Supposed to have posted days ago

Got interrupted while typing, then came back to it several times but lost momentum.  Anyway

Recently I was flipping though the channels and saw something on the news about universal background checks.  It was obvious that the segment was going to be heavily biased in favor of more power to the government but I kept watching for a bit out of morbid curiosity.  The thing that struck me the most was all the shots of a gun store counter.  It’s not much of a surprise because stories on gun violence commonly use that tactic whether the perps obtained it legally from a store or not(for the most part they don’t).  But in this case it’s an even worse use of negative portrayal.

For someone who doesn’t know much about guns and has never bought one, it’s easily misleading.  Look at all those SCARY GUNS.  Anyone could just walk in and get one, so we need more background checks, otherwise those customers are just ticking time bombs for GUN VIOLENCE.  Since the controversy is regarding private transfers, why not show someone opening a trunk or whatever and someone else safely inspects the piece and hands him or her money?  Maybe show that either party can check each other if they want, but that people who know and trust each other have less to worry about?  Nope, won’t do that, and what about the loopholes?  Well, granted gun shows and private transfers have the potential to be shady, but legally they are limited to selling/buying guns that someone with a clean record would be able to buy normally.

Several decades ago guns could be bought in hardware stores, grocery stores, liquor stores, and through the mail, in addition to what we have today.  Now the only options are gun stores/someone with an FFL, private transfers, gun shows, and the black market(illegal version of the last two).  Going back a few more decades, people could go to stores and buy machine guns, silencers, calibers bigger than .50, guns that have short barrels with a stock, and the AOW category wasn’t even made up yet.  Transferring unregistered NFA items is illegal now and the process for getting them legally is more involved than a standard rifle/carbine, pistol, or shotgun.  Nah, viewers don’t need to know that, plus they might wise up to the agenda that regular weapons will become more regulated to the point of NFA items over time.  It’s a felony to make a straw purchase(buying a gun for someone else who is prohibited), but that fact isn’t mentioned either.

California has laws requiring private transfers to have the same process as a gun store.  If every state had shitty laws like that(or worse), as the universal background checks hype is pushing for, there wouldn’t be a significant reduction in violent crime.  Instead, there would be a reduction in armed bystanders and ability to deter and stop the violence.  Remember the supreme douchebag of Santa Barbara?  Despite having a desire to be a spree killer, he went through all the hoops of restrictive gun laws and got a gun legally.  Then, because he was angsty and couldn’t get laid and had been planning something for a while, he stabbed a few people, shot at some people, and hit a person with his car before killing himself when the cops showed up.  The strict gun laws didn’t do anything to prevent all that, and more of them won’t either.

Also showing pictures of airsoft and bb guns and even squirt guns(!) in articles about gun control is just being lazy.  Actually on second thought, it gives a glimpse of the future goals that antigun advocates are pushing for.  Banning them and butter knives is the next step, and then politicians and criminals(same tbh) will attain maximum power over people that used to be individuals.  Source: the UK.

 

Recently found out CA is considering/going to ban the use of bullet buttons, which I find both hilarious and sad.  Going into detail about that would be an article in itself, but basically since detachable magazines are restricted to 10 rounds there, a bullet button is a device that locks a bigger capacity mag in the gun until it is poked at with a stick(or bullet tip).  The only reason it exists is to conform with the strict laws and now it might not be allowed anymore.  A similar situation happened with thumbhole/butthole stocks back in the 90s I think.  They were allowed at first because they were ugly enough and weren’t “protruding pistol grips” but later were considered the same.  Do you see the pattern that follows putting up with these bullshit compromises?

 

 

A sound piece of advice and a questionable practice

Finally started reading one of those downloaded back issues of Guns magazine.  The times (and laws and prices) have changed.  In a letter to the editor a mother tells the story of her 12 year old son wanting a gun.  She didn’t want one around the house, so he got one from a classmate at school(!) and had a negligent discharge carrying it in his pocket without a holster.  Luckily it only burned his leg and didn’t hit anyone.  A policeman was sent to check on the family and gave them an issue of Guns with an article on buying guns for sons.  The mother changed her mind and the son learned how to shoot safely and joined a shooting team.  This happened not only in California but in L.A.  It’s hard to imagine a positive outcome like that if it were to happen now.

A good safety tip from Jan 1956: always check if an “unloaded” gun is really unloaded.  And speaking of loaded, here’s an image from the article Are Pistol Champs Alcoholics? in the same issue.

Holy shit. 

Sure, why not?  Alcohol’s a solvent so it should balance the gunpowder out, right?  It can’t be any worse than brown-brown.  Personally I like to shoot first and drink later.  Occasionally I’ll have beer before going to the range but as a rule of thumb have the same limit for driving.  2 or 3 beers in about as many hours, but booze affects everyone differently.