"Of course, the whole blowjob scandal will have long since dethroned President Carlos."

I told you it was a bad idea to make a video for "family and friends".
With what would you arm cops? Or would you go to the english billy clubs and doc martins approach.
actually, this is less of a point in todays age, as m-16 are being walked around every major place in nyc.

Law enforcement excepted. Some might say that gives the upper hand to an armed government. I respond: You're going to challenge the government with handguns? Break out the big irons!

Who needs videotape when you have a live audience?

I'm a little off my feed to be playing devil's advocate for owning handguns, but I think that the Excellent plan needs a bit more oomph in one department. Namely, the assumption is that handguns are all about crime. And in fact, they are. But they are also about power (which includes crime, of course). I think this is what the good folks in Geuda Springs are thinking about here, as was discussed in a recent post.

It seems in some people's minds that having a well-armed citizenry creates a situation that makes armed overthrow difficult. In other words, the price of governmental stability is a somewhat higher rate of crime and accidental deaths. Take away the crime and accidental shootings (good thing) and the governmental stability goes with it (bad thing). The prospect of having to track down and kill 100 million nutjobs squirreled away in their forest shack is enough to keep the government from infringing too far on the rights of the people.

How does the Plan respond to this reasoning? Can you know that there is no connection? How does this relate to our recent adventures abroad? We have been taking guns away left and right in order to make it less dangerous for us to come in and reorder Iraqi and Afghan society. It may be safer for everyone, but is it not also about enforcing our authority there, which is not necessarily the will of the people?

I believe shortening shotgun barrels is already illegal; they must exceed 18" (mine is 18‡").

I'm not a pro-gun guy, so I shouldn't speak to them. But I think they take great comfort in the opposite idea: That the government, led by Clinton, won't swoop in with black helicopters and put barcodes on people's foreheads because the populace is armed. A well-armed people can overthrow the government. And I addressed that point above: Handguns were never going to help defeat an Army platoon. A population armed with rifles and shotguns is still, from a strategic standpoint, armed.

Garmr --

Yeah, for the most part. I'd get rid of them entirely, and might consider requiring an even longer length, though I haven't researched it. Do you really need 18 1/2 inches to shoot a bunny rabbit? Or a person? Your aim's not that bad, is it?

I have seen garmr's 18.5 inches, and i must say, every 0.5 inch is intimidating.
However, as i look outside my lab window at an erect crane, building an even greater erection, i become...stimulated to express, " i've seen bigger".

if cops have handguns, it seems like the ammo would be easy to aquire, not to mention that cops would be temped to sell it on the black market for significant profit--and then just go get some more. In fact, i see a new mob market suppling ammo and guns to americans in the same way liquor was distributed in the 20s.
cats and dogs, living together, mass histeria.
i see problems with your plan.

Alert the media, here I am speaking on garmr's behalf about his shotgun. garmr will most likely come in and correct me, but I thought I'd toss in a word or two from a guy who doesn't own (or want) a gun, but doesn't really mind that garmr has one.

From conversations we've had about it, I gather the following: The shorter barrel makes for wider spread, which makes it easier to "aim", since it's more of a cone effect. This can come in handy when pulling the gun out and firing it in a really big hurry in your dark house because someone you can barely see has broken in and you want to let them know that was a bad idea. Also, it goes with the reason garmr has a shotgun rather than a bullet-gun (of any size) for this purpose. Namely, that there's MUCH less chance of an errant shot going through a wall and hitting an innocent bystander outside, or even next door. A shorter-barreled shotgun, when used indoors, presents virtually no risk to anyone outside (unless shooting out the window, I guess), but still presents a convincing argument, so to speak, to the unwanted visitors.

if anyone breaks into my house, I'd probably have to hit him over the head with my bow (since I wouldn't have time to string it and I can't find my arrows).

