you cannot stop the signal

This post will be a slight departure from the norm, but it should be worth it.  A while back, I departed on the adventure of building a Glock-like firearm without using a single Glock OEM part, just for the sake of doing it.  Personally, I am much more a CZ person, and have never understood the attraction of Glocks, but I also love building firearms, and the Austrian bricks are some of the most-heavily-supported when it comes to aftermarket parts.

I chose to use a receiver/frame from Lone Wolf Distributors, but if I had a drill press, I could have had one of these delivered to my door, no FFL, no paperwork, no background check, nothing:

That carefully-formed piece of plastic is not legally considered a firearm, given that you cannot currently install the trigger group, recoil assembly, slide, or other essential parts.  However, after less than a day of work with a drill press and a few other basic tools, you will have a full-operational Glock-like frame.  And if you never sell it, it never even has to be serialized.

No doubt the “gun control” extremists are already lining up to figure out a way to shut this company down.

Ok, fine, here are the blueprints necessary to build an AR-15 receiver out of sheets of aluminum.  No joke.

And lest any “gun control” useful idiot get the bright idea of trying to get WordPress to pull down the blueprints, do not fret – I have them backed up on my computer, and will happily host them elsewhere on the internet.

Oh, we cannot forget the mad genius who successfully built a fully-operational AK-47-pattern rifle out of an old shovel and junk parts.  I am not even close to kidding.  It was even capable of keeping all ten spam-can rounds inside the 10-ring at 50 yards.

So what are you going to do now, folks?  Ban shovels and hammers?  You might as well try to ban the Khyber Pass as a whole.

For heaven’s sake, jewelers down in “gun control” utopia Australia are supplying bikie gangs with sub-machine guns and silencers.  Inmates in German prisons are building shotguns.  And apparently staple guns have become a platform of choice for improvised firearms.

And that is a core concept that “gun control” extremists simply refuse to comprehend – you cannot ban, restrict, or otherwise regulate firearms in any meaningful way.  Or, as some of my friends like to put it, “engineers > politicians”.  The truth of the matter is if “gun controllers” get their way and make the ownership of a previously-lawful semi-automatic rifle as illegal as owning an open-bolt, short-barreled, fully-automatic rifle… well, Aisle 6 at your local Home Depot has all the parts necessary to make the latter.  And given how easy it is to make the fully-automatic firearm – variations were literally being produced in Warsaw during the Nazi occupation – why would anyone bother with the less-capable rifle?

In turn, I think that is a core concept that the pro-rights advocates do not comprehend as well.  “Gun control” extremists do not want to regulate firearms.  They do not even want to regulate you.  They want to destroy knowledge, pure and simple.  Though, if they could kill a few peaceful, law-abiding Americans along the way, a disturbing number of them would be sanguine with that (and this is a mere sample of the screencaps I have).

Not only do they want to ban “assault weapons”, they would be absolutely ecstatic if no one could ever make one ever again.  One need only look at their outrage over the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act for an example of this – “gun control” extremists attempted to use lawfare against firearm manufacturers by suing them over the criminal misuse of their products.  The government rightly stepped in and said, “this is dumb,” and the wailing and gnashing of teeth that continues to this day borders on “epic”.

To put it another way, “gun control” is another variation – both morally and functionally – to book-burning… but at least the book-burners were – and, sadly, are – more honest about their motivations.

And lest you think I am being hyperbolic in my comparison, consider the recent YouTube Terms of Service changes wherein they banned any content that included perfectly-legal activities such as demonstrating how to reload ammunition.  The only possible motivation behind this move is to attempt to suppress knowledge and limit its spread – just like with book burnings.

(Note:  Since YouTube is a private corporation, they can set whatever standards they want for the content they host; however, let us be honest about the situation and call it what it is – pure censorship.)

But just as the printing press removed the power of book-burners, so too is the internet rendering “gun control” extremists impotent.  They can no longer control the narrative.  They can no longer massage the message.  They can no longer spout their lies unchallenged.

The truth will out, whether they want it to or not.  That is, after all, one of the reasons I started the “graphics matter” series of posts here – to demonstrate that so much of the information and arguments used by the “gun control” extremists is fundamentally flawed, if not outright dishonest.  That is also why such things as the Ghost Gunner exist – the democratization of technology will ultimately render “gun control” a meaningless phrase, and that is why they hate it.

