We usually look to publicize the best and newest handguns. The XDE is now out of print. The thing is it is a great gun and you will be able to find one at a deep discount if you look. I don’t usually recommend seeking out out of print guns but this is a pistol that offers excellent performance. The XDE 9mm is comparable to the SIG P225 single stack in one way and handles like a 1911 9mm in other ways. The XDE is in most ways a hammer fired XD pistol. E denotes an exposed hammer. The double action first shot pistol still has a following and Springfield chose to offer this handgun to fans of the DA/SA action type. Often hammer fired guns are re-designed for striker fire. The XDE is unique as far as I am able to research, a striker fired gun converted to hammer fired action.
The pistol may be carried hammer to the rear and safety on.The ambit thumb safety is positive in operation.
The XDE is actually a selective double action handgun. The first shot is a long pull of the trigger. The trigger both cocks and drop the hammer-there is a transfer bar at work here- and after the first shot is fired the recoiling slide cocks the hammer for subsequent single action shots. However the pistol may be carried hammer to the rear and safety on in 1911/Browning High Power style. This is similar to the CZ 75’s operation in the CZs original form. I think the real advantage of the manual safety is in tactical movement. You may carry the XDE safety on or safety off and hammer down. After the first DA shot if you are moving you don’t wish to decock and run through a DA pull again. Simply place the safety on. If you wish, of course, safety on and hammer back is viable for carry. Hammer down safety on or hammer down and safety off or hammer cocked and safety on are all viable. The hammer may be safely lowered from full cock by pressing the safety downward. There is a decocker function in the safety’s operation.
Steel magazines are a big plus.
My pistol is the full size version with 4.5 inch barrel. The XDE weighs in at 29 ounces. The magazines hold eight and nine rounds respectively. While this may seem a light load in modern handguns the slim grip makes for great handling and an easy fit for small to average size hands. The finish is dark Melonite a corrosion resistant finish. The grip frame is nicely checkering providing a good balance of abrasion and adhesion. The pistol features a loaded chamber indicator. This is a hammer fired handgun with a polymer frame. The pistol field strips easily in XD fashion using a take down lever. The controls are nicely shaped and placed. Not too large and certainly not too small.
The full size pistol isn’t short or compact but it is thin and easily concealed. Quite a few shooters are not comfortable with striker fired guns or a single action cocked and locked handgun. The XDE offers a desirable choice for those shooters with little compromise in speed. At only one inch wide the XDE is easily concealed. The nine round magazine is well made of good material. The frame features a light rail for mounting combat lights. The sights are well suited to personal defense. The pistol was fired with Black Hills Ammunition 115 grain FMJ and Black Hills Ammunition 115 grain EXP. The Extra Power EXP is as hot as possible without going into +P territory, a good spot for a defensive 9mm loading. The double action trigger is smoot breaking at 11.1 pounds on the Lyman digital gauge. Single action is much lighter at 5.6 pounds and crisp, better than many DA/SA guns.
The sights are the same as the XDS pistol.Note well designed grip checkering.
Firing from 7 yards and working the DA trigger good hits were taken on a man sized target. The transition to single action fire isn’t difficult to manage. At 10 yards I used only SA fire and riddled the X ring. Moving to 15 yards I fired two groups, one with each load, from a solid standing braced barricade. The average of two groups was 2.0 inch. There were no malfunctions of any type. The pistol is pleasant to fire with good handling and modest recoil. With the pistols currently out of production and some discounted to reduce inventory the XDE is worth a look.
A federal appeals court on Friday struck down a ban on bump stocks, devices that essentially allow shooters to fire semiautomatic rifles continuously with one pull of the trigger.
No, CNN, they essentially allow you to pull the trigger really fast. That’s why the 5th Circuit had to check the ATF here.
A majority of the full US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said that bump stocks were not covered by the law that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives used to put the regulation in place.
“A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of ‘machinegun’ set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act,” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in the majority’s opinion.
Three judges on the circuit court dissented from the ruling.
This decision comes after the US Supreme Court declined to consider a challenge to the federal ban in October. The high court has consistently denied cases challenging the bump stock ban in recent years.
The ATF banned bump stocks in 2019. Then-President Donald Trump had ordered a review of the devices after a mass shooting in 2017 in Las Vegas, in which a shooter armed with semiautomatic weapons and bump stock devices opened fire from his hotel suite onto outdoor concertgoers, killing 58 people and wounding hundreds of others.
