Now, that's impressive.
Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The Chair
Stumbled across The Atlantic's photo section In Focus today and discovered a wealth of tremendous high-res photographs. I'd recommend popping over there to check it out, there are some amazing images on display.
The most recent post concerns the conflict in Libya and there are some photos I thought would be of particular interest here- images of rebel positions coming under aerial attack and those detailing the weapons (and techniques) used by the rebels. Russian arms are, not surprisingly, well represented but I was taken by the image below- a rebel armed with an FN FAL utilising an office chair as an anti-aircraft emplacement.
The most recent post concerns the conflict in Libya and there are some photos I thought would be of particular interest here- images of rebel positions coming under aerial attack and those detailing the weapons (and techniques) used by the rebels. Russian arms are, not surprisingly, well represented but I was taken by the image below- a rebel armed with an FN FAL utilising an office chair as an anti-aircraft emplacement.
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Pocket Hammerless
It's the centennial of the 1911 pistol and the design is in no danger of fading from use. In fact, Colt and Springfield have apparently submitted models to the USMC for consideration for their replacement to the MEU/SOC pistol. There's plenty of life left in the old warhorse yet.
Given the enduring popularity of the pistol- and for the genius of John Moses Browning himself- I'm forced to wonder if the time is not right for a company to bring back another of his designs- the Colt 1903/1908 Pocket Hammerless. Though hardly a pocket pistol by today's micro-compact designs, it's a wonderfully elegant pistol and would make for a great companion piece for those days when the 1911 is thought too large and bulky for concealed carry. I'm sure that for those wanting a bit more oomph from their carry gun that it would be entirely feasible for a 9mm version to be produced too. To read a review of the original 1903 go here-
I shot over 500 rounds through this 1903 without one problem. Not one. And 300 rounds through another 1903 with similar results. Would I bet my life on an 89-year-old Colt? Yes, I would.
Originally manufactured from 1903 to 1945, more than half a million were made and I'd argue that now would be an excellent time for Colt- or another of the 1911 manufacturers- to bring another of Browning's classic designs back to life.
I shot over 500 rounds through this 1903 without one problem. Not one. And 300 rounds through another 1903 with similar results. Would I bet my life on an 89-year-old Colt? Yes, I would.
Originally manufactured from 1903 to 1945, more than half a million were made and I'd argue that now would be an excellent time for Colt- or another of the 1911 manufacturers- to bring another of Browning's classic designs back to life.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
It's Come To This
Another of those cases where you have to double check to see if the calendar has somehow rolled over to April 1st. It seems, more and more, that real life is resembling stories which more properly belong in The Onion.
A Canadian tourist flying home from the UK was prevented from bringing an ornament he had bought at a visit to the Royal Signals museum onto his flight- packed in his luggage- because the figure was of a soldier holding a tiny, three inch long resin gun.
As he passed through the security checkpoint he was stopped by a security officer who then contacted his supervisor-
'My wife asked for a "reality check", explaining how this offending piece of sculptured moulding is a 9 inch painted model with a moulded and painted rifle that is part of the figure.
'The supervisor was confident within the surety of the regulations and said a "firearm" is a firearm and cannot pass.
In fact, a spokeswoman for the airport said, "Items including firearms and items with the appearance of firearms are prohibited."
What kind of world do we live in where an ornament of a soldier holding a gun is prohibited? Surely the correct course of action would be for the airport to admit their mistake and announce that this was an isolated case of an official taking things more than a tad too literally. It's clearly not a real weapon, it clearly cannot be modified to function as a real weapon and it's clearly preposterous to anyone with even a hint of common-sense that a three inch long piece of resin on a statue constitutes "the appearance of a firearm"- what's he going to do- pretend that it's a real assault rifle and take over the plane?
I actually feel less safe knowing that these people are in charge of airport security.
A Canadian tourist flying home from the UK was prevented from bringing an ornament he had bought at a visit to the Royal Signals museum onto his flight- packed in his luggage- because the figure was of a soldier holding a tiny, three inch long resin gun.
As he passed through the security checkpoint he was stopped by a security officer who then contacted his supervisor-
'My wife asked for a "reality check", explaining how this offending piece of sculptured moulding is a 9 inch painted model with a moulded and painted rifle that is part of the figure.
'The supervisor was confident within the surety of the regulations and said a "firearm" is a firearm and cannot pass.
