Snowflakes in Hell

Thanks to The Real Gun Guys for pointing to this very informative article on ballistics from the point of view of a coroner.

Styer MP 34

Bergmann MP 18.1

MP 40

Tsing Tao

If all that is from this guy’s personal collection, you can consider me officially jealous.

Sounds like an interesting book to me.  I an intrigued by this part:

One of Shirky’s central arguments centres on the concept of mass amateurisation. In the same way that the printing press brought the written word to the masses, the internet is equipping anyone with an interest with the tools necessary to take on almost any task. In public affairs parlance, we might call the same concept by a different name: democratisation.

Anyone who has observed the effectiveness of well-funded NGOs backed by hundreds of thousands of supporters has seen its impact. This, Shirky would argue, demonstrates the de-professionalisation of public affairs.

We’re seeing that here in the gun rights movement.  Our political power has risen with the rise of the Internet and New Media, while our opponents have fallen.  If the premise of this book is correct, it will bode well for gun rights.  For the gun control groups, there is no “Everybody” to come.  I can count on one hand the number of comments and e-mails I’ve gotten supporting gun control.  Marshall closes with this:

While specialists will always be necessary to help clients navigate the vagaries of government, when it comes to making an impact, public affairs practitioners have a choice: adapt activities in light of the societal changes that the internet is sweeping forward or be tethered to methods and approaches whose effectiveness will steadily decline in coming years.

The NRA has been getting on board with this idea, slowly, but I think they understand it.  Our blog bash event in Louisville will be the first NRA Annual Meeting that will have bloggers, new media and Internet activists interacting formally with The National Rifle Association.  For many of us, this will be the first annual meeting we’ve ever attended, so it should be a good time.

The Brady Campaign, VPC, and many other gun control groups have yet not been able to capitalize on bloggers and new media.  In future battles, the Brady Campaign organization will become irrelevant, because they bear the burdens of a group that’s funded by a handful of wealthy donors.  The future of the gun control movement, and the only place it will find any real grassroots, is overseas.

One of the great injustices of the Lautenberg amendment, that prohibited people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing firearms, is that it applied retroactively to people who were completely unaware their convictions imposed a firearms disability on them when, in many cases, they plead guilty, because the charge was just a misdemeanor, rather than spending the money to fight it.

Apparently the Supreme Court is planning to hear a case on this.  I think punishments applied to criminals applied retroactively does violate ex-post facto.  Will the judges agree?  I hope so, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

UPDATE: Dave Hardy has more details here.  It seems the question at hand is a bit different than I thought.  The question is whether the offense needs to have a domestic violence component to it, or whether it merely means that any violent offense against a domestic partner applies.

Apparently the good people of the Greek Island of Lesbos are less than happy.

Happy May Day to all you damned communists out there.

From TigerHawk:

If your answer to losing is to declare yourself “done with politics,” then you don’t really have the stamina necessary to be a participating citizen. Which is just as well. Democracy requires the continuing participation of the losers, and if you do not have the stones to play the game again the next time then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Giving up just reinforces the loss.  When handed a bad hand, like we’ve been handed this year with McCain walking away with the nomination, a redoubling of efforts makes more sense than quitting.

H/T to Instapundit

This isn’t a rule that will affect her properly disarmed constituents, so I don’t get why she cares:

“I never thought I’d see the day when the Interior Department of the United States would allow weapons - including concealed weapons - to be carried freely in our national parks and wildlife refuges. To me, this is appalling, and puts both people and animals at risk.

Don’t worry Diane, California prohibits guns in parks.  You won’t be able to carry there, since you’re so upset about this.

This change makes no sense. It would create an incoherent, ineffective, and inconsistent patchwork of policies - across the country, and in some places within the same national parks. For example, Death Valley National Park is in California and Nevada. California prohibits loaded and accessible weapons in its state parks. Nevada does not. So which state law would apply at Death Valley National Park?

It’s pretty simple.  The portion of the park in Nevada follows Nevada law.  The portion in California follows California law.  I thought that was pretty clear in the rule.