Sure, some cops will sell their ammo. Some would have theirs stolen. And bullets would be on the street. But how many? A great deal fewer than now. People criticize gun restrictions by saying

• They have holes in them
• The determined criminal will still get hold of them, and
• Therefore we shouldn't have restrictions

But it doesn't have to work perfectly. It just has to work well enough. If deaths were halved, or even reduced by a third, would you throw up your hands and say "what a failure" and throw the law out?

As for Garmr's shotgun, I'm mostly needling him. I'm more concerned about people taking legal shotguns and cutting them down to illegal size in order to conceal them. But I would have to say that a wide dispersal is not a necessity for home defense. It may reduce the chance you hit the guy, but really, the reduction is not enormous. If you miss the guy, he's not likely to keep charging forward, snarling, "Ha! Those liberal gun controllers reduced your spread! Loser!" He's going to retreat.

"But what if I'm being attacked by six heavily armed commandos?" says a plaintive voice. If that's the case, my friend, you have bigger problems than gun-control laws. I suggest the Witness Protection Program.

I worded poorly. An armed populace cannot easily be barcoded (although they don't mind going to Walmart where everything IS barcoded and carrying a credit card in their pocket with their own personal barcode on it instead of them). Neither will farmers armed with 30-06 deer rifles overthrow the government which has much bigger toys to play with. Standoff = stability.

I guess the reason for my post (which I never really got around to saying) is that it is the fact that handguns and assault weaponry actually do have the potential to kill more than just wildlife that gives it the potential to create the standoff = stability formula. At least so goes the argument. Does it hold true? I'm not sure of that, but I don't think it is easy to entirely dismiss either.

One difference between a liquor black market and a weapons black market is that it's pretty easy for anyone to make bathtub hooch, but almost no one can cobble together a decent Glock.

DoubleOh,

Making the ammo's pretty hard, too. Gotta... place... those... damn... firing caps... just right...

Carlos, do you have any idea how many hand-loading sets exist in the US? I can load ammo. But there I'm just needling you, as turn about's fair play.

But back to my fat 18‡ inches: why so short? Less about spread, more about tactics; a short barrel is easier to manuever in confined locations. In fact, the spread on my 3-inch-magnum, 00-buckshot rounds is pretty tight, just like I like it. I'm not the best shot among the cops and ex-soldiers I hunt with, but I can hold my own.

Like grandpa always said, close up and personal, a knife or trenching spade will do fine, but a pistol or short gun will do better.

No idea how many hand-loading sets are in the U.S. I do suspect, however, that the number is far fewer than that of users of handgun ammunition in the U.S. I suspect that vast majority of users, be they criminals or currently legal users, use the ol' fashioned store-bought variety. If you have figures to the contrary, I'm all ears.

And as for short over long barrels, exactly how much maneuvering room do you need? How many enemies are you killing? And, if you're not killing enemies, how much hunting do you do in confined spaces?

ever try to turn a corner or go through a door with a horizontal broom in your hand? the rise/fall of the barrel takes time, and time is what you don't have a lot of when guns are involved.

And my short-barrel gun isn't for hunting. I bought it when I lived across from the drug dealers who trained their fighting-dogs in the street with palettes and cinderblocks.

I remember those winners. Missouri Street, right?

Couldn't you turn the shotgun vertically when you're getting to the spot, then horizontally when you're ready to fire? Seems to me that if it's a space in which a person can walk, it's a space one can also level a gun.

Alabama Street.

Can you move with the gun vertical? Yes, if you have to. Do you want to? Not if you want the gun pointing in the direction of the enemy/intruder. This is the reason all modern assault rifles are moving toward the "bullpup," shortbarrel design. It also makes it more difficult for someone to grab the front of the gun and turn it aside before you can fire.

Really, Carlos, shortbarrel guns are universally recomended by people who fight indoors. I'd find you the links, but I'm headed to Haven for some home-cooking; I'll find some info about it when I get back.

Really, Carlos, shortbarrel guns are universally recomended by people who fight indoors.

