Gun control proponents keep denouncing semi-automatics; do they know what they are?

    In all of the grab-the-guns hysteria going on right now it’s clear that a lot of gun critics don’t know what they are talking about. Again and again I read or hear people say that semi-automatic weapons should only be used by the military, that there is no need for any private citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon, and that they need to be confiscated.
    These people apparently aren’t aware that the majority of guns in this country are semi-automatic weapons. Most hunting weapons are semi-automatic. Most pistols are semi-automatic. Revolvers aren’t semi-automatic, but they might as well be. A semi-automatic weapon shoots one round with one press of the trigger, at which point the energy from the fired round automatically ejects the spent shell and loads another round; but the gun will not shoot again until the trigger is depressed for a second time. A non-automatic weapon requires the manual operation of a bolt or pump to eject the spent round and load a new one, or else the manual reloading of the gun.
    An automatic weapon is most commonly known as a machine gun. They have been essentially outlawed through taxation and regulation for the better part of a century. If you want to own a machine gun you will need around $40,000, a very clean record, and a lot of patience.
    What are popularly called "Assault rifles” are hunting weapons that have been gussied up to look like military weapons. But they still fire just like hunting rifles; if anything, they are less accurate. They are often fitting with extended magazines holding 10 to as many as 30 rounds of ammunition. At one time magazines holding more than 10 rounds were illegal under federal law, but this law expired. Many, but by no means all, hunting rifles can accept larger magazines.
    It’s possible to modify some semi-automatic rifles to act in a manner similar to an automatic. For example, the Obama administration issued a ruling that bump stocks were legal. These stocks cause a rifle to bounce against the finger and act as an automatic weapon, albeit with terrible aim. The NRA has urged the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to ban these. I believe the ATF also has the authority to ban any gun designed so that it can easily be modified to become a fully automatic weapon, and they should.
    I'll save my Second Amendment arguments for another day. But if the issue of gun control is to be debated I do think it is important for people to understand the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon.

In unarmed societies genocide is the rule, not the exception

Countries where victims of genocides of 100,000 or more lived are colored in red.

    Shown above is a world map with all of the countries of the world that have experienced a genocide of 100,000 or more since 1900 shown in red. Death estimates vary, but many estimate genocide deaths of the 20th Century at more than 150 million. Most of these victims did not own guns.
    Not included in this map are countries where smaller genocides have taken place. If they were added the map would be mostly red.
    What countries should be shown is a matter of debate, and some of the countries had multiple genocides. Included in this number are those sent to die in work or concentration camps.
    It should be noted that estimates of total dead vary widely. The number of dead in Congo, for example, is based on the decrease in population, which is subject to debate. Here’s a link to a Wikipedia page showing the list of genocides by death toll, as well as another list I used in creating this map. I'm sure I've failed to color in some countries which should have been included.
    Almost all of Europe is colored red because of the genocides of Adolf Hitler. But much of Europe, particularly the Balkans and the Soviet Union, earned genocide status without Hitler’s help.
    Now for a question to which I do not know a definitive answer: How many of these people would have died if their societies had been armed in the way that the citizenry of the United States is armed. My opinion is that most of them would have survived. Others may disagree, but this is the issue that we must agree on before we ever start discussing restrictions on gun ownership.
    But aren’t there more gun deaths in societies where the populace is armed? Yes there are, but there aren’t 150 million of them.
    During the fall of the Soviet Union that country’s leadership was at a crossroad where they couldn’t decide whether to bring down the boot of oppression ever harder or to release their grip and allow their citizens greater freedom. In the end greater freedom won out, but while the debate was going on they confiscated virtually every hunting gun in the country. They knew that it’s much harder to oppress an armed populace than an unarmed one.
    Citizen gun ownership is a prophylactic against tyranny and genocide. Those who say “It can’t happen here” need to take a good look at the map; genocide is the rule, not the exception. It can happen here, and if the liberals get there way, it likely will.

Book excerpt shows that the anti-gun crowd doesn't understand how hunters and gun owners think

    Betsy and I were in the woods alone for the first time in over two years, slipping along from tree to tree. We were mainly enjoying being outside, though I had my 30.06 along.

Robert Hitt Neill

    Thus begins a short essay by Delta writer Robert Hitt Neill in his book, Don't Fish Under the Dingleberry Tree.     I loved reading Neill's newspaper columns back in the day, but I've really only skimmed his books, some of which I think are a collection of his old columns. Anyway, I sat down to read one of his old books and the quote jumped off the page at me.
    I suspect that the average New York or California gun-control advocate simply can't imagine taking one's significant other out for a walk in the woods and just casually taking the 30.06 along. I just thought it was a fun excerpt that shows a different way of thinking between those who like guns and those who hate them.
    Neill is the author of a number of other books, including "How to Lose Your Farm in 10 Easy Lessons," which is a good way to understand some of the changes that took place in agriculture during the 1970s and '80s.

  

Voters tell Rep. Nunnelee 'right to keep and bear arms' is the issue they care most about

    Rep. Alan Nunnelee just sent me an email asking me to subscribe to his e-newsletter and to identify what national issue is most important to me.
    Naturally I chose illegal immigration. After I selected my choice I was allowed to see the choices others had made. And the winner is: "Protecting the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms," coming in at a whopping 41.59 percent. Ten issues are listed; the next-highest vote-getter was "Ending out of control spending," with 13.27 percent. Also of note is that "Strengthening our armed forces" is rated most important by only 1.77 percent of respondents. Are Mississippians slowly drifting into the Rand Paul camp?
    (The above numbers are not static, and will change as each person signs up for the newsletter and casts a vote. So the above graph is merely a snapshot.)
    The list is certainly skewed towards Republicans, although anyone from either party who has made it onto Nunnelee's mailing list surely got the survey. And the responses go a long way towards understand why congressmen from rural states simply won't budge on gun control.
    I know Rep. Nunnelee is listening to the voters. But is Sen. Wicker?