In fact, a spokeswoman for the airport said, "Items including firearms and items with the appearance of firearms are prohibited."
What kind of world do we live in where an ornament of a soldier holding a gun is prohibited? Surely the correct course of action would be for the airport to admit their mistake and announce that this was an isolated case of an official taking things more than a tad too literally. It's clearly not a real weapon, it clearly cannot be modified to function as a real weapon and it's clearly preposterous to anyone with even a hint of common-sense that a three inch long piece of resin on a statue constitutes "the appearance of a firearm"- what's he going to do- pretend that it's a real assault rifle and take over the plane?
I actually feel less safe knowing that these people are in charge of airport security.
Friday, January 21, 2011
McCarthy's 'Magazine' Ban
There's been much discussion on the internet recently about Rep Carolyn McCarthy's bill which would place a limit on the number of rounds a handgun can hold in its magazine. The argument goes that because the deranged lunatic who shot (and mercifully only wounded) Rep Giffords in Tucson, Arizona used a 33-round high capacity magazine in the commission of his crime, then these magazines, and many others holding much less, should now be banned. If he had only had a 10 round magazine, they say, then nowhere near as many people would have been shot and either wounded or killed. I guess these people have little problem with the fatalities and injuries caused by the first 10 shots of any rampage, or any further injury caused by the shooter reloading his government-approved 10-round magazines.
The argument then goes on to state that no one really needs high capacity magazines carrying 33 rounds (and this is where they neglect to mention the 13 round magazines for the Browning High Power, 15 round magazines for the Beretta 92 or 17 round magazines for the Glock 17 that will also be banned- amongst many others). These, let it be made clear, are NOT "high capacity magazines". They are standard capacity magazines.
You see, according to the hoplophobes in Washington- whose familiarity with handguns and their defensive uses seems to extend as far as seeing them in the holsters of the police protecting them- there is no reasonable use for a high capacity magazine other than for mass-murderers to go on killing sprees.
Really? There's no other use for them? No, we're told, no one needs them. Which is interesting because the current bill carries an exemption not only for police officers but also retired police officers.
In other words, McCarthy and the other politicians who co-sponsored this bill believe that there is not only a use for 10-plus magazines but a need. Otherwise, the police would not be allowed to own them either. And there must also be a valid reason why a retired cop would need a 10-plus magazine. Quite why a retired police officer should be afforded extra rights not granted to his fellow citizens is unclear.
So, why would the police need magazines that hold more than 10-rounds? The police, after all, respond to crimes. If a violent criminal breaks into your home with the intent of causing you and your family harm why is it that the police you call to respond to the crime- who will most likely arrive after the criminal has done what he intends to do or has been stopped- need more than 10-rounds but you, the person who has to deal with the criminal face-to-face, on-your-own, need only 10? The police have access to pistols and often shotguns and carbines in their patrol cars. They often travel in pairs. They have access to armed back-up who will go out of their way to protect a fellow officer from harm. They even have access to specialist units specifically trained and armed to deal with highly dangerous situations.
I don't know about you but I've lost count of how many bullets all that adds up to. But the home-owner or woman walking to her car at night confronted by a gang with malicious intent- the person who has to face that threat ALONE is to be restricted to 10 rounds only?
I'm sorry but I fail to see the logic at work here. If a police officer needs more than 10-rounds then so too does the average law-abiding citizen. In fact, I'd argue that they are more in need of standard capacity magazines than the average police officer who has armed colleagues to support him. The person forced to draw a gun to defend themselves is faced with imminent danger at close range. Under these circumstances, and perhaps faced with more than one threat, the citizen needs every available shot they have.
The Tueller Drill established that the average man can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. That time- 1.5 seconds- is the time it takes a practised police officer to draw and fire his holstered weapon twice. If faced with an attacker with a knife that means that the cop who can successfully draw and shoot- and score those two hits- could still be stabbed. Even fatal gunshot wounds do not put an attacker down immediately- he can often continue to operate after receiving those fatal wounds and inflict wounds of his own. Police officers are trained in conflict- and yet even when most of their confrontations occur at a range of less than six feet (one study examining this put a terrifying 81% of shooting confrontations at less than six feet) many of their shots fired miss the target.
