You Might Be A Gun Control Activist If…

Gun-Control-911

You might be a gun control activist if…

You think Shannon watts makes a lot of sense if people would just listen to her.

You think that Shannon could deliver her message more effectively if she talked slow and loud, like you do when visiting foreign countries.

You’ve had a pot luck supper at Michael Bloomberg’s house.

You’ve smoked pot with Michael Bloomberg.

You think that the FBI has fudged crime statistics data for the past 20 years because Wayne LaPierre takes them out for CiCi’s pizza every Tuesday.

You’ve ever said “If it could save just one life…

You’ve never used the phrase “If it could save just one life” when it comes to drunk driving, swimming pool drownings, or car accidents.

You’ve ever uttered the words “If it could save just one life” while drinking a glass of wine by your swimming pool.

You’re convinced that law abiding citizens, who take a class, submit fingerprints, get probed by the FBI and wait months for a permit, are the root cause of drive by shootings.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons, terrorism and the unchecked spread of Shake Weight use.

That millions of Americans who knew how to shoot didn’t make all that much difference when it came to winning World Wars I and II. Everyone knows the French turned the tide in our favor.

You believe that Riker’s Island inmates are more scared of “No guns allowed” signs than clowns, Freddie Kreuger or Rosie O’Donnell.

You choose not to remember that the biggest, baddest assault weapons in existence were owned by private citizens when the 2nd Amendment was written.

You believe you are 937 times more likely to die by spontaneous combustion or killer bunions if you have a gun in your home.

You think that the people with the least amount of relevant knowledge have all the great ideas.

Read the rest at AmmoLand!

Gun Crime, Pabst Blue Ribbon and Mikey on the Hamster Wheel

New York Safe ActGun Crime makes me sick.

But just the “crime” part, not the “gun” part.

If I hear someone say “gun crime” or “gun deaths” one more time, I’m gonna start puking up bearded Llama puppies. (Tweet This) Do you call the little ones puppies? I’m not sure, but I’ll be ejecting them from my mouth none-the-less.

The whole “about to vomit” thing comes from the fact that I can’t get my laparoscopic adjustable gastric band around the fact that…

People believe that if you remove the “gun” part, the crimes won’t happen. Poof! They disappear! Kind of like Benghazi witnesses. (Tweet This)

To me, that’s like believing you can wave a magic scepter to vanquish all of the Pabst Blue Ribbon DUI’s. Do you think this would reduce the number of drunks on the road? Seriously? At best, it would simply improve the “quality” of drunkenness. More people would be drinking beer of better repute once PBR has been removed from the supply chain.

If you were paying attention to the PBR analogy, you probably figured out what happens when Pabst becomes extinct. People drink other types of beer. Like National Bohemian. Some might even switch to hard cider if they’re feeling really rambunctious.

Of course you could ban all the cheap beers, and cider too. But folks would simply start drinking the hard stuff.

Heck, some people might even drop those little umbrellas in their cocktails – and that would be tragic indeed.

Do you see where this is going? It’s an endless game of trying to remove objects associated with bad behavior, while blissfuly ignoring the fact that behavior is, well, a behavioral problem. You can ban one object, only to have the problem continue with different objects. It reminds me of a dog chasing it’s tail. Or Harry Reid continuing to insist that people love Obamacare.

I like to picture a miniature Michael Bloomberg (yeah, I know, he’s kind a Napoleonic mini-tyrant anyway) running in one of those hamster wheels. He runs, and runs, but never accomplishes anything. Run Mikey, run!

And therein lies the problem.

Drunk driving is a behavioral problem. Removing one type of drunk juice from the equation solves nothing. Heck, we tried to remove all the drunk juice from the equation and that was a miserable failure. Can you say Prohibition? The behavior never went away.

Crime is also a behavioral problem. Removing guns, or placing restrictions on them does not remove evil intent from the hearts of darkness.(Tweet This)

You can ban all the guns you want, but nothing positive has ever been accomplished by that. Australia did it. Crime went up. The UK did it. Crime went up.

I think the primary argument of the gun ban crowd is based on this flawed assumption. If you remove guns, then any crimes previously associated with guns will simply not happen.

This flawed assumption smacked me upside the head with a recent discussion with Phil the Australian. Phil seems to be a really nice guy, and I enjoyed a very polite and civil discussion with him online. I’d like to meet him over a good Australian beer. I hear they don’t really like Fosters over there — apparently it’s for tourists or something — so if we ever meet in person, I’ll trust him completely on his selection of beverage.

The basic gist of my part of the discussion was this.

Let’s suppose we live in Obama-Topia, a place with 100 murders per year, and 70 of those murders involve guns and 30 some other murderous weapon. Now, we get smart, and use our disappearing gun ray to remove all the guns. Yet, we still have 100 murders a year, but none of them involve guns. Yay! Zero gun deaths! But the people who have been “death-ed” by some means other than guns really don’t feel much better, do they?

My point is, both Australia and the UK have had either unchanged, or in the case of the UK, INCREASING murder rates since their major gun control initiatives. Guns or no guns. In fact, in the UK, the “gun related” murder rate has actually gone up since their gun ban. And of course their overall murder rate has gone UP since their gun ban. Australia’s has stayed relatively flat before, during and after.