And that is part of the reason I like assembling firearms at home.  Sure, sue the manufacturers into oblivion.  Shut down the FFLs.  You cannot stop the signal.

So on to the build itself.

“weapons of war”, meme edition

And, of course, there is always the interesting topic that unless they are reservists or otherwise bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, police officers / law enforcement officers / sheriffs / etc. are civilians themselves.  Yes, there are a few “gun control” extremists who want us to pull a once-Great-Britain and disarm our police*, but by and large they have no problems with actual “weapons of war” being on our streets… so long as they are being carried by The Right People.

And lest you believe that the law enforcement officers’ training is exceptional or unachievable by the average man… well, that is simply not true.

 

(* – Of course, the Brits are realizing the error of that particular decision.  Slowly, granted, but still.)

graphics matter, crime edition

Pop quiz time.  For the sake of argument, assume you are on the receiving end of an unlawful assault at this very moment.  Your courses of action are as follows:

1. Attempt no form of self-defense.
2. Attempt to defend yourself against the perpetrator at all.
3. Attempt to defend yourself against the perpetrator specifically using a firearm.

Which of those options do you think will have the lowest probability of you being injured in the situation?

Does your answer change if we are talking about a robbery, as opposed to an assault?

Does your answer change again if we are talking about the lowest probability of your property being stolen from you during a robbery?

Now, remember your answers.  Because, based on this Critical Review of Firearms and Violence by the National Research Council of the National Academies, here are the realities:

In other words, you are almost half as likely to get hurt during a robbery if you employ a firearm to fight back, you are over three quarters less likely to lose personal property during a robbery if you use a firearm to defend yourself, and you are about half as likely to sustain injury during an assault if you stop the attacker with a firearm.

Well then.

It is almost like the “gun control” extremist’s notion of “give them what they want and they will go away” is… nonsense.

About now you will be noticing that while defending yourself with a firearm is strictly better than not defending yourself at all, “all” forms of self-defense are… not as much a sure bet.  The reason for this is simple:

Criminals are not idiots.

The 250lbs. thug is not going to try to assault a 400lbs. linebacker.  Nope, he is going to go for the 90lbs.-soaking-wet cheerleader, and when she tries to fight back with her bare hands, guess what?  It is highly likely that she is going to lose – and get injured in the process – simply due to mass and strength.

Provide her a firearm and a modicum of training, however?  Well, there is a reason why people say, “God made man, Sam Colt made them equal”, or why other people  describe firearms as civilization itself.

Given this data, one really has to wonder why “gun control” extremists want to massively increase your chances of being injured or losing property during an assault or robbery.  Perhaps your safety is not actually their priority?

(Incidentally, while the post is outdated, the results are approximately mirrored for shooting rampages – fighting back at all is better, but fighting back effectively (i.e. with firearms) is best.)

#neveragain

No, an armed Jewish populace probably would not have stopped the Holocaust from happening on some scale.

But armed Jews absolutely would have resulted in more dead Nazis.

And that is a good thing.

Right?

Or, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said regarding a different murderous atrocity in a different socialist country:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

graphics matter, demographics edition

By and large, I am generally disinclined to believe Pew’s / Gallup’s / [insert polling agency here]’s reporting of firearm ownership rates in America.  First and foremost, there are some pretty significant flaws in modern polling methods.  Second and perhaps more importantly, based on my entirely-anecdotal-but-decades-long experience with the firearm-owning public, the probability of an average firearm owner answering truthfully when a random stranger calls them on the phone or knocks on their door asking if they own firearm is… vanishingly small.

However, exclusively for the sake of discussion, I am willing to accept a small part of this 2017 Pew Research Center report on the demographics of firearm ownership.  If you read through it, you will see that people who live in rural areas are approximately 2.4x more likely to own a firearm than people who live in urban areas (46% of rural residents reported owning a firearm, versus 19% of urban residents).

Given that we are talking about rates, Pew has already normalized for the substantial population differences between the two areas, so if the “gun control” extremists’ hypothesis of “more guns = more ‘gun deaths'” were true (we already know it is not, but bear with me here), one would expect rural areas to have a strictly higher rate of firearm-related fatalities, and probably close to 2.4x higher, right?