These misses occur for a number of reasons, not least of which is stress- but also involved are bad lighting (many shootings occur at night in dimly lit areas) and the fact that the officer and armed bad guy can both be moving and that the officer could be receiving fire from the bad guy. These sudden, violent confrontations can occur with little warning (just watch some of those police dashboard-mounted camera video shows for proof) and are confusing, dangerous, stressful situations.
Let's now consider a young woman who carries a gun in her purse to protect herself as she walks to her car at night. She is confronted by a group of young men, in their late teens or early twenties. She is not only outnumbered but overpowered. If they choose to attack her, she cannot physically defend herself. Neither can she call the police for help- by the time she takes her phone out of her bag the men will be on her. When the men advance on her, perhaps even telling her of what lies in store for her, she draws her gun. The men respond in kind and the woman is forced to shoot. She fires her government-mandated 10 round magazine and hits two of the men more than once before the 10 shots are done. As with the highly trained police officer, some of her shots even at this close range miss the target. Only one of the men is totally incapacitated. The other wounded man and his untouched companion are now free to do what they wish to the now-defenceless young woman. They have weapons drawn already so she cannot reach for a reload.
And consider for a moment an elderly woman living alone. She owns a gun with a standard capacity 17 round magazine because she not only finds it hard to rack the slide but also because she finds it a slow and time-consuming task to remove one magazine and replace it with another. Her fingers are not as nimble and as strong as they used to be. Because she spent her working life as a nurse she is now banned from owning this magazine. Her ex-cop neighbour, who has no such problems with reloading, owns a 33 round magazine for his gun. When drug addicts decide to raid her home she shoots to defend herself. When the gun runs out of ammo the survivors come out of hiding and, as she struggles to reload, beat her to death with a crow bar.
If only she had her weapon loaded with a standard 17 round magazine she might have survived to see another dawn.
Or how about this-
This is a real video of an attempted home invasion. The gang of men, one of them armed with an AR-15 rifle, raced into an older man's home in an attempt to rob and, perhaps, attack him. Luckily, the home-owner was able to retrieve his handgun and shoot at the men. The gang turned and fled the determined, armed home-owner. But suppose for one moment that this gang had decided to use the weapons they had with them that day? Four men, one of them with a rifle, against a single man. If they had stood their ground, and if Rep McCarthy's bill had been passed, the home-owner would have had only ten rounds with which to defend himself.
Up against these armed home-invaders, do you suppose that you would have been able to successfully defend yourself with a government-approved 10-round magazine? Or would your chances of survival increase with 17?
This bill- which will not only ban high capacity magazines but also standard size magazines despite its name- will prevent law abiding citizens from utilising a tool that is not only currently legal but which has been around for decades. The Browning High Power, which holds 13 rounds in its standard size magazine, has been around since 1935. Even before then it was recognised that there was a need for handguns to hold as many rounds as possible.
Rep McCarthy might think that 10-rounds is sufficient for the average person to defend themselves from violence and death under all circumstances but the fact is that she is wrong. If police officers need more than 10 rounds to respond to crimes which have already been committed (and retired cops need them for their own defence and amusement), then the people on the front line, those actually facing criminals without body armour and armed partners and armed back-up have just as much, if not more, need.
And that doesn't even begin to tackle the question of how McCarthy reads the Second Amendment to mean that a person must prove a need to the government to own a certain type of magazine or weapon (some firearms will be banned under the 'magazine ban') rather than 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. It's perfectly clear to me that banning an integral part of a firearm and replacing it with a less satisfactory part- one which increases the owner's chances of being killed in a violent confrontation- is certainly infringing that right.
The argument then goes on to state that no one really needs high capacity magazines carrying 33 rounds (and this is where they neglect to mention the 13 round magazines for the Browning High Power, 15 round magazines for the Beretta 92 or 17 round magazines for the Glock 17 that will also be banned- amongst many others). These, let it be made clear, are NOT "high capacity magazines". They are standard capacity magazines.
You see, according to the hoplophobes in Washington- whose familiarity with handguns and their defensive uses seems to extend as far as seeing them in the holsters of the police protecting them- there is no reasonable use for a high capacity magazine other than for mass-murderers to go on killing sprees.
Really? There's no other use for them? No, we're told, no one needs them. Which is interesting because the current bill carries an exemption not only for police officers but also retired police officers.
In other words, McCarthy and the other politicians who co-sponsored this bill believe that there is not only a use for 10-plus magazines but a need. Otherwise, the police would not be allowed to own them either. And there must also be a valid reason why a retired cop would need a 10-plus magazine. Quite why a retired police officer should be afforded extra rights not granted to his fellow citizens is unclear.
