28 March 2018


Being that I understand the heart of the Second Amendment — to keep the people of the United States able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government — I’m coming down on bumpstocks this way:

There ain’t NO fucking reason in the world why you need one. Or why they should be legal.

Hear me out.

If the shit hits the fan — i.e., we “have” to protect ourselves against government troops — chances are most of us are going to die. I say that from a POV of having survived a considerable amount of combat in which large groups of my bad guys endeavored to kill small groups of my good guys.

We (the good guys) happened to be successful — by and large — in not dying and killing remarkably larger amounts of bad guys, than they killed us. But that’s mostly because we were able to do to them what they always tried to do to our guys.

That said.

I have whatever arms I have. They are sufficient IMO.

I’m pretty sure — even at this advanced age — that there’s an awfully good chance I’ll be able to appropriate a gun from a dead guy who was formerly trying to make me a dead guy.

Now … when I was doing this sort of shit for a living, some of us liked to — in some cases, had to — use the same type weaponry that belong to our enemies. We usually obtained these weapons by killing the guy who formerly owned the weapon.

The hard part in a lot of cases was keeping enough quality ammo for the weapon to carry it back into combat. Communist block ammunition was notoriously shitty, and the last thing you needed was bullets that didn’t work. Even if their guns always did (we're talking AK-47s here).

So. You’ve stockpiled enough .223 to keep you to doomsday. However … auto sucks, and bumpstocks suck because they make semis auto. And you will run out of .223 faster than shit on full auto or bumpstock auto.

With the exception of an on-point contact — in which you dump a full mag to stay alive — automatic weaponry sucks and isn’t effective. Regardless of what you’ve seen in the movies.

Not trying to brag, but I’ve been in some shitstorms of 20-feet-away, 20- or 25-to-one firefights and never used anything other than semi-auto. Apparently, we (me and three other guys) were successful, because I’m actually writing this horseshit.

So. You don’t need a bumpstock or a full auto weapon. And, if you’re actually good at what you do, you’ll be able to get one.

What you need is to do is stay in shape (said this fat, old guy), know your weapon, and be ready to kill a living human being. Not everyone can, and not everyone will (mainly because it’s one of the most terrible things you’ll ever have to live with. If it isn’t, then you’re a sociopath and you REALLY shouldn’t own a bumpstock or a full-auto weapon).

That’s my opinion. And I've sure as shit been there, done that.

HERE's  a link to what I consider one of the best videos on bumpstocks ... and why YOU don't need one. 


Defensive Gun Use Is More Than
 Shooting Bad Guys

It's hard to say exactly, but it's certainly more than many media outlets are reporting.

By James Agresti

In a New York Times column entitled “How to Reduce Shootings,” Nicholas Kristof writes, “It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare. One study by the Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.”

That statement grossly misleads by pretending that firearms only stop violence when they are used to kill criminals. As explained by the National Academies of Sciences in a 300+ page analysis of firearms studies, “Effective defensive gun use need not ever lead the perpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess the benefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime and injury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.”

Likewise, a 1995 paper in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology states, “This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed by victims. Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward.”

Crime Prevention

The purpose of having a gun for defense is not to kill criminals but to prevent them from killing or harming others. Accordingly, the same 1995 paper found that “only 8 percent” of people who use a gun for defense “report wounding an adversary.” Given the study’s sample size, this 8 percent figure has a margin of sampling error of ± 4 percentage points with 95 percent confidence. The authors conclude that “the rather modest 8.3 percent wounding rate we found is probably too high” and that defensive gun uses “are less serious or dramatic in their consequences than our data suggest.”

A range of credible data suggests that civilians use guns to stop violence more than 100,000 times per year.

In other words, people who use a gun for defense rarely harm (much less kill) criminals. This is because criminals often back off when they discover their targets are armed. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons across the U.S. found that 40 percent of them had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun.”

Contrary to Kristof’s deceitful claim, a range of credible data suggests that civilians use guns to stop violence more than 100,000 times per year.

For instance, the above-cited 1995 paper was based on a survey of 4,977 households, which found that at least 0.5 percent of households over the previous five years had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” Applied to the U.S. population using standard scientific methods, this amounts to at least 162,000 saved lives per year, excluding all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”

Since this data is from the 1990s and is based on people’s subjective views of what would have happened if they did not use a gun, it should be taken with a grain of salt. However, the same survey found that the number of people who used a gun for self-defense was about six times greater than the number who said that using the gun “almost certainly” saved a life. This amounts to at least 1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year, including those in which lives were saved and those of lesser consequence.

Facing the Facts

Notably, anti-gun criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang praised this study, which was conducted by pro-gun researchers Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. In the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Wolfgang wrote:

“I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country.”

“Nonetheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it.”

“The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”

Other credible studies provide evidence that defensive gun uses are much more common than Kristof leads his readers to believe.

Anti-gun researcher David McDowall and others conducted a major survey of defensive gun use that was published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology in 2000. The authors did not take their survey results to their logical conclusions by using the common practice of weighting them to determine what the results would be for a nationally representative survey. But when one does this, the results imply that U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 990,000 times per year. This figure accounts only for “clear” cases of defensive gun use and is based upon a weighting calculation designed to minimize defensive gun uses.