What does this mean?
This ruling will not undo the economic damage to manufacturers of bumpstocks, it won’t fix ones that were destroyed or given up. I don’t expect the federal government to be eager to cut checks to compensate for that either. So in those respects this victory comes too late.
But the bumpstock wasn’t a particularly expensive gimmick and it remains a gimmick. It was always for the fun of turning money into noise.
Where the victory exists is that the courts have put a firm check on the ATF’s ability to legislate by regulation rather than where that duty actually resides, in congress. The ATF can’t invent language or make something function in a way that it doesn’t. A bumpstock allows you to pull a trigger very fast and have a high rate of fire. A machine gun has a high rate of fire if you hold down the trigger. Those are two mechanically distinct things and just because the result is ‘high rate of fire’ does not make them same. This is as silly as trying to give manual transmission vehicles a different speed limit than automatic transmission ones, but we also tax and banned any automatic transmission built after 1986.
The ATF also recently kicked the can on their publication of their pistol brace rule. Their ability to shoehorn braced firearms into the NFA, and into a new category that doesn’t exist within the NFA, has just been severely depleted. Braced pistols and braced firearms are wildly more popular than bumpstocks were, have a far more practical purpose that touches on ADA compliance, and required the ATF to write reams of new policy. Those new policies, laws in their own right because they are not within the text of the laws themselves, are what the 5th Circuit told the ATF that the ATF cannot do. They cannot create law, they can enforce law. It is Congress’ job to create law, so the Congress must write it, and the President must sign it, and then courts must sustain it.
The ATF’s role in all of this is simply enforcement at the Federal level. That’s it, do as the law says.
The boys are back after taking the holidays off and today they’re discussing important do’s and don’ts for the firearms industry’s most important trade show: SHOT Show.
January 2023, Bainbridge GA – Following on the heels of the wildly successful TaurusTX™ 22 full size, Taurus USA is upping the ante in the 22 LR game again, this time with the all new TaurusTX™ 22 Compact.
People loved the TaurusTX™ 22 full size so much they started demanding a compact version, which is ideal for people with smaller hands and the bold folks opting to carry a 22 LR pistol. Regardless of which of those you are, you’ll love the TaurusTX™ 22 Compact’s 13 round staggered column magazine. You’ll also love the slide-mounted mini-red dot sight mount that accepts optics fitting the Holosun K footprint.
Additionally, the TaurusTX™ 22 Compact features a suppressor ready threaded barrel, as well as the same industry-standard sights you’ll find on the GX4 Family of pistols. The trigger is just as good as you’ve come to expect from the TaurusTX™ 22 family, breaking cleanly with no stacking.
The TaurusTX™ 22 Compact continues Taurus’ commitment to excellent by providing another reliable, affordable firearm for American gun owners. With an MSRP of $399.99, the TaurusTX™ 22 Compact is sure to be another huge hit for Taurus.
About Taurus:
Taurus Holdings, Inc. (“Taurus”) and its subsidiaries continues to evolve and produce revolutionary new products. In addition, new standards for quality and efficiency help deliver reliable and affordable guns to the market. Taurus is based in Bainbridge, Georgia. Taurus is owned by Taurus Armas, S.A. which is a publicly traded company based in Brazil. Taurus Armas S.A. manufactures a wide variety of consumer and industrial products that are distributed worldwide.For additional information, visit www.taurususa.com.
If you delve into the PIP, Product Improvement Program, process of the US Military you will stumble across a lot of… good ideas.
The M16A2 was, in most respects, an excellent upgrade to the M16A1. We got heavier ammunition, better sights, and we allegedly got a better barrel too. But if you look into the program a little more, the barrel being made so much heavier was a decision made on faulty information. The rumor was that M16A1 barrels were getting bent, the reality is that barrel straightness gauges were getting hung up on build up around the rifle gas port and that was being mistaken for a bent barrel.
The subsequent heavier M16A2 barrel, and later the M16A4 barrel, were heavy in large part to prevent the barrels getting bent. They’re still good barrels, but they were chosen on a faulty premise.
Now, changing platforms to the free floated M4A1 Block II’s and we saw these new barrels chosen for accuracy under sustained fire and not rigidity to prevent bending. Rifle