So, why would the police need magazines that hold more than 10-rounds? The police, after all, respond to crimes. If a violent criminal breaks into your home with the intent of causing you and your family harm why is it that the police you call to respond to the crime- who will most likely arrive after the criminal has done what he intends to do or has been stopped- need more than 10-rounds but you, the person who has to deal with the criminal face-to-face, on-your-own, need only 10? The police have access to pistols and often shotguns and carbines in their patrol cars. They often travel in pairs. They have access to armed back-up who will go out of their way to protect a fellow officer from harm. They even have access to specialist units specifically trained and armed to deal with highly dangerous situations.
I don't know about you but I've lost count of how many bullets all that adds up to. But the home-owner or woman walking to her car at night confronted by a gang with malicious intent- the person who has to face that threat ALONE is to be restricted to 10 rounds only?
I'm sorry but I fail to see the logic at work here. If a police officer needs more than 10-rounds then so too does the average law-abiding citizen. In fact, I'd argue that they are more in need of standard capacity magazines than the average police officer who has armed colleagues to support him. The person forced to draw a gun to defend themselves is faced with imminent danger at close range. Under these circumstances, and perhaps faced with more than one threat, the citizen needs every available shot they have.
The Tueller Drill established that the average man can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. That time- 1.5 seconds- is the time it takes a practised police officer to draw and fire his holstered weapon twice. If faced with an attacker with a knife that means that the cop who can successfully draw and shoot- and score those two hits- could still be stabbed. Even fatal gunshot wounds do not put an attacker down immediately- he can often continue to operate after receiving those fatal wounds and inflict wounds of his own. Police officers are trained in conflict- and yet even when most of their confrontations occur at a range of less than six feet (one study examining this put a terrifying 81% of shooting confrontations at less than six feet) many of their shots fired miss the target.
These misses occur for a number of reasons, not least of which is stress- but also involved are bad lighting (many shootings occur at night in dimly lit areas) and the fact that the officer and armed bad guy can both be moving and that the officer could be receiving fire from the bad guy. These sudden, violent confrontations can occur with little warning (just watch some of those police dashboard-mounted camera video shows for proof) and are confusing, dangerous, stressful situations.
Let's now consider a young woman who carries a gun in her purse to protect herself as she walks to her car at night. She is confronted by a group of young men, in their late teens or early twenties. She is not only outnumbered but overpowered. If they choose to attack her, she cannot physically defend herself. Neither can she call the police for help- by the time she takes her phone out of her bag the men will be on her. When the men advance on her, perhaps even telling her of what lies in store for her, she draws her gun. The men respond in kind and the woman is forced to shoot. She fires her government-mandated 10 round magazine and hits two of the men more than once before the 10 shots are done. As with the highly trained police officer, some of her shots even at this close range miss the target. Only one of the men is totally incapacitated. The other wounded man and his untouched companion are now free to do what they wish to the now-defenceless young woman. They have weapons drawn already so she cannot reach for a reload.
And consider for a moment an elderly woman living alone. She owns a gun with a standard capacity 17 round magazine because she not only finds it hard to rack the slide but also because she finds it a slow and time-consuming task to remove one magazine and replace it with another. Her fingers are not as nimble and as strong as they used to be. Because she spent her working life as a nurse she is now banned from owning this magazine. Her ex-cop neighbour, who has no such problems with reloading, owns a 33 round magazine for his gun. When drug addicts decide to raid her home she shoots to defend herself. When the gun runs out of ammo the survivors come out of hiding and, as she struggles to reload, beat her to death with a crow bar.
If only she had her weapon loaded with a standard 17 round magazine she might have survived to see another dawn.
Or how about this-
This is a real video of an attempted home invasion. The gang of men, one of them armed with an AR-15 rifle, raced into an older man's home in an attempt to rob and, perhaps, attack him. Luckily, the home-owner was able to retrieve his handgun and shoot at the men. The gang turned and fled the determined, armed home-owner. But suppose for one moment that this gang had decided to use the weapons they had with them that day? Four men, one of them with a rifle, against a single man. If they had stood their ground, and if Rep McCarthy's bill had been passed, the home-owner would have had only ten rounds with which to defend himself.