Looks like Kahr arms has jumped into the pocket rocket market with a .380 as well.  I’m still debating on whether to get a pistol of this class myself.  I’ve typically carried around a Glock 19, almost exclusively, because I don’t enjoy shooting small guns, and figure I won’t practice enough with one.  But I’ll tell you, it’s tough in the summer.  There are ways to make a Glock 19 disappear in summer attire, but if you want to look more dressy, and be comfortable, a pocket rocket is just what you need.

H/T to SayUncle

On training requirements for license holders in the state:

Recent complaints to state officials pointed out that almost anyone who wants to carry a handgun to the movies, mall or church can do so. The shortcomings they cited include training that allows firing bullets without gunpowder, and passing students for merely pulling the trigger once or twice without ever loading or unloading a handgun.

Quickie permit classes had become so common, the National Rifle Association threatened this month to fire any NRA-certified instructor who didn’t use real guns to teach students in Florida.

Here in Pennsylvania, we don’t have any training requirement, so pretty clearly we must have innocent bystanders and children being shot on a regular basis, right?  Second, NRA is just the certifying body.  Instructors are not employees.  NRA could revoke their credentials, but not fire them.

Shoddy training became an issue this month, more than a year after a retired military officer first complained to Gov. Charlie Crist about classes at gun shows.

“You can only train a corpse in 3 hours,” Col. James K. Otto Sr., an NRA instructor from North Florida, wrote to the governor. “Our NRA certified instructors take 3 days to a week to make sure their students not only know the law but also know how to handle firearms and ammunition safely with at least a half day firing at a local range.”

And no doubt this guy wants Florida to mandate a longer training course, which he so generously offers, at a fairly high price, I’m guessing.  It doesn’t take long to teach someone to be reasonably competent with a pistol.  It can be done in 3 hours, which includes going over relevant law.  I’ve rarely encountered a new shooter who can’t shoot well enough to defend themselves if given the fundamentals.  You don’t have to be a marksman to defend yourself.  Most encounters happen in under 5 yards.

Hammer, a former NRA president and one of the state’s most powerful lobbyists, alerted NRA national headquarters. Within days, every NRA-certified instructor in Florida was warned they would lose their credentials for not using real guns with real bullets in class.

They should be cracking down on people who aren’t allowing students live fire.  That is not up to NRA standards for training, and those people should lose their certifications if they are doing it.  But it doesn’t point to a problem with Florida law.

“In Florida, where you’re permitting them to legally carry a loaded, hidden handgun in a crowded situation where people may be running all over the place and then you’re expecting them with no training to hit their mark — that’s crazy,” said Brian Malte, the [Brady Campaign's] director of state legislation and politics. “Law-enforcement officers . . . miss their mark 80 percent of the time even after all the training they get.”

Cops who are good shots are good shots because they take their trade seriously, and train on their own.  The same with CCL holders.  The training is not meant to make people competent marksmen, it’s meant to give them a start.  Competent marksmanship only comes with practice.

Could peripheral vision psychosis be responsible for mass shootings?  It sounds pretty far fetched, but I will definitely tell you, when I was in a cubicle situation where I constantly had people walking by, I found myself to be far more on edge than I’ve been in an office, even though my workplace overall stress level has been a lot higher.  Here’s what the it suggests:

When you create the “special circumstances” so that the startle is attempted many times each hour, for several hours daily, and for many days, the subliminal appreciation of threat eventually colors thought and reason.

Of course, I just found it hard to concentrate on work, but having people walking by all day definitely raised the stress level.  Could it drive some people over the edge?

New Jersey may want to tax fast food:

The thought of taxing a Big Mac or a Wendy’s burger came up at a New Jersey Hospital Association meeting where Gov. Jon S. Corzine was asked if it could be an option to help fund struggling hospitals. At the meeting, he reportedly called it a “constructive suggestion.”

A spokesperson for the governor, however, told CBS 2 on Wednesday:

“The governor is open to reasonable solutions to help solve our financing problems, but there are no plans for any fast food tax.”

So, New Jersey, How’s that one party rule treating you?  As a side note, the medical community are starting to get awfully meddlesome.  Do we really want these guys suckling at the government teat more than they already do, so they have even worse incentives to demand government force us to be healthy, or else?