By the way, things like assault and forcible rape are 2 to 4 times more likely in the UK and Australia, respectively, as the US. Just sayin’ you know.(Tweet This)

Another side note, gun ownership in Australia is essentially back to where it was before the 96/97 buyback, yet the murder rate really hasn’t changed as a percentage. Huh? If you’re going to make major changes, you would expect the crime rates to change as a result, no?

So, if crime, murder, rape, assault, armed robbery et al. do not change regardless of the tools used, who cares?

I want CRIME down. Not gun crime. Or electric stapler crime. Or Silly Putty crime.(Tweet This)

The only thing that’s relevant is the overall crime rate.

If I’m to be murdered, I certainly won’t consider it a moral victory if I’m murdered with something other than a gun. If I’m the murderee, then a gun control policy that ensures I was murdered with something other than a gun really doesn’t help me.

The flaw in the gun ban argument is that if you remove the guns (or knives, or electric staplers) then those types of crimes go away. They don’t.

That. Has. Never. Happened. Ever.

Because you can’t solve a behavioral problem without addressing the, ummm, behavior.

Grab a copy of my free eBook, A Fistful of Shooting Tips. It will help make you a better shooter and the envy of your range in no time.

2014 – The Year of 2nd Amendment Goblins, Trolls and a Few Fairies

Proving that few people have sense or good judgement, I’ve been invited to contribute articles to Bearing Arms. You might know them, along with 1.1 million other people, as 2nd Amendment on Facebook. Check them out. Subscribe. Get involved. Sign up for an Appleseed event in 2014, and better yet, bring a friend!

Here’s a link to today’s article at Bearing Arms

2014 is going to be the year of relentless attack on our Second Amendment rights.

His Royal-ness the Dishonorable Nanny-pants Bloomberg is now unemployed, and will be able to devote his full and undivided attention to helping us understand what’s best for us. We have a President in office, who, while not otherwise occupied vacationing, seems to believe that his lack of experience qualifies him to make unilateral decisions that no one else wants or agrees with. And last but not least, Vice President Grumpy McCrankyPants has not yet been distracted by a new Cracker Jacks trinket, so he’s still on a gun control rampage. Oh yeah, and Piers Morgan still lives here.

With all that looming in front of us, it’s time that everyone understands the real history of the Second Amendment.  You heard it here first folks…

A Second Amendment Fairy Tale

Once upon a time…

In a faraway land called Murrica, there was a great struggle, lasting many days and nights. You see, the settlers of Murrica were tormented by an insatiable and covetous evil troll known as George Threepence. While George lived across the great waters, in the hinterlands, he insisted on taxing the settlers with many fees and regulations. After all, he did not get the name George Threepence for his generosity.

Fed up with overzealous overdraft fees and parking tickets without representation, the villagers of Murrica were desperate to be free of the troll. They called upon a new leader, George Chiseled-Face for help. George Chiseled-Face had a plan. He knew that the good people of Murrica were well schooled in the use of magic kablooey powder and many of them maintained stores of it for their personal protection and other uses.

Without delay, George Chiseled-Face rode throughout the land of Murrica, yelling at the top of his lungs, “Militia! Militia! That means you – all you settlers of Murrica!” And it was in this way, that the people of Murrica had determined to organize themselves into a fighting force to oust George Threepence, the troll. For the people did not trust big armies like George the troll had. They preferred to call themselves up to service and yell “Militia!” with great enthusiasm as needs arose. It was most exhilarating!

Using their wits, a collection of farm animals and copious quantities of magic kablooey powder, the good people of Murrica, led by George Chiseled-Face and many fair and white-wigged princes, fought battle after battle with troll George’s Red Socks, until finally forcing them out at home plate.

Read the rest at Bearing Arms!

Ammo Test: Winchester PDX1 Defender .38 Special +P 130 Grain

When I lug my ammunition testing setup to the range, I get more strange looks than Michael Bloomberg lactating at a Mayors Against Legal Governing (MALG) press conference.

That’s because I bring a couple of now-perforated trash cans full of soaking wet newspaper, some old boots and a bunch of discarded clothing. Shooting into water or plain ballistic gelatin doesn’t tell too much about bullet performance after it has passed through real-world barriers. So I assemble a suitable range wardrobe.

Recently, I brought 1/2 of a fully stocked thrift store to the range to test the Winchester PDX1 Defender .38 Special +P 130 grain self-defense load.

Winchester's PDX1 Defender .38 Special +P self-defense load.

Winchester’s PDX1 Defender .38 Special +P self-defense load.

This load is solid for .38 Special handguns, but also makes a good option for .357 revolvers. Some folks like to shoot .38 Special loads out of sturdier .357 revolvers for less recoil and wear and tear on the gun. Of course, the option is always there to load 357 Magnum cartridges whenever you like.