Up against these armed home-invaders, do you suppose that you would have been able to successfully defend yourself with a government-approved 10-round magazine? Or would your chances of survival increase with 17?
This bill- which will not only ban high capacity magazines but also standard size magazines despite its name- will prevent law abiding citizens from utilising a tool that is not only currently legal but which has been around for decades. The Browning High Power, which holds 13 rounds in its standard size magazine, has been around since 1935. Even before then it was recognised that there was a need for handguns to hold as many rounds as possible.
Rep McCarthy might think that 10-rounds is sufficient for the average person to defend themselves from violence and death under all circumstances but the fact is that she is wrong. If police officers need more than 10 rounds to respond to crimes which have already been committed (and retired cops need them for their own defence and amusement), then the people on the front line, those actually facing criminals without body armour and armed partners and armed back-up have just as much, if not more, need.
And that doesn't even begin to tackle the question of how McCarthy reads the Second Amendment to mean that a person must prove a need to the government to own a certain type of magazine or weapon (some firearms will be banned under the 'magazine ban') rather than 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. It's perfectly clear to me that banning an integral part of a firearm and replacing it with a less satisfactory part- one which increases the owner's chances of being killed in a violent confrontation- is certainly infringing that right.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
HK To Bring Back The XM8?
George Hill aka Mad Ogre drops some very interesting news from his SHOT Show 2010 coverage. He talked to a Heckler and Koch rep-
In fact, we are going to be seeing some new stuff that would have been previously unheard of... such as a very real possibility of a revamped XM-8 – for Civilian Sales. Which would be outstanding.
HK put an awful lot of time, effort and money into developing the XM8- a version for civilians (and presumably police and military sales) would make sense to recoup their costs. Before the project was killed, it was being out through its paces at the Aberdeen Testing Ground and there was talk of the 10th Mountain Division taking the weapon into combat in Afghanistan with them.
A few years has passed and HK has brought out its product improved M4, the piston driven 416, and the long-lived, slowly evolving M16/M4 platform is now facing competition from the likes of FN's SCAR and the new Bushmaster ACR. It would be interesting to see how a "revamped" XM8 stacks up alongside them. Remember, in the recent "dust test" the Army carried out, the XM8 came out on top, defeating the SCAR, HK's 416 and the M4.
One other thing to bear in mind is that not only are US Special Forces using the HK 416 but the Army is adopting the HK M320 40mm grenade launcher and the USMC have just announced that HK won their IAR competition. I'm guessing a new XM8 would no doubt appeal to a number of different military and police units.
In fact, we are going to be seeing some new stuff that would have been previously unheard of... such as a very real possibility of a revamped XM-8 – for Civilian Sales. Which would be outstanding.
HK put an awful lot of time, effort and money into developing the XM8- a version for civilians (and presumably police and military sales) would make sense to recoup their costs. Before the project was killed, it was being out through its paces at the Aberdeen Testing Ground and there was talk of the 10th Mountain Division taking the weapon into combat in Afghanistan with them.
A few years has passed and HK has brought out its product improved M4, the piston driven 416, and the long-lived, slowly evolving M16/M4 platform is now facing competition from the likes of FN's SCAR and the new Bushmaster ACR. It would be interesting to see how a "revamped" XM8 stacks up alongside them. Remember, in the recent "dust test" the Army carried out, the XM8 came out on top, defeating the SCAR, HK's 416 and the M4.
One other thing to bear in mind is that not only are US Special Forces using the HK 416 but the Army is adopting the HK M320 40mm grenade launcher and the USMC have just announced that HK won their IAR competition. I'm guessing a new XM8 would no doubt appeal to a number of different military and police units.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Great But Failed Handguns
Hell in a Handbasket as a very good post up on some innovative firearms designs that ultimately failed to succeed. Go check it out here.
As I read a few thoughts occurred to me.
The LeMat- make it a break action like a Webley so that the revolver cylinder and shotgun can both be loaded at the same time. It would obviously require some ingenious work to re-fashion the design so that the shotgun barrel was firmly locked in place while the cylinder continued to revolve around it but I'm sure some engineering whizz could figure that out. These days I'm sure some would want to see the shotgun chambered for a .410 shotshell but personally I'd opt for a 20 gauge or 16 gauge.