Unsurprisingly, that hypothesis continues to fail:

 

Please note that that the firearm ownership rate is per 100 people, while the “gun death” rate is per 1,000,000 individuals.  This is necessary to have both numbers significantly visible on the chart.  

 

Naturally, the firearm-related fatality rates come from the CDC’s WISQARS system, by way of their new “Metro / Non-Metro Indicator”.

Naturally, there will be some differences as to how WISQARS counts “urban” incidents as compared to Pew’s methods, but even accounting for those slight variations… well, the chart speaks for itself, as I always endeavor to accomplish.

You know, if they were not so busy trying to paint hundreds of millions of peaceful Americans as children-hating mass-murderers who deserve to have their Constitutionally-protected rights unjustly stripped from them, I would almost feel bad for the “gun control” extremists.  They just cannot seem to catch a break when it comes to the facts of the debate.

 

“gun control” extremists for the past month

I really do wonder if they comprehend the internal inconsistency of their position.  On the one hand, they desperately want to raise the age to purchase a firearm – any firearm – to 21 on account of people apparently not being trustworthy until then.  On the other hand, they appear to believe that children who skip classes in order to throw temper tantrums should be treated with respect and reverence.

But, then, logic has never been a high priority for the “gun control” useful idiots… or a priority at all.

louisiana concealed handgun permit holders are more law-abiding than average

It has been a while since I wrote one of these posts, but since the usual suspects are presently losing their minds at the thought of background-checked, trained individuals peacefully carrying firearms – when those usual suspects already entrust their children to these individuals for up to eight hours a day – it seems time to do another.

This time, we are going to take a look at Louisiana:

Since their Concealed Handgun Permit system’s inception on 19APR96, through until 31DEC16, Louisiana issued 120,391 original permits, and 7,362 lifetime permits, totaling at 127,753 total permits.  (It is worth noting that the concept of a “lifetime permit” did not start in that state until 01AUG13.)

In the same time window, only 2,092 permits have been suspended, and only 1068 have been permanently revoked.

In other words, over the 20 years that Louisiana has had a Concealed Handgun Permit program, they have had a failure rate of only ~0.836%.

Comparatively, in 2016 Louisiana had a total felonious crime rate of approximately 3,863.8 per 100,000 people.

Considering that Louisiana had a crime rate spike in, coincidentally, 1996 at 6,838.8 felonies per 100,000 people, it is entirely reasonable to state that Louisiana Concealed Handgun Permit holders are at least four times less likely to break a serious law than non-permit-holders.  

To bring this all back around to the current topic of debate, Louisiana is a state where school districts can allow teachers who are willing to carry firearms.  Tennessee and Florida also allow districts to decide, and Utah and Texas already have armed teachers in classrooms… and if you look at those older posts, you can see how much of a non-issue this is.

“weapons of war”?

Now that “gun control” is back in the national attention, the usual suspects are demanding that we, once again, pass a federal “assault weapons ban”, with one of the reasons for doing so being, “‘military-style’ ‘weapons of war’ do not belong on our streets!”

Ignore, for a second, that law enforcement agencies – at all levels – already are using actual military hardware and actual weapons of war on our streets, up to and including armored fighting vehicles.

Ignore, for a second, that basically none of the firearms prohibited under the last, failed “Assault Weapons Ban” were used by regular militaries or in wars.

Instead, allow us to ask a relatively simple question: do “gun control” extremists even know what a “weapon of war” is?

We have touched on this concept briefly before, but I think it is time for a deeper dive.  Consider the following examples:

 

This is a “weapon of war”, and one of the highest sniper kill counts recorded was achieved with a rifle like this one, but it was not covered by the previous federal AWB or any state’s ban.  (Incidentally, it is also not legally considered a firearm, given this specific example was manufactured before 1899.)

---

 

This is not a “weapon of war”, but it would have been covered by the previous AWB.  (The stock did not exist at the time, and the fact that it is a .22LR rifle is immaterial to the federal ban; after all, “gun control” extremists hate rimfire rifles.)

---

This is a weapon of war – quite possibly both in the UK and Israel, based on its proof marks – but was not covered by the previous AWB.

---

This is not a weapon of war, and would have been covered by the federal AWB.  (Once again, this particular rifle did not exist at the time, but all of the recent calls for a new “assault weapon ban” take the old law and make it even more expansive, so I feel certain this particular firearm would be included.)