Choices our elitist, hypocrite president makes for his children are fair target for scrutiny

    The NRA has gone beyond the pale by dragging President Obama's children into the gun control debate, or so claim his leftist supporters and such RINOs as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
    I disagree.
    If Malia or Sasha Obama should miss a homework assignment, get in trouble at school, or break up with a boyfriend, that's a private matter. But the choices politicians make for their children are a matter of public concern, particularly when these politicians are able to make choices for their children that are denied to most Americans.
    For example, Malia and Sasha attend an exclusive private school, Sidwell Friends School. The public schools in Washington, D.C. are pretty dreadful for bright children, and I don't blame the president for sending his children elsewhere.
    But I do blame the president for making choices for his children that are denied to most Americans. Obama has consistently opposed efforts to provide vouchers so that all Americans, regardless of income, can enjoy the same choices that he has made for his children. No, vouchers won't gain admittance to elite schools for dull, disruptive children, but they will ensure that every bright, well-behaved child in America can get a decent education.
    You see, Obama is a typical liberal elitist. He prattles on about how wonderful public schools are, but he doesn't send his own children to public school. Yet when ordinary Americans seek the same opportunities, Obama slams the door in their face. For him, it's far more important to keep the teachers unions happy than it is to provide a decent education for America's kids. And if huge swaths of American society receive sub-par educations as a result, why should he care? He's got his!
    Obama and other liberals initially pooh-poohed the idea of having armed guards in our schools, even as the Sidwell Friends Schools has an 11-person security team. These aren't Secret Service employees; they work for Sidwell, albeit in shifts. Not all of these employees are licensed to carry weapons, but some are policemen who presumably are armed.
    So once again Obama is happy to enjoy a benefit for his own children while seeking to deny the same rights to ordinary Americans. It's wrong and it's a fair target for public comment. If there are errors in the ad, complain about the errors, not the ad itself.
    The Obama administration is now coming around to the idea of encouraging schools to have "resource officers;" presumably such officers will be armed. But when NRA Executive Direct Wayne LaPierre made this suggestion three weeks ago he was treated like a nut.
    In any event, the president and his family are certainly entitled to a little bit of privacy. But that curtain of privacy deserves to be raised when the president makes choices for his family or his children that aren't available to ordinary Americans.
    Many thanks to the NRA for producing an outstanding advertisement. If the president doesn't like it the solution isn't to stop running these types of ads. The solution is for him to stop being an elitist hypocrite.

 

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, Part 2 (Britain crime rate)

    I recently pointed out that one of the reasons that Norway mass-murderer Anders Breivik was able to shoot so many people at a leisurely pace was that virtually no one, including police, in Norway has a gun.
There was simply no way to stop the guy.
    Make no mistake, the proliferation of guns in our society has costs. We have a high murder rate, although many of these murders are hooligans shooting each other, not innocent citizens. But researcher John Lott, for example has found very strong evidence that when law-abiding citizens are allowed to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons there is a dramatic decrease in crime. Criminals are loathe to commit burglaries or assaults against those who might be armed and dangerous.
    Great Britain has gone the other route. They have followed the advice of the liberals who advocated banning handguns altogether. After a deadly school shooting in Dublane, Scotland, claimed the lives of 15 students and a teacher, Britain banned all handguns by refusing to renew virtually any handgun license. As a result the violent crime rate has skyrocketed. It is the most violent country in Europe with a violent crime rate that is five times higher than that of the United States, and higher than that of South Africa.
    It should be noted that handgun ownership wasn't widespread in Britain to begin with. Generally, only people who needed guns, such as shopkeepers, were allowed to have them. But Britain disarmed every law-abiding citizen in its society. Of course, criminals kept their guns and now use them to victimize the citizenry with impunity.
    Adding to the problem is the attitude of British police and prosecutors towards those who try to defend themselves with so much as a knitting needle. Have you noticed that during the current chaos those who have tried to defend their neighborhoods from violence have been called "vigilantes"? A vigilante isn't someone who tries to protect his property; a vigilante is someone who administers justice outside the law. These people are merely defending themselves or their neighborhoods. They aren't vigilantes.
    But this criminalization of those who try to defend themselves is part of the British mindset. And the criminals know it and act on it. Consider the following, from Reason Magazine:

In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and was been granted 5,000 pounds of legal assistance to sue Martin.

    People ask me why I hate liberals. Now you know.
    The same thing has been going on in France. In fact, police there often refuse to make arrests even when they see a violent crime. And the liberal judges tend to believe that the criminal is the victim, having suffered a childhood of too few peas and carrots. You owe it to yourself to read The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris, a 10-year-old essay, but just as good today as it was then.
    In America, many states still have the English common-law Castle Doctrine (the poor blokes used to have some sense). A citizen is entitled to use deadly force to protect his home if he believes his life is in danger. Unlike the common-law version, most states with a Castle Doctrine have expressly removed the "duty to retreat." It's your home; stand your ground.
    Britain has disarmed its citizenry and empowered its criminals. America allows its citizens to carry arms and has issued everyone a hunting permit to be used to protect themselves and their homes. It has an amazing effect on the crime rate, doesn't it?