The HDH Machinegun - this is a neat idea and a weapon that I'll admit I'd never heard of before. Seems to me that the time for another double barrelled revolver has come- it evidently needs a small cartridge so why not go for a rimmed version of the P90's 5.7mm or HK's 4.6mm?
As I read a few thoughts occurred to me.
The LeMat- make it a break action like a Webley so that the revolver cylinder and shotgun can both be loaded at the same time. It would obviously require some ingenious work to re-fashion the design so that the shotgun barrel was firmly locked in place while the cylinder continued to revolve around it but I'm sure some engineering whizz could figure that out. These days I'm sure some would want to see the shotgun chambered for a .410 shotshell but personally I'd opt for a 20 gauge or 16 gauge.
The HDH Machinegun - this is a neat idea and a weapon that I'll admit I'd never heard of before. Seems to me that the time for another double barrelled revolver has come- it evidently needs a small cartridge so why not go for a rimmed version of the P90's 5.7mm or HK's 4.6mm?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
GRE
Here's another recommendation for David Codrea's Gun Rights Examiner. This time he tackles the subject not only of America's two-tier legal system, whereby individuals in certain professions are offered remarkably lenient treatment compared to the public at large, but also of the myth that LEOs are the only ones possessed of the skills necessary to bear arms.
Go check it out (and check the archives for any you may have missed) and then help spread the word!
Go check it out (and check the archives for any you may have missed) and then help spread the word!
Friday, May 15, 2009
Gun Rights Examiner
David Codrea's latest Gun Rights Examiner is a must read-
Information I have received from reliable sources says the Zeta criminal organization is stepping up its ruthlessness on our side of the border. Mules who if detected would previously abandon contraband they were smuggling, must now, under threat of death for failure, protect the drug shipments they are carrying rather than abandon them. To do this, they have been ordered to carry weapons.
Expect more violence, more deaths...and more calls from Democrats demanding that Mexican drug runners being armed requires the disarmament of US citizens.
While you're there make sure to also read about the lies being peddled by American politicians and their lackeys in the media about US guns in Mexico.
Information I have received from reliable sources says the Zeta criminal organization is stepping up its ruthlessness on our side of the border. Mules who if detected would previously abandon contraband they were smuggling, must now, under threat of death for failure, protect the drug shipments they are carrying rather than abandon them. To do this, they have been ordered to carry weapons.
Expect more violence, more deaths...and more calls from Democrats demanding that Mexican drug runners being armed requires the disarmament of US citizens.
While you're there make sure to also read about the lies being peddled by American politicians and their lackeys in the media about US guns in Mexico.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
British Crime
Case One-
A BRAVE dad was beaten to death after he confronted a group of drunken yobs outside his home — just two weeks before his wedding.
Craig Wass, 39, was attacked with a BRICK, GOLF CLUBS and pieces of WOOD in the frenzied beating on a quiet cul-de-sac.
He had just gone out to ask them to keep the noise down. Under British law it is illegal to carry any kind of defensive weapon in public- even pepper spray is outlawed.
Case Three-
MURDER cops are investigating after a 16-year-old boy was shot dead at a pub.
Police were sent to the Robin Hood pub in Stretford, Manchester, following reports of shots being heard shortly before midnight.
The lad, named as Giuseppe Gregory, was driven to Trafford General Hospital with gunshot wounds to the head, it was claimed.
He later died from the injuries. Under British law all semi-auto rifles and cartridge-fed handguns are banned- those few firearms which can be purchased are strictly licensed and regulated. Since the gun bans were enacted, the country has seen an increase not only in violent crime but in gun crime. If the intent of the gun bans was to reduce gun crime it has been a disastrous failure.
But you won't ever hear a British politician arguing that our right to keep arms be restored.
A pensioner was murdered with a rubber mallet after disturbing a teenage burglar, a court heard today.
George Thornley, 68, was bludgeoned with the hammer and slashed with a kitchen knife as he fought the 16-year-old who broke into his home in Clifton, Lancashire, to steal his car keys, Preston Crown Court heard.
Under British law if you keep a weapon on hand in preparation for just such an incident, even if said weapon is a cricket bat, you are more than likely to be charged for assaulting the perpetrator.
A BRAVE dad was beaten to death after he confronted a group of drunken yobs outside his home — just two weeks before his wedding.
Craig Wass, 39, was attacked with a BRICK, GOLF CLUBS and pieces of WOOD in the frenzied beating on a quiet cul-de-sac.
