Thoughts on Universal Background Checks

I will get back to gear, firearms and defensive mindset posts soon, but, for now I want to touch on a topic that seems to be coming up in the news a lot these days is the idea of implementing "universal background checks" for firearms.  In most (but not all) states there is a provision where someone who is legally allowed to own a firearm can buy or sell a firearm to another individual who is also allowed to possess it without the need to go through a NCIC background check.  Be advised that laws vary from state to state, and before you are going to buy or sell a firearm through a private transfer you should make sure it is legal to do so.  Interstate private transactions are also generally prohibited, and must be done through a dealer, at additional costs to the involved parties.

This is sometimes referred to as the "gun show loophole" even though most guns sold at gun shows are bought from FFL dealers, who must run a background check in order to complete the sale.  Every gun I have ever bought at a gun show has had the same background check and paperwork as those bought at gun stores.  If someone is selling firearms as a business, they must be a federal firearms licensee (FFL), and must conduct background checks for all sales.

In many parts of the country, private transfers are common.  Giving .22 rifles and shotguns as birthday or Christmas gifts when a child shows the maturity to own them is a right of passage for many people.  Firearms are passed down as family heirlooms through generations of a family.  Hunting or shooting buddies may trade firearms if they need a certain type for an upcoming hunt.

Requiring all of those transactions to go through FFLs is going to add expense to all of them for the persons involved.  Aside from that, the NCIC system has in recent times become overwhelmed, on days such as Black Friday there have been hours long delays on the background checks.  How is the system going to support all of the additional transactions?   Do the systems even have the capability of taking on the additional course load? Is there going to be an option available to do the transfer without an FFL, giving private citizens the ability to call in a NCIC background check?

Aside from worries about the infrastructure that would have to support the new workload, there are other issues.  Contrary to what some people believe, there is no registration of guns in most states.  After the gun is bought the dealer keeps the paperwork and records.  There are actually federal laws, including the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, that prohibit the creation of a registration of privately owned firearms.  But, how can you enforce a requirement that all private transfers must go through a transfer requiring a background check without having a registration?  There is no way to regulate it without a registration, which according to law is not allowed.

Even if the laws were amended to allow for a registration of privately owned firearms, there are by many estimates around 300 million firearms in America.  Who is going to build and maintain the database with all of that information in it?  How long is it going to take in order to get all that information collected?  That project would be a massive undertaking.  And criminals still would not register their guns, and would not conduct transfers through a FFL.  So the new laws wouldn't effect them at all, they would continue to operate outside the law.

While I do agree that some people should be prohibited from owning firearms, including convicted felons and those who have been adjudicated mentally defective, I don't think that universal background checks are the answer.  It is already illegal for convicted felons, those who have been adjudicated mentally defective, and some other classes of people to own  firearms.  They will just continue to attain them through illegal means, including stealing them, or buying them from someone who stole them from a law abiding gun owner.  The idea of "universal background checks" like most gun control legislation, is a feel good idea that will only negatively effect law abiding gun owners, while criminals ignore it.

Thoughts on Semi-Automatic Rifles: Part 2

As promised, I am coming back and looking at some of the issues surrounding semi-automatic rifles in this post as well.  While not the most scientific method available for determining how often a type of rifle is used in a crime, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports do keep track of murders every year, and what weapons are most commonly used.  I say not the most scientific, because I realize that firearms can be used in other crimes than homicides, but, I think it provides a good baseline.  In 2011 (the full 2012 report hasn't been released yet) rifles (of all types, not just semi-automatics) were used in about 340 homicides out of a total of 14,612 homicides, which means about 2% of them.  You can go back to about 1960 in the UCR, and you will see that rifles traditionally are not used to murder people in America.  Usually both knives, as well as the hands/feet/fists section is responsible for more murders annually than rifles.

