Words fail me to describe how despicable Rand's statement is: Hello, I have a really basic question about "myth 1" discussed above. Does the design of the SKS allow the shooter to shoot additional shots more quickly than if it were not "semi-automatic"? Roughly speaking, how many shots per minute could someone get off if the rifle is "automatic" vs "semi-automatic" vs "manual"? Thanks, Bill Posted by: Bill Trippe at November 29, 2004 04:38 PMWhat everyone seems to miss is that the assailant was trespassing. He was on THEIR land. Somehow, this was missed by the major media and even this website. The guy was a trespassing murderer. Fortunately, he is now under lock and key where he belongs. He won't kill anyone else, unless they're behind bars with him. Posted by: Rob Kiser at November 29, 2004 05:29 PMBill Trippe, To answer your automatic versus semi-automatic versus manual question: Automatic weapons are capable of firing from mid-hundreds of rounds per minute for infantry small arms (which is what we are discussing), to thousands of rounds for modern multi-barrel gatling guns, to an Aussie weapons system (Metal Storm) that can fire literally a million rounds a second. Semi-automatic weapons fire only as fast as the user can pull the trigger. For most weapons and their operators, you are talking only 30-60 rounds per minute. Technically semi-autos can fire faster than their operators. People can only squeeze the trigger so fast for so long. Some manual firearm designs are almost as fast as semi-autos. Pump-action weapons in particular can achieve these high rates of fire if someone is practiced. Lever-actions are only slightly slower. Bolt-actions are capable of 15-30 rounds per minute, but generally don't have large enough magazines to make this practical in operation. Even single shot designs can fire 15 rounds with practice. Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 29, 2004 06:59 PMOops, typo in above. Metal Storm fires a million rounds a minute, not a million rounds a second. Of course, if you are the target, I don't think it much matters after the first millisecond. Also the last line should read: Even single shot designs can fire 15 rounds a minute with practice. All of this doesn't matter, however. Any of the firearm actions mentioned above could have perpetrated the Wisconsin shooting. Massed targets at close range in an open field are sitting ducks for any weapons technology developed in the past 100 years. Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 29, 2004 07:12 PMHi Confederate, Thanks for your explanation. So it sounds like, as a practical matter, manual firearms are not significantly slower than semiautomatic. I guess, then, it comes down to the size of the magazine to figure out, as a practical matter, how many "shots per minute" someone can fire. So my next rookie question! Do "semiautomatic" firearms, such as the one in question here, tend to have larger magazines than manual action firearms? And the size of the magazine is one of the things that is regulated, is it not? And the recent expiration of the "AWB" also means certain magazines are now allowed that weren't? (I am guessing, too, that magazines differ from rifles to handguns.) Sorry for all the basic questions! Bill Posted by: Bill Trippe at November 29, 2004 07:13 PMSo my next rookie question! Do "semiautomatic" firearms, such as the one in question here, tend to have larger magazines than manual action firearms? It depends on the specific firearm. Generally speaking, semi-autos will hold more rounds, but they generally have detachable magazines, which come in varying sizes. And the size of the magazine is one of the things that is regulated, is it not? And the recent expiration of the "AWB" also means certain magazines are now allowed that weren't? *Was* one of the things that was regulated, yes. However, hardware manufactured before the ban was still legal to possess (and buy, and sell) during the ban (the restriction was on manufacturing [or importing] more of them, not having, buying, or selling), so it's misleading to say they are 'now allowed'. They've always been allowed, it's just that when supply was limited due to the AWB, prices went up. Posted by: rosignol at November 29, 2004 07:28 PM rosignol answered all the questions Bill Trippe asked very well, but I would like to stress that the assault weapons ban did not effectively ban any guns commonly used in crimes, and it did not make these firearms more difficult to obtain, nor did it make magazines for these firearms more expensive. Interestingly enough, the ten-round magazine limit had an interesting side effect. Handgun manufacturers, no longer competing to see how many rounds they could stuff in a handgun magazine, instead tried to see how small