Gun Nuts Media

It seems that the letter that inspired this post managed to get a few of the people who read that paper fired up as well.  The original letter stated that the author was disturbed by “how close” a gun shop was to a school, because apparently it sends a message of violence.  I noted how silly that was, and it seems that the majority of the people writing letters to the editor to comment on the original letter agree with me.

My concern however is with letters like this one, which while not blaming the guns, are still doing it wrong. 

I think the writer has missed a greater source of violence promotion that’s part and parcel of Hollywood and the glut of movies filled with murder and mayhem. Additionally, video games commonly found everywhere offer similar themes. These sources offer a much greater threat of promoting violence than the location of a gun shop.

I’ve had this conversation a lot with people, especially pro-gun people, that we have to resist the temptation to shift the blame from guns to the media.  If some idiot is saying that “guns spread a message of violence”, I really do understand how tempting it can be to just say “no, the media spreads a message a violence”.

The problem is that you’re not addressing the actual issue of a lack of personal responsibility and good parenting.  Blaming video games and movies is no different from blaming guns – all you’re doing is shifting the blame from one object to another.

Hollywood does promote violence.  It sells.  A lot of video games are violent.  It sells.  But just because the “violent media” exists does not excuse the parents who allow their 12 year old to play it; or the parents who don’t teach their children the difference between fantasy and reality.  I grew up playing “violent video games”, and I’ve never succumbed to the “message of violence”.  If Hollywood, video games, and guns are supposed to teach me to be a merciless killer, than they’re all malfunctioning.

Instead of pulling me over to give a reward for good driving, why don’t you just not pull me over to begin with?

Police are stopping law-abiding motorists and rewarding their good driving with $5 Starbucks gift cards.

Seeing as this comes from California, I’m not really surprised; but at the same time I have to think that this is just plain dumb.  I would LOVE to be pulled over when I’m going the speed limit and using my turn signals correctly to have some CHiP hand me a gift card for $5.  Five lousy bucks isn’t worth the 5 minutes of my life that are being wasted by being rewarded for “good behavior”.

You want to reward me for good driving?  DON’T PULL ME OVER.

Thanks to Tam for the heads up.

Yesterday was the 104th anniversary of the first powered flight, made by the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk.  Thanks to Orville and Wilbur, over the next 104 years, we would develop aviation from a tiny plane that flew for 12 seconds into the massive aircraft that can carry tanks across the ocean.  We would see some of the most graceful psychical representations of human engineering take shape in steel and wood…and invariably with piston engines.

Click to embiggenate.

No matter how many times you tell me that you’ll support the 2nd Amendment, I still don’t believe you.

“I used the gun laws aggressively in New York. I had to, and it worked well,” Giuliani said in response to a question asked during a brief campaign stop at Goss International on Monday. “As president of the United States of America, I would be honor bound to uphold the Second Amendment.”

I’m sure that most of you guys are familiar with the parable of the fox and the scorpion, but for those that might not have heard it, here’s the general version:

The story is about a scorpion asking a fox to carry him across a river. The fox is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung the fox, the fox would sink and the scorpion would drown as well. The fox then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming the two of them. When asked why, the scorpion explains, “I’m a scorpion; it’s my nature.”

It is unfortunately a perfect analogy for how I feel about Rudy.  Not to call the man a scorpion (because I think he has some admirable qualities) but when it comes to the subject of individual liberty, this perfectly applies.  He can’t win the election without the support the gun owning side of the Republican lobby.  But I worry that if we put him on our back and carry him across the river, he will sting us two or three years into his term, with some misguided ban on something.

It’s not just guns I’m talking about here.  Rudy isn’t really big on the whole “individual liberty” thing, and I really don’t see how he’d not abuse the office of the presidency in the name of “safety & security”.

The NRA is working closely with 40+ Senators to enact a change in US policy; it would allow state laws to govern if CCW holders can carry their firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.

Idaho Senator Mike Crapo sent a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne requesting that prohibitions preventing law-abiding citizens from transporting and carrying firearms on certain public lands be removed.

Like I said, I would love this.  Indiana state law allows holders of carry permits to carry their firearms in state parks, and I don’t see what the difference should be for national parks.  That goes double in areas that have large predatory animals.

And the men I suppose; although this is the sort of question that usually draws ire from the knuckle-draggers who think that men should be “rough”.

I have (obviously) a couple of different guns that I carry.  I also have different holsters that I use for these guns.  My holster always matches my shoes (black with black, brown with brown), unless I’m wearing an inside the waistband holster.

So, my question is as follows – do you accessorize with your carry gear?  Does your holster match your handbag?  And if Coach or Fendi made carry rigs, would you buy one?  I have got to say, I love holsters, and assuming that Coach holster was a quality rig, I’d probably buy one.

What do the numbers above have in common? If you guessed “they’re common distances for testing the accuracy of handguns”, then give yourself the no-prize prize.

There was a bit of ruckus at Guns & Ammo, when one of the writers said in response to questions as to why he accuracy tested defensive handguns at 25 yards instead of 7 that people who asked the aforementioned question “probably can’t shoot very well”. He then went on to state that he could probably shoot a cloverleaf group at 7 yards with a Jennings (and to his credit, he did get a bunch of cheap guns and shoot a cloverleaf at 7 yards).

For some reason, that whole column rankled me a bit; especially the statement that people who don’t test handguns at 25 yards can’t shoot. Here’s the thing. I can shoot, and pretty well. I don’t see shooting handguns at 25 yards off a sandbagged rest as much of a test of your marksmanship skills. Certainly, it tests trigger control and sight picture, but it removes pretty much all the other human variables that a good marksman must take into account.

Now, that’s not to say that testing at 25 doesn’t have merit. I like grouping handguns at 25 yards, even defensive handguns. But not for practical purposes – it’s more of a “I wonder how well this gun can shoot” train of thought.

For practical purposes, a truly defensive only handgun doesn’t need to be tested beyond 10 yards. I’m not saying that you couldn’t/shouldn’t but that you don’t need to ascertain the accuracy of your pistol beyond defensive ranges.

I also think that it’s a bad idea to call into question the shooting skills of people who question the necessity of bench resting a defensive handgun at 25 yards. It makes you sound like kind of arrogant and standoffish, and personally, it really turned me off to the particular writer’s column.

Update: Robb has a hilarious quote in the comments:

Sandbags mysteriously are generally not around when it comes time to have to use your gun in a self defense scenario.

True.

Apparently, most people think that the Constitution means what it says.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they believe the Constitution guarantees each person the right to own a gun, according to a poll released Sunday.

In all, 65 percent said they thought the Constitution ensures that right, and 31 percent said it did not. The question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 points.

I am shocked.  Shocked I say.  The Constitution guaranteeing individual liberties?  Say it ain’t so!

In all seriousness, it’s not really too much of a surprise.  We have known for quite some time that “gun control” is a minority agenda item; it’s not really something that most folks believe it.  I will confess that it’s fun to have statistics to toss around when people like Paul Helmke say that the “majority of America supports tougher gun laws”.