This brings up a very interesting question of why these rifles are demonized so much by politicians and the media, since they account for such a small percentage of criminal firearms use.  As I already mentioned in the last post, calling these rifles "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" is inaccurate and dishonest, and the criteria for what designates a rifle as one is generally rather absurd.

The text of the new ban that is expected to be introduced in the legislature has not yet been completely released (remember to be contacting your legislators and telling them to not support any new restrictions on our Second Amendment rights), so I am just going to use the previous ban to show how little sense these bans usually make.  Under the 1994-2004 ban, a rifle was banned if it was fed by a detachable box magazine, and had two or more of the following:

• A folding or telescoping stock
• A pistol grip
• Bayonet mount (bayonet lug would be the proper terminology)
• Flash suppressor, or a threaded barrel to accept one
• Or a muzzle mounted grenade launcher

It also included pistols that had two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a forward grip
• Unloaded weight of more than 50oz
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

And semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following

• Folding or Telescoping stock
• Ability to accept a detachable magazine
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
• Pistol Grip

There were also some firearms that were specifically prohibited by name in the ban.  For the purpose of this post however, I am just focusing on rifles.  So, under the previous ban, this rifle was prohibited:

However, this one would not be:

Both are actually the same rifle, a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle, which by the way in not a military rifle.  All I did was change out the stock with an aftermarket one.  Both versions have the exact same capabilities, it doesn't change how fast the rifle can be fired, or the round the rifle fires (.223 Remington, which is for practical reasons the same round that an AR-15 fires). With a folding stock the overall length is about 8 inches shorter with the stock closed.  But, there is still a minimum length that a rifle needs to be in order to not be a class 3 firearm, and even with the stock closed, the rifle is over that length.  At almost 30" long, it still isn't concealable.  So, I am going to take a look at the features specified for rifles, and offer some reasons why it is good for rifles to have them.

• Folding or telescoping stock: First I don't particularly like folding stocks, and the Mini-14 is the only rifle I have that has one.  I don't like them because most of them don't lock up very tight, or allow the shooter a good cheek weld, which means that they generally make the rifle more uncomfortable to shoot.  But, a lot of people like the way they look, and if you are in a situation where you want to save space, they can make sense.  Telescoping stocks also have value as well.  It is a basic fact of life that people come in different shapes and sizes, and because of that, telescoping stocks are a great thing.  It means that two different people can shoot the same rifle, and just adjust the stock for a different length of pull, and do so comfortably.  I didn't realize that it was a bad thing to be able to customize a firearm to the shooter so that they can have a proper stance and eye relief to shoot it accurately.  Full sized stocks are too long for some people to shoot comfortably.  It also means that you don't necessarily need to buy a youth firearm for a child to learn on, that he will eventually outgrow.  You can buy a rifle with a folding stock, and extend it as the child grows, allowing him (or her) to keep that rifle they are familiar with.  
• A pistol grip: I guess some people think that they make a rifle look scary, but for the past 60 or so years, rifles with pistol grips have been around, and commonly available.  They actually make a rifle harder to conceal due to the added bulk, so they don't really effect that.  If you are strong enough to shoot a rifle one handed with a pistol grip (not something I advocate by the way), then you could do it with a normal stock.  It really is just a design that allows you to grip the rifle in a slightly different manner, and does nothing to enhance the capabilities of the rifle.
• Bayonet mount:  I have yet to see a single crime report where a rifle with a bayonet is used in a violent crime.  If anyone knows of any crimes committed with a rifle that had a bayonet attached in the last century, I would actually be very interested to see it.  Bayonets add length to a rifle, and make them a bit more unwieldy in confined spaces, and pretty much impossible to conceal unless you want to cut yourself.  Which should be a good thing, right?  If telescoping and folding stocks aren't allowed because they make the rifle shorter and easier to hide, then isn't something that does the opposite desired?  If a criminal is already using a rifle (which they rarely do anyways), what difference does it make if there is a bayonet or not on the end of it?  I would be more concerned about the rifle attached to the bayonet if presented with the threat.
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel to accept one:  Many rifles, including many bolt actions, have threaded muzzles in order to allow different muzzle attachments to be added.  I personally think this prohibition was more about the ability to add a sound suppressor than the flash suppressor, since most sound suppressors use threading to attach.  Sound suppressors, by the way, are a Class 3 restricted NFA item, that requires special procedures to purchase, and are already heavily controlled.  But, back to flash suppressors.  If I have to defend myself at night and am using a rifle, I would like to be able to see after the first shot, which a flash suppressor would help me be able to do.  Most also are designed in such a way that gasses are controlled in a way to help reduce muzzle climb.  I personally think that being able to control my firearm while I am firing it for the safety of myself and anyone else around me is a good thing.
• Grenade launcher:  This is not actually talking about externally mounted launchers, like a M-203, but muzzle mounted devices.  Before the advent of the standalone or under barrel style grenade launchers,  many rifles had muzzle devices that you could mount on the muzzle of the rifle.  Then, using special rounds, you would fire the rifle, and launch the grenade.  It is not the most effective method to launch a grenade, because it means you can't use your rifle at the same time.  And aside from that, I have never once seen such a grenade available to purchase by the general public, because explosive are very heavily controlled.  So really, what difference does an extra inch or two of metal on the muzzle of my rifle make?  Some rifles were just imported with them, its not like they add any capability to the rifle without a grenade to launch. Similar to the bayonets, if anyone knows of a muzzle mounted grenade launcher being used to be launch a grenade from a rifle in the last century, I'd be interested to hear about it.  