and light they could make a handgun that carried the 10+1 limit. The net result was much smaller, lighter, much more concealable handguns that gun owners would actually carry on a more frequent basis. When this practical reality combined with many more states allowing the concealed carry of firearms by civilians, violent crime rates dropped dramatically as criminals decided confronting a potentially armed opponent wasn't worth the risk. Violent crime rates dropped because of the 1994 Crime Bill, just for reasons quite the opposite of those who wrote this shoddy piece of legislation. This is part of the reason Handgun Control Inc. lost all credibility as an organization and had to reform as the equally doomed Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence. As credible research shows, gun control does not equal crime control, and in fact, the opposite effect is shown. When civilans are armed, criminals commit less violent crime. This is a simple statement of fact, not an opinion. Google "John Lott" and "Gary Kleck" if you have any questions. As far as assault weapons and hi-cap magazines go, I personally feel (and think I have proof to show) that these are exactly the kind of military-capable arms that the Founding Fathers most had in mind to protect with the Second Amendment. Read more here if you are interested in my thoughts on that subject. Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 29, 2004 10:54 PM"Myth two" in the Capital Times piece flat out lies about the facts on the ground. • Myth Two: When people are well armed and trained to use their weapons, they can protect themselves against gun violence. In fact, the group of "hunters" was not armed. Only one of them had a rifle, and Vang took him out first. See ABC news, which reports: "Authorities have said there was only one gun among the eight hunters." http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=277478 The Capital Times editorial directly misrepresents the facts, describing the victims as armed: "The victims in Sawyer County had access to guns and knew how to use them. Most of the dead had long experience with their weapons. But they were not prepared for a confrontation with a man who was ready to kill and was carrying a semiautomatic weapon." When did the victims have "access" to their guns? Before they went out without them? People who didn't pick up from news stories that only one of the hunters were armed (a fact that some stories did not report) will get a wrong picture of the crime from this disgusting misrepresentation. Editorials are different than news stories, but that doesn't give editors license to lie about the facts. Posted by: Alec Rawls at November 29, 2004 11:50 PMThanks for the link Jeff. Nice job on the gun-ban loonies too. Regarding winning the fight in the war of words, we've been playing defense for far too long. The Brady Ban Bunch, et. al. have succeeding, in many areas, in equating guns=evil, not just "assault weapons". I wish I know how to turn that around, but I do know it's an uphill climb. Posted by: jed at November 30, 2004 02:13 AMIn regards to the design of Gospodin Kalashnikov, he actually adapted a John M. Browning design from around 1910. Just a superficial glance at the Remington Model 8 and Model 81 will shed a bit of light on the ancestry of the AK-47. What Kalashnikov did was adapt the long recoil operated Remington Model 8 to gas operation, using elements similar to the SKS (but simplified, for example the bolt carrier and piston on the AK is one piece, instead of two on the SKS). The AK should be a decent gun, since it was essentially designed by John Browning. Posted by: Bill Twist at December 1, 2004 08:37 AMThat Hmong guy reminds me in some frightening ways of some of the people some of my cousins grew up with. (No, I'll not be more specific than that.) I'm talkin' Southern, here. What we have here is an Oriental Redneck, who thinks it's perfectly OK to hunt on any land anywhere, for the same reason a dog licks his balls. This is why we have badass Game Wardens in the Southern States. I was talking, once, to a quondam Sgt. of Marines, former cop, current lawyer, running for Sheriff of the county I lived in, who recounted his terror at being accosted by a Mississippi game warden. Those Wisconsin wusses did not understand what I tell my kittycat every time I toss him out at night, viz. "Be careful out there; there is an endless supply of bad humans." Posted by: Justthisguy at December 6, 2004 06:12 AMWisconsin wusses? Posted by: Really at December 13, 2004 11:12 AMthe comment input form disappears. Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that. By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah. See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips. |