He had just gone out to ask them to keep the noise down. Under British law it is illegal to carry any kind of defensive weapon in public- even pepper spray is outlawed.
Case Three-
MURDER cops are investigating after a 16-year-old boy was shot dead at a pub.
Police were sent to the Robin Hood pub in Stretford, Manchester, following reports of shots being heard shortly before midnight.
The lad, named as Giuseppe Gregory, was driven to Trafford General Hospital with gunshot wounds to the head, it was claimed.
He later died from the injuries. Under British law all semi-auto rifles and cartridge-fed handguns are banned- those few firearms which can be purchased are strictly licensed and regulated. Since the gun bans were enacted, the country has seen an increase not only in violent crime but in gun crime. If the intent of the gun bans was to reduce gun crime it has been a disastrous failure.
But you won't ever hear a British politician arguing that our right to keep arms be restored.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Ignored By Police
A British counter-part to the American story the other day about an armed student preventing the rape and murder of students. In our UK tale, though, the outcome was not happy at all.
A mother-of-three stabbed to death in her home called police hours before her death to report she might be attacked.
A mother-of-three stabbed to death in her home called police hours before her death to report she might be attacked.
Ms Griffiths, who was on crutches, called police at 9pm on Tuesday and is said to have been told that officers would be with her in an hour.
They didn't even bother to show up.
At 2.45 am on Wednesday, police received an emergency call saying she had been attacked and wounded.
She later died in hospital from her wounds. Her three daughters were in the house with her at the time of the attack.Ms Griffiths, who was in a relationship, was said to have been increasingly concerned about the unwanted attentions of another man.
A close friend, who asked not to be named, said: 'She called the police at 9pm and she was waiting for the police to come.
'She was expressing concern about a person and she phoned the police. She was told they would be there in an hour. They did not arrive.'
Ms Griffiths had also sent text messages to friends expressing concern about her safety.
There is a saying- when seconds count, the police are minutes away. In some cases, they may be an hour away- or they might not even bother showing up at all.
The student defensive shooting and this story are clear examples that the responsibility for your own safety should be your own- and that all lawful citizens should be able to exercise their right to defend themselves and their loved ones. In the UK the right to keep arms with which to defend oneself has been denied by the state- so that the average law-abiding citizen is defenceless in the face of aggression from criminals.
Here we had a woman at home with her children- forbidden by the state the only proven means to adequately defend herself from a more powerful male aggressor. The firearm.
I wonder how many others lives have been lost because British citizens are forbidden from using a tool which puts a lone woman on crutches, or the elderly or the frail, on an equal footing with an aggressive criminal?
For my American readers- the time to fight for your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, a right which might one day save the life of yourself or your family, is now. Before you lose it.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Defensive Shooting
A startling example of why legally eligible college students should be not be prevented from exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms-
A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own.
Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.
“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.
Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.
Their intent seems clear- and no amount of gun free zones would have prevented this from happening. on the contrary, the quick thinking and courage of a single student saved their lives-
That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.
“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.
One of the would-be rapists and murderers is dead, while the other escaped. Had a single student not been armed this could very well have been a news report about the multiple rape and murder of students instead.
A prime example of why every attempt to infringe Second Amendment rights must be fought tooth and nail.
A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own.
Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.
“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.
Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.
Their intent seems clear- and no amount of gun free zones would have prevented this from happening. on the contrary, the quick thinking and courage of a single student saved their lives-
That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.
“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.
One of the would-be rapists and murderers is dead, while the other escaped. Had a single student not been armed this could very well have been a news report about the multiple rape and murder of students instead.
A prime example of why every attempt to infringe Second Amendment rights must be fought tooth and nail.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Moron of the Day
Does this guy even know what words are coming out of his mouth?
“It’s nuts for ordinary citizens to go out and buy assault weapons,” Gov. Ed Rendell, D-Pa., told CNBC. “Assault weapons are difficult to operate, they jam easily. If you want a gun to protect your home it’s the last thing you should have.”
Got that- they're difficult to use, they jam easily and are the last thing you should use to defend yourself or family with. So what does he then propose?
“These weapons have one purpose,” added Rendell. “…They’re to kill and to maim, and they shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone else but the police and the military.”
Um, okay. Can Gov. Rendell explain why he wants the police and military to be armed with weapons which are difficult to use, jam easily and are the last thing you'd want to use to defend yourself or others with? What, does he hate the police and the military or something?