---

This is a weapon of war, and, in fact, one so terrifyingly effective that the Germans protested its use during World War 1.  However, it was not covered by the AWB.

---

This is not a weapon of war, but it was included in the ’94 ban – in fact, it was one of the specifically-named firearms.

---

This is a weapon of war, and was once referred to as “the greatest battle implement ever developed“.  It was not subject to the “assault weapon ban”.

---

This is not a weapon of war, but would have been prohibited by the AWB.

---

This very much is a weapon of war, and might be one of the most pervasive examples of the concept.  However, it was not banned by the federal AWB.

---

This is not a weapon of war, but would still be banned under a repeat federal AWB.

---

Are you starting to see a pattern?

If “gun control” extremists actually want to ban “weapons of war”… why are they not calling for actual weapons of war to be banned with their zombie “assault weapon ban”?

And if all they want to do with this rotting, shambling piece of legislation is only ban “weapons of war” – as they’ve been trying to proclaim for nearly a month now – then why is all that other stuff included in the blast radius?

Perhaps they have no idea what they are talking about.

And perhaps they are being… less than honest.

In either case, why should we take them – or their desires – seriously?

(Note:  Mosin Nagant image copyright 7.62x54r.net.  10/22 image copyright LA Police Gear.  Kel-Tec CMR image copyright Cheaper Than Dirt / Oleg Volk.  Winchester 1897 image copyright Rock Island Auction.  Intratec TEC-9 image copyright EGunner.  M1 Garand image copyright Rock Island Auction.  Hatsan Escort Raider image copyright Hatsan.  SKS image copyright Classic Firearms.  Kel-Tec SU-16E image copyright Sportsman’s Guide.)

enforce the laws on the books

One would think, given their endless clamoring for more laws, regulations, and restrictions, “enforce the laws on the books” would be a notion that “gun control” extremists would agree with.

Sadly, one would be wrong.

Consider, for example, the peculiar case of Scott Pappalardo.

On 17FEB18, in response to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting three days prior, Scott filmed himself cutting up his 30-year-old AR-15 in an attempt to virtue-signal his support for “gun control”.

In the process, he also committed a federal felony.

Specifically, Scott Pappalardo illegally made a short-barreled rifle (SBR) without paying the appropriate tax stamp, and in so doing, he violated at least sections (c), (d), and (f) of the 26 United States Code § 5861.  Per the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives National Firearms Act Handbook, this offense can carry up to a 10 year prison sentence and up to a $250,000 fine.

Bear in mind this is a strict liability offense – neither mens rea nor intent factors into the specific law.  Intent only applies to the creation of the rifle itself; once the rifle already exists, taking a hacksaw to the barrel, regardless of whether you intend to make an SBR or knew that doing so would create an SBR, is a crime, all by itself.

It is worth noting that Scott did, eventually, also cut up the receiver; however, he only cut it once, and with the same saw.  There seems to be some disagreement over the legal requirements to destroy a firearm, but, regardless, he cut the barrel first, thereby making the SBR, before he arguably destroyed the evidence of the crime.

To my knowledge, as of this post’s date, Mr. Pappalardo has not been arrested or charged with the appropriate crime(s).  That is, unfortunately, to be expected; prosecutorial discretion – i.e. selective enforcement of the law – is a time-honored loophole for useful idiots that the government wants to protect, or at least does not want to pursue.  But what is really interesting is how the “gun control” community has reacted to this law-breaker.

They are holding him up as a hero.

Around the country, “gun control” extremists are referring to Scott as “level-headed, conscientious”, “a man with a conscience and a soul”, a “good man”, and so forth.  Others hoped other firearm owners would replicate his “powerful statement”.  Even the local chapter of a “gun control” astroturf farm stuck their hand in the blender, describing Scott’s actions as “commendable”.  They later deleted that tweet – I wonder why?

And much like school shooters themselves, the popularity and media attention showered on Scott Pappalardo has prompted copycats, notably Karen Mallard, who happens to be running for Congress out of district VA-02.  She, at least, had the presence of mind to delete her video from Facebook and YouTube after scores of people pointed out that she was violating federal laws, but, as they say, the internet is forever [Update: it appears I spoke too soon about Karen’s wisdom – she reposted the video on her Facebook page]:

Once again, she cut the barrel first.  In Karen’s case, I have no idea if she ever got around to cutting up the receiver – the part of the firearm that is legally considered The Firearm – so she may still have an illegal, and illegally-made SBR on her hands.  So far as I know, there is no clause in the Constitution preventing felons from serving in Congress, but I imagine the 10-year sentence might get in the way of her aspirations.  Assuming she is prosecuted, of course… which she will not be, of course.