None of these features really has anything to do with enhancing the capabilities of a rifle.  They are all cosmetic features that some people don't like the way they look, they think that they make the rifle look "scary."  To me it shows the absurdity of banning firearms based on just those features. Although I think firearms bans in general are absurd, because they only effect law abiding citizens and not criminals, so I am sure that I am biased.  

Thoughts on Semi-Automatic Rifles; Part 1

I am going to spend probably the next few posts tackling the issues surrounding modern semi-automatic rifles, often given the misnomers of "assault rifles" or "assault weapons."  Words have power, they are used to influence how people think about a topic.  Some words develop negative connotations, and are then mis-used to confuse those who are not knowledgeable about the topic.  So, I will be using proper terminology in this post, and would encourage everyone else to do the same.  First "assault weapon" is not a classification for a type of firearm, it is just a term that was made up, probably because it can be used to scare and confuse people.  Taking the definitions of the words from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Assault: a : a violent physical or verbal attack

b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces

c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)

Weapon:

a : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy

b : a means of contending against another

So, an "assault weapon" is something used to injure, defeat or destroy in a violent physical or verbal attack.  That could be pretty much anything, from a fist, to a rock, to a ballpoint pen to a thermonuclear weapon.    If you can cause harm with it, it is an "assault weapon".  

Assault rifles on the other hand, have an actual definition as a classification of firearms, coined by the Nazis in World War 2.  An assault rifle is a select fire,  shoulder fired rifle, that is fed by a detachable box magazine, and fires an intermediate cartridge.  The major difference between civilian rifles and those used by the police and the military is that "select fire" bit.  For those who may not understand the significance of that, a select fire firearm has some sort of fully automatic capability, either truly fully automatic, or a multiple shot burst capability.  No matter which setting the firearm has (some have both burst and fully automatic) the gun has the capability of firing more than one round for every pull of the trigger.The vast majority of civilian rifles are semi-automatic only, which means one bullet fired for every pull of the trigger.  These rifles can not be easily or safely converted to fully automatic without parts that are strictly regulated and require more stringent background checks than normal firearms purchases.  They may look similar to actual assault rifles, but the way they operate and function is different.  I did say vast majority of civilian rifles, because there are a very limited number of fully automatic firearms in civilian hands, but they have been heavily licensed, regulated and taxed since 1934, and no more have been made available since 1986.  There are a lot of hoops to jump through for civilians to own one of these rifles, and it is a time consuming and expensive process.  