Yes. Like military people, who fight indoors, in cities and in close quarters often enough that every contingency must be thought of. But you with your shotgun at home don't need to think of every contingency. Your gun will still fire out the window. Across the kitchen. Down the hall. On the back porch.

In the end, I suppose an 181/2 inch barrel is (barely) acceptable, because with its total length it's still tough to hide. But unless you live in a trailer or a New York apartment, you're going to have plenty of room to swing and shoot. And if you live in either of those places, you have no business firing a shotgun anyway.

Don't tell me I misspelled "possession" every single time I wrote it. I had a professor who would rise up from the grave and stalk my children if he found out.

Carlos, your numbers on barrel length in NYC for illegality are
Rifle barrels less than 16 inches -llegal
Shotgun barrel less than 18 inches -illegal
Any rifle or shotgun with a barrel less than 24 inches -illegal.

By the way if you look at the use of hand weapons and improvised devises by guerrila movements you'll find that handguns HAVE proven very effective-like in Hue City, Warsaw and other urban areas and have devastated army units.

I totally disagree with you by the way.

J

PS Great page! But you need "Let freedom ring" by Martina Mcbride over on the right here.

Thanks for the info and the kind words. Under my most accurately named My Most Excellent Gun Plan, gun lengths would adhere to federal standards.

Are you aware of any research that suggests rifles and shotguns are ineffective in urban fighting?

I can only attest that it takes far longer for a bureacratic, military organization to train proficent riflemen, then it takes to for a quasi-military, bureacratic agency to train effective shooters with pistols. You rarely train marksmanship with a pistol, more often the emphasis of the training is on maintence and rules of engagement. The optimum weapons for urban fighting is generally submachine guns, carbine style assault weapons, shotguns and grenade launchers. However many law-enforcement organizations still train for interior room-clearing with pistols. This largely had to do with the fact that it's cheaper to give everyone a pistol than an MP-5 and it's cheaper to train everyone at once.

To answer your question though, no noone will suggest that rifles and shotguns are ineffective in urban fighting. There is of course evidence that certain rifles and shotguns are less effective than others.

J

PS I hope you and Nora are having a wonderful thanksgiving!

By the way, I looked at the Bureau of Justice stats. I don't know how they were collected. But I believe that large metropolitan police agencies aren't the most trustworthy information gathering agencies. They are generally more interested in making there numbers more impressive than the any other competing units/agencies then producing unbiased information.

Statistics can't be trusted, nine out of ten police agencies will tell you that.

Oh, when is someone going to draw the parrelels with other countries here?

J

The BJS stats may be off in one direction or another. But a quick glance at the arrest reports at any police department will show handguns are used in the vast majority of gun-related crimes. Talk to cops and they'll say the same thing, though you'll get a wide array of opinions on gun-control issues. If there's an error in the stats, it's not likely an error of degrees.

As for other country parallels, they're tough. One of the tenets of "Bowling for Columbine," a movie I felt had moments of brilliance and moments of astounding simplicity and egocentricity, was that Canada has as many guns as the U.S. but far less gun crime. To my recollection, Michael Moore never broke out the types of guns (handguns vs. hunting weapons) Canadians own. I may be wrong on this, but I'd put $10 on the possibility that Canada has as many guns per capita as the U.S. but far fewer handguns.

Actually the most recent analysis in New York was that when doing raids fewer handguns than "longguns" were taken. It's obvious that handguns are easier to carry-that is why they are more often grabbed in street bust-and the "stats" bore that out. This was probably back in 2000 or 2001 and was the annual report from the previous year in probably in "spring 3100".

I would never trust any figure that Michael Moore uses in any of his work. It's entirely fiction. I laughed my head off at "Canadian Bacon", however I laughed harder when the people of Connecticut chased him off their beach on "TV Nation". I used to be a huge fan, but his racist tirade in Great Britain and his selective editing, mis-charachterization and deceptive method while making "Bowling for Columbine" just made me loose all faith in him. Just simply the opening sequence which was set up with the bank months in advance, and ignores the fact that they did an instant electronic background check on him before they gave him the gun. I could come up with an argument for each "fact" he presented.