In both cases, if Scott or Karen had simply adequately destroyed the receiver first, we would all be shaking our heads at the senseless destruction of perfectly functional firearms, but no crime would have been committed.  Hell, if they had simply removed the uppers from the lowers first, they still would not have committed a crime (though we are entering into an uncomfortable grey area there).  However, cutting the barrel of a rifle to less than 16 inches, while it is still attached to the rifle, is very much a crime, with some very stiff penalties.

Lest anyone think I am joking about the severity of this felony, allow me to remind you that a man’s dog, son, and wife were all murdered by government agents – the last while unarmed and literally holding their 10-month-old child in her arms – all because he cut the barrel of a few firearms about 3/8″ too short.  Karen Mallard and Scott Pappalardo cut their barrels about a foot too short, and thanks to them “trying to do the right thing”, they will escape prosecution.

And, you know what?  I am sanguine with that.  You see, this situation is a win-win for the pro-rights community.

One of two things will happen:

1. The Federal Government will prosecute these numerous “unconvicted felons”.  In that case, yes, the laws on the books will be enforced, which will be a perfect opportunity to demonstrate just how ridiculous malum prohibitum laws are, and, let us be honest – 99% of firearm laws are malum prohibitum.  Histrionics and hysterics aside, SBRs are no more dangerous than any other rifle or handgun, and the additional tax stamp and background check to make or purchase them is patently ridiculous.
2. The Federal Government will decline to prosecute these virtue-signallers who helpfully recorded their felonies on tape.  In that case, I guess we are not enforcing the laws on the books, which calls into question why we have the laws to begin with, if we are not going to bother prosecuting people who violate them.

And all the while, the “gun control” extremists and organizations are trapped in an absolutely delicious Morton’s Fork.  Either they mount their white knight atop his valiant steed and come to the defense of these ignoramuses who committed rather serious federal felonies, or they throw these useful idiots under the bus and ignore the Holy and Glorious Deed they were attempting to accomplish.  Because a felony committed for The Right Reason is acceptable, right?

Like I said, it is a win-win… for the folks on the right side of history.

So what is it going to be, “gun control” extremists?  Shall we enforce the laws on the books, and throw these would-be do-gooders – in your universe, at least – in a federal penitentiary, as they deserve?

Or shall we ignore their offenses, because reasons?

And if we do ignore people breaking the law when it is convenient, remind me again why we should take your mewling for more laws seriously?

(NOTE:  I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.  Nothing I say here should be construed as legal advice or guidance.)

graphics matter, part two, 2018 edition

The first version of this post (on this site, at least) provides the full explanation of how and why this series exists, but the same two disclaimers from the first part of this year’s edition apply to this one as well:  “more guns = more ‘gun violence'” is not my hypothesis, and I am not setting out to prove causation.

As with last year’s update, I am using the usual sources:  the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2015, the Centers for Disease Control, the Small Arms Survey of 2003, the BATFE’s Firearms Commerce in the United States, and Radical Gun Nuttery.

So, have the “gun control” extremists’ pipe dream of “more guns = more ‘gun violence'” finally come true?

You probably already know the answer.

The rate of average firearm ownership in America and the rate of crimes committed with firearms correlates with a coefficient of -0.734, indicating a strong, negative correlation between the two.

The raw number of firearms in America and the raw number of crimes committed with firearms correlates with a coefficient of -0.40019, indicating a negative correlation between the two.

In other words, the hypothesis of “more guns = more ‘gun violence’ remains false.  Still.

(Feel free to check my work (*.xlsx file).)

(Important note:  It has come to my attention that comparing, for example, this year’s correlation numbers to last year’s correlation numbers will be inherently flawed, on account of both the FBI and the CDC going back and updating/correcting/etc. information up to five years in the past.  The most-recent “graphics matter” post will have the most-recent information from both sources, but the previous years’ information from last year’s posts may have been updated/changed.  I do not know how, for example, the CDC managed to misrecord the US population from four years ago, but it is a little annoying.)