So, jumping into some of the arguments that I have heard against semi-automatic rifles lately, and offering some counter points.  "These rifles don't have any sporting or hunting use."  That is actually quite false.  Aside from the fact that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with sporting or hunting, I have gone hunting with an AR-15, as do hundreds of thousands of other Americans every year.  The round is a bit anemic for deer, however, in the great land that is America, there is a lot more to hunt than deer.  I have taken my AR-15 out coyote hunting, and for that it is a logical choice.  It is accurate, easy to mount an optic and flashlight on for night and low light hunting, the .223 has great ballistics on coyotes, and the fact it is semi-automatic and has low recoil allows for fast follow up shots.  The AR-15 is a very common varmint and predator rifle in America, and used by many for hunting.  Also, it has taken over the world of high power service rifle competitions.  A majority of competitors at Camp Perry for the National Matches now shoot AR-15 variants.  It also is used by many competitors in a sport that is called 3-gun.  So, the rifles have a use as both hunting and sporting arms.  

"You don't need any more than X bullets to defend yourself."  I really wish that I had the psychic ability of these people to predict what I may need in the future.  If so, I would know when I would need a gun to defend myself, and not show up to the encounter.   Nobody knows the future, and what encounters others may face.  Last night around Cincinnati there was an armed home invasion that had six suspects (link to the news story: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/6-suspects-remains-at-large-following-elmwood-place-home-invasion#ixzz2HwfsTfY8).  That makes 7 or 10 rounds seem wanting.  Anyone who has ever been in a gunfight can tell you that it is not like the movies.  It is a very dynamic, chaotic, confusing, terrifying experience, and is very different than standing at a shooting range punching holes in paper.  When you start adding multiple threats into the situation, being ham-stringed by magazine capacity limits could get law abiding people killed.  Aside from that, what the media calls "high capacity magazines" are actually standard capacity, and have been for the past 50 or so years.   

"The Founders couldn't have imagined rifles like this when they wrote the Constitution, they meant muskets!"  Well, no, probably not, but, they had just defended themselves against a tyrannical government using munitions equal to or better than those being used against them.  Colonists who were able to were encouraged to buy cannons, and a single 1770s cannon round can do far more damage than a single round from a 5.56 rifle.  I am also pretty sure that the Founders could never have envisioned the advent of blogging or the internet, but like to think that this post, and all my other ones, are covered by the First Amendment.  If not, I guess that I should buy a Gutenberg printing press and use that to share my thoughts with the world.  The Founding Fathers were extremely wise men, and they intended for the Constitution to last for generations of Americans.  Had they not done so, they would have specified restrictions on our rights based on technology at their times.  As an extra historical note, the Pennsylvania long rifles that some Revolutionary War soldiers carried was superior to the issued Brown-Bess musket issued to the British troops.  The advent of rifled bores meant that the rifles were more accurate at longer ranges than the muskets.  

I think that is enough of a primer to get people thinking, if anyone has any feedback or questions, please let me know.  You can either leave a comment on here, or find us on Facebook or Twitter (@lmtactical).   The next post should look more in depth at modern semi-automatic rifles, and their uses, and purposes for civilians in modern society.

The Illusion of Security

I realize that it has been a little while since I have written a new post, life got busy for a bit.  But, now that the holidays are over, hopefully I will have more time to post.

With some of the recent tragic events, there has been talk about "gun free zones" and how best for organizations to provide security for people on their property.  As someone who spends a good amount of time thinking about personal defense, I have come to a realization.  Many in our society have come to accept the illusion of security instead of actual security measures.  Now, I realize that any sort of static security is a constantly evolving challenge, since a threat is always going to evolve in order to counter any new security measures.  But, that doesn't mean that security measures should not be attempted.