Velocity

Considering that this load uses 130 grain projectiles, velocity was appropriate. I tested it from a Ruger LCR .357 Magnum revolver, which features a 1.875 inch barrel. That’s shorter than NY Governor Cuomo’s debate on the SAFE Act! Using a Shooting Chrony Beta Master Chronograph, I measured a bunch of shots with the chrony placed 15 feet down range. The average of the Winchester PDX1 Defender 130 grain load worked out to 903 feet per second. Not too shabby, and enough for pretty reliable expansion.

Winchester PDX1 Defender .38 Special +P Expansion Performance

I shot another pile of these bullets into a pretty tough target to get an indication of expansion performance. While anything will expand if you shoot it into ballistic gelatin, things start to get crazy when you shoot through real-life barriers like leather and fabric clothing. To put it to the test, I shot through two layers of leather and 4 layers of light canvas. Not counting anything hard that might get in the way, this starts to approach a worst case heavy clothing scenario.

Winchester PDX1 38 Special +P

Expansion was good overall. Throughout testing over 75% of projectiles expanded properly.

I shot everything through the leather and canvas barrier into a deep container of wet pack. That’s a fancy word for soaking-wet newspaper. As you can see by the photo, most projectiles displayed good expansion. About 1/4 of the time, one would slip through with minimal or no expansion. That’s not a big surprise given .38 Special velocities out of a short-barrel revolver.

Closing Arguments

This was a good load. After testing thousands of self-defense rounds, in virtually all pistol calibers, I’ve become a big fan of bonded bullet designs. I’ve yet to encounter a quality bonded bullet that came apart while passing through a tough target. Like jacketed designs, expansion is always measured in probability, not certainty, but overall, bonded bullets have proven to be solid performers.

Check out other My Gun Culture product reviews here!

You can find Winchester PDX1 Defender Self Defense Ammunition at Brownells

Top 5 Reasons to Own a Gun

1. Because you can’t (legally) poke Michael Bloomberg in the eye.

But you can figuratively, by exercising your Second Amendment right. Every time someone guys a gun, a bell rings. Wait a sec, that’s not right. Every time a bell rings, Chuck Schumer sprouts bat wings. No, hang on, we’ll get it. Every time someone buys a gun, one of the Mayors Against Legal Governing commits another crime. That’s close enough for government work… Do you want to know why Dianne Feinstein and Bloomie (allegedly) wear Depends? Because Second Amendment, that’s why!

Lots of guns - rifles, pistols, ar15

Buy a gun. Better yet, several.

2. Because the MK-19 Automatic Grenade Launcher is too heavy.

It’s a crew served weapon after all and generally takes 3 people to move and operate it. The gun itself if a whopping 72 pounds. The tripod adds another 44 pounds, and the small and large ammo cans are 42 and 60 pounds respectively. Plus the large ammo belt of 40mm grenades has recently been banned in New York and Colorado. While the blast radius offers excellent self-defense capability, it’s hard on the back, surrounding buildings and low flying aircraft.

3. Because Uncle Sam says so.

No, not Uncle Barack. Uncle Sam. No, not the bearded guy in the World War II posters. I mean Uncle Sam Adams. You know, the guy who invented beer. Oh, and he also proposed this verbiage for U.S. Constitution ratification at the Massachusetts convention: “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

Opening grape jelly the easy way.

Opening grape jelly the easy way.

4. Nothing opens a jar of grape jelly like a .357 Sig hollow point.

Forget those rubber pads and Black and Decker electric jar openers. Try opening your condiments with gusto and plenty of drama! Because YOLO…

5. Because you can.

You have a God-given, not government granted right to protect yourself and your loved ones. It’s as simple as that.

Cheaper Than Navel Lint Files Chapter 11

Navel Lint Fluff

Navel lint fluff collected by librarian Graham Parker

In a prepared statement released today, upstart online shooting sports discounter Cheaper Than Navel Lint announced that it has filed for bankruptcy protection.

Few industry insiders were surprised today by Cheaper Than Navel Lint’s bankruptcy announcement. While company leaders have always expressed confidence, few outside the firm were optimistic about the company’s ability to compete with established online shooting supplies retailer Cheaper Than Dirt, America’s Ultimate Shooting Sports Discounter.

“We thought we had a really good business model” stated the company’s CEO, Michael Bloomberg. “From day one, our objective was to compete head on with CheaperThanDirt.com. Obviously dirt is pretty cheap, but we thought there was room for improvement. After all, dirt is not free and some people even pay for it. We were pretty optimistic that we could find something even cheaper than dirt and use that as the foundation of our marketing campaign.”

According to early investor, librarian Graham Barker, the idea to form the company came to him after years of collecting his own navel lint. “When the people from the Guinness Book of World Records declared my 26 year old collection of navel lint as the world’s largest, I started thinking about ways to turn a profit from my creepy habits.” stated Barker. “It was pure chance that I met Michael Bloomberg at an infomercial product convention. Once he told me of his search to find something cheaper than dirt, I knew we had the foundation for a great partnership.”

After 18 months of operation, the firm failed to make any product sales, which ultimately led to the bankruptcy filing. “I’m ready to give it another shot” stated an upbeat Bloomberg. “Next time we’ll probably go with a marketing campaign that’s a little less disturbing though.”

Legal Disclosures about articles on My Gun Culture