Similarly, a 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

In 2013, President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services and CDC to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.” In response, the CDC asked the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council to “convene a committee of experts to develop a potential research agenda focusing on the public health aspects of firearm-related violence...” This committee studied the issue of defensive gun use and reported:

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed…”

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million…”

“[S]ome scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey,” but this “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies…”

In sum, the difference between credible defensive gun use data and Kristof’s deceitful “259” figure is enormous. By misleading his readers to believe that firearms are rarely used for defense, he and his editors at the Times could dissuade people who may otherwise save lives from ever getting the firearms that enable them to do so.

Timely stories and timeless principles, delivered daily to your inbox.
Sign up for the FEE Daily!

The Anti-Gun Movement's Use of Child Crusaders Debases the National Discourse

I sooooooo wish I'd wrote this — Gary P. Joyce

The Anti-Gun Movement’s Use of Child Crusaders Debases National Discourse

The anti-gun movement’s elevation of these students to the status of celebrities merits scrutiny.
Impassioned by the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas shooting that left 17 families without loved ones and a school forever changed, Cameron Kasky, Emma Gonzalez, David Hogg, and other MSD students have embarked on a crusade for stricter gun laws—and become de factospokespersons for the anti-gun movement. With emotions still raw and wounds both physical and psychological far from healed, the students have unleashed a torrent of vitriol on all parties they think contributed to their tragedy: gun manufacturers, gun-rights advocates, companies that do business with them, lawmakers, and regular gun-owning Americans. 
The reaction of these young people to the heinous violence they experienced six weeks ago has rightfully been met with sympathy. But the anti-gun movement’s elevation of these students to the status of celebrities merits scrutiny.

The Hubris of Youth

Kasky and his classmates, driven by grief, anger, and the hubris of youth, have become mascots for the anti-gun movement and darlings of a national media that aids it. Beginning with interviews in the hours after the shooting and a CNN town hall event, their words have been conferred an unearned gravitas.
Age itself does not disqualify a person from contributing a valid argument, but these teenagers are acting in response to trauma, and their arguments show it. 

Age itself does not disqualify a person from contributing a valid argument, but these particular teenagers are acting in response to trauma, and their arguments show it. One line that I suspect will haunt Kasky was delivered in an interview with National Public Radios’s Noel King on the eve of the “March for Our Lives.” Asked what he has to say to teens with views that differ from his own, teens who enjoy shooting guns for sport, for example, Kasky responded that he would tell them, “We’re marching to protect you from other people like you who have guns.” The line betrays an impulsive authoritarianism that’s been fueled by tragedy, but critically—distressingly—encouraged by a movement that has greedily used the students to further its own message.
The continued presence of Kasky and his peers in the press implies that opinion-makers think the students’ views not only matter but should matter to the exclusion of others because they have been struck by tragedy. With each successive interview, the acrimony from the teens, not toward the assailant, but toward peaceful Americans is ratcheted higher. Kasky followed his we’re-protecting-you-from-people-like-you line with an even more accusatory barb, saying to youngsters who enjoy target practice, “We are the targets now. We are running away from people like you.”
Ten years on from my own teenage years, I’m thankful that my views during that time of self-formation weren’t broadcast around the globe. I’m sure I’ll look back in another decade upon some of the views I hold today with the same discomfiture. Kasky, Gonzalez, and Hogg didn’t ask to be thrust into the spotlight and no ire need be directed toward them individually, but ire indeed belongs with the bloodhounds who have furthered their agendas on the back of teenage anguish.

Appeals to Emotion, Not Facts

I do not doubt that the teens who led the “March for Our Lives” hold their beliefs sincerely—my contention is that the wider anti-gun movement is shamelessly using the teens to erect an intellectual shield. What sort of person, every cover photo and interview latently ask, could possibly be against these poor kids? This tactic stifles credible commentary in much the same way as we see advocacy for lower military budgets smeared as unpatriotic. It is the employment of emotion to cow rational dissent.
To the survivors of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas shooting, we owe compassion, but to ourselves, we owe a sober and fact-based approach to policy. 

What Kasky and his peers seem not to have had time to learn in the whirlwind of their media tours, marches, and walkouts is that gun murders have, in fact, plummeted over the course of the last 30 years. And though each is an atrocity in its own right, even school shootings show no statistical uptick. According toresearch from Northeastern University, in contradiction of our current moral panic, there have been only eight shootings that have killed four or more people at K-through-12 schools in the United States in the past 20 years. But the availability heuristic has won the day and instead of hearing the truth—that violence has precipitously fallen—students are being told they’re living through an epidemic of unparalleled danger.
Should this information dull the pain felt by Kasky, his schoolmates, and the families of the slain? Of course not. But it should influence our policy discussions, which have unfortunately taken on a tone of hysteria. Gun laws are by no means out of bounds for public discussion, and it is valid to use recent events to illustrate flaws in our system, but the leveraging of emotion—both that felt by the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas survivors and that which it evokes from the public—detracts from the quality of our national discourse. To the survivors of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas shooting, we owe compassion, but to ourselves, we owe a sober and fact-based approach to policy.