Switerland and Israel also have more guns per capita than the US... and less crime. I don't know if they're applicable however.

J

At least as far as Switzerland goes, I believe your data are incorrect. Switzerland has a much lower gun overship rate compared to the U.S., according to our Canadian friends (PDF file), and clearly most of them are longguns.

The data also bear out my original thought that guns are quite prevalent in Canada but handguns are quite rare. I suspect that if Mr. Moore had dug deeper he would have discovered that the handgun deficit is the reason for a much lower level of gun violence than compared to the U.S. But hey, it didn't fit into this thesis, so why use it?

Max, there are parts of the gun debate upon which reasonable people can disagree. The root causes of gun violence, for instance, or the role of handguns in preventing crime, or the effectiveness of handgun laws, or even the political role of guns in keeping a totalitarian state at check. And some numbers may be off by a few percentage points. However, no matter how much you quibble with numbers, some fact are indisputable:

• We have more guns per person or household than any other industrialized nation
• A large proportion of those guns are handguns
• We have a higher rate of firearm violence by far than any other industrialized nation
• The majority, if not vast majority, of instances of gun violence in this nation involves handguns

I'm going to have start quibbling here. I don't like using Ryerson University Statistics. I also prefer using CDC stats over BJS stats.

I think Israel has us beat on percentage gun ownership and according to Ryerson, Switzerland has around %34 gun ownership. Does the US have a higher rate?!? If the Swiss guns are longuns and we're drawing a distinction between the two types of violence then-

What is the US rate of hangun violence vs. longgun violence?

How often is that legal, i.e. police?

J

This is wayyy to early for this.....

Sorry for the late reply. Darn that whole workin'-for-a-living thing.

I find no CDC data the separates handguns from other guns. But the sheer number of suicides (PDF) suggests the heavy presence of handguns. Yes, you can kill yourself with a rifle or shotgun. It's just much harder.

DO you have an alternative for Ryerson? Why don't you like its data? It doesn't seem to have an ideological ax to grind, and I don't see a hint that it was funded by Sarah Brady's group, Olin Corp. or some other less-than-disinterested party.

In any case, while I see no reason to doubt the data, I'll withdraw the contention that the U.S. is the most heavily armed industrialized nation in the world (in terms of handguns) if you concede it's at least tied for that honor, and trails by a great margin industrialized nations of any considerable size (Britain, France, Spain, Canada, etc., not little guys like Switzerland or states in peculiar situations, like Israel).

Doesn't anyone else bellyache anymore?

After checking Ryerson twice-I'm okay with the data.

I don't think it's anyharder to commit suicide with a rifle or shotgun. Why would we be dismissing Switerland and Israel?

Max

PS I'm still not using any of Mr. Moore's data, it's entirely fictional. He lives is a "fictious world."

We got all kinds of bellyachin' over here.

Can find neither hide nor hair of gun data regarding Israel, and I've never been, so I shouldn't speculate.

Looking at the Ryerson data, one can conclude that handguns and gun violence go hand in hand. This isn't terribly surprising -- after all, that's what handguns are for. Once we've established that, then the two sides can talk about what to do about it.

Suicide is incrementally tougher with any gun with a long barrel. It's simply hard for most people to reach the trigger while aiming it at their own head or chest. You could use a stick and your feet, of course. But suicide is often impulsive. A lot of people "chicken out" (funny phrase in this context) when confronted with any sort of barrier. I think that's because in their heart of hearts they know they don't want to do it. I have no data to back this up, but it's a personal observation from accounts of suicides gone wrong, where the person realized just as he jumped off the bridge that he was making a terrible, terrible mistake.

How did I respond so quickly, Max? Have I mentioned Mandingo, my new laptop? Well, lemme tell you all about it...