“It’s nuts for ordinary citizens to go out and buy assault weapons,” Gov. Ed Rendell, D-Pa., told CNBC. “Assault weapons are difficult to operate, they jam easily. If you want a gun to protect your home it’s the last thing you should have.”
Got that- they're difficult to use, they jam easily and are the last thing you should use to defend yourself or family with. So what does he then propose?
“These weapons have one purpose,” added Rendell. “…They’re to kill and to maim, and they shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone else but the police and the military.”
Um, okay. Can Gov. Rendell explain why he wants the police and military to be armed with weapons which are difficult to use, jam easily and are the last thing you'd want to use to defend yourself or others with? What, does he hate the police and the military or something?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Assault Weapon Ban 2
The AWB 2 is coming- and note that Obama vowed during the campaign to make it permanent this time round.
He dropped another hint about it today-
He dropped another hint about it today-
Obama lauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon, with whom he will meet Thursday in Mexico City, as having done "an outstanding and heroic job in dealing with what is a big problem right now along the borders with the drug cartels."
He vowed that the United States can be counted on to help.
"We are going to be dealing not only with drug interdiction coming north, but also working on helping to curb the flow of cash and guns going south," Obama said.
Buy 'em while you still can.Sunday, April 12, 2009
Read of the Day
A must read for those interested in the debate on the right to keep and bear arms. Kevin over at Smallest Minority devastates the arguments of a British hoplophobe. Not so much a dissection of his opponent's argument as a bloody vivisection using razor sharp logic.
One to bookmark for future reference it's so rich in pro-gun evidence and statistics.
One to bookmark for future reference it's so rich in pro-gun evidence and statistics.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Pistol Drills
The Firearm Blog linked to some new (to me) gun blogs and I've checked them out. IMHO, the stand out of the crowd is Project U23- particularly the cool video clips posted over there. Head on over and check it out.
In the meantime, here's one I'm going to snag for myself- Clint Smith showing some pistol malfunction drills.
In the meantime, here's one I'm going to snag for myself- Clint Smith showing some pistol malfunction drills.
Firearm Legislation
GOA has a page up on firearms legislation currently in Congress. The most worrying of these is HR 45-
This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed. The applicant must be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family. The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25. The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked. Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license. With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check. In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created. Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established.
As always, the time to fight an un-Constitutional measure like this is now. Gun owners in America need to get serious about defending their rights.
This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed. The applicant must be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family. The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25. The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked. Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license. With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check. In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created. Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established.
As always, the time to fight an un-Constitutional measure like this is now. Gun owners in America need to get serious about defending their rights.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Kids With Guns
Another update on how that total handgun ban here in the UK is working out.
One shopkeeper said: 'You have to be careful who you deal with or you could get lead in your ear. This area used to be lovely, but it's gone really downmarket. Carrying guns is a way of life for some of these people.'
There you have it- the UK had low gun ownership before the ban took effect, it's an island so the borders are secure compared to, say, the USA- and yet a complete ban on handguns has not decreased gun crime at all. In fact, since it was put into place gun crime has risen. It's now at the point where kids riding bikes are not only carrying guns but willing to use them in public places.
Two teenagers were shot repeatedly by a gang of boys who demanded their iPods and phones.
The victims, brothers aged 18 and 19, were left writhing in agony outside a McDonald's in Neasden, North-West London.
One was hit in the stomach, leg, groin and arm and the other was wounded in the chest and stomach.
The brothers, believed to be eastern European, had been challenged by the gang, some of whom were on bicycles, who asked them what they were doing there and then told them to hand over their valuables.
And get this-
Police today said two boys had been arrested in early morning raids, one of them 14, the other 15. Officers said they were looking for five boys in connection with the attack.
So here we have kids riding around on bicycles carrying handguns. Wow, that ban sure has had a dramatic effect, hasn't it?
One shopkeeper said: 'You have to be careful who you deal with or you could get lead in your ear. This area used to be lovely, but it's gone really downmarket. Carrying guns is a way of life for some of these people.'
There you have it- the UK had low gun ownership before the ban took effect, it's an island so the borders are secure compared to, say, the USA- and yet a complete ban on handguns has not decreased gun crime at all. In fact, since it was put into place gun crime has risen. It's now at the point where kids riding bikes are not only carrying guns but willing to use them in public places.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)