One common way that organizations create the illusion of security is to post a "No Guns" sign, as their state laws allow.  They somehow believe that evil will see this door, and stop.  Punishments and charges cary state by state for what happens if someone disobeys one of these "No Gun Zones", but are often a misdemeanor.  And I am not advocating that any violate these signs.  If a business doesn't want me to carry in their facility, that is their right as a property owner, and I respect their property rights, and will spend my money elsewhere.  I also prefer obeying the law, because I am a law abiding person.  Criminals, by definition, are not law abiding, and have already decided to break the law.  If a criminal is going to commit a serious felony, like robbery, or murder, what makes anyone think that they are going to be stopped by a sign that will just add a minor misdemeanor?  The punishments for that, if they are even charged with it, are a drop in the pond compared to those for the violent felony that they are going to commit.  All that a "No Guns" sign does is keeps law abiding people from being able to defend themselves.  Businesses that post these signs say that someone who has gone through the time, effort, background checks and money to be able to legally carry a firearm is apparently not trustworthy enough to carry that firearm the state says they can carry.

I'd like to highlight two places that I have seen these signs, that I think are absurd to illustrate my point.  Those are jewelry stores, and banks.  A note, it is legal to carry into a bank in Ohio as long as it is not posted, which is different from some states, and no, I do not frequent jewelry stores.  But, pretty much every person walking into one of those establishments has some sort of business dealing with valuables that they need to engage in.  So, if a bank or jewelry store is posted, a criminal knows that any law abiding citizen is not going to be carrying not only in the building, but also in the parking lot to and from the building.  What is that posted bank or store doing to provide security for you in their parking lot?   Even if they have a guard inside, the guard probably is not going to be aware of the situation in the parking lot, and have any ability to stop it.  Criminals don't obey the law, and generally speaking, look for easy targets.  Those signs are a good indicator of where they can find soft targets.

Aside from created the mis-named "gun free zone" (which is only gun free so long as everyone in it is law abiding), a lot of organizations create an illusion of safety by having security guards.  Now, I am not attempting to denigrate security guards, it is an often thankless job, with long, boring hours.  But, when was the last time you saw an armed security guard at a business?  And what good is an unarmed security guard?  What exactly is an unarmed security guard expected to do when evil walks into their post, intent or wreaking havoc?  That is a very un-enviable position to be in.  But are they going to tell the criminal to leave, or radio for help, or try to fight back unarmed for their hourly wage?  When did we in this country accept the idea that giving someone a badge and a radio creates a safe environment?  And why did we accept that?  Are people so scared by the mere sight of a firearm that they can't fathom that firearms in the hands of good guys are one of the best ways to keep them safe?  Even just having armed guards can act as a deterrent, forcing bad guys to seek out a softer target elsewhere.             

Another very common measure is to install security or surveillance cameras.  Which, may or may not be functional, and even if they are, they can do nothing to stop a crime in progress.  They might be able to show the police who perpetrated the act in the aftermath, and what exactly happened.  But that doesn't help at all during the actual crime.  Their use as a deterrent could also be questioned, because they are easy to defeat.  A criminal can wear a mask so as to avoid identification from the film, or could just note their locations during a prior scouting mission, and avoid them entirely.

These are just a few examples of how America has come to accept the illusion of security as a substitute for actual security measures.  Some people have decided to accept the responsibility of carrying a firearm to provide for their own protection, and the protection of their loved ones.  It is a grave responsibility that brings with it the possibility of severe consequences.  And just because someone carries a gun does not mean that they should have an inflated ego or false sense of security.  A firearm is just one tool in the defensive tool box, and is a tool of last resort.  It is not the only answer, and it is always best if the situation can be defused or avoided without the need for a firearm.  But, if you need to defend yourself from a violent attack by a determined attacker, it is often the best choice.

All that being said, next time you are just going about your day, utilize your situational awareness skills, and analyze the security measures being used, and how effective they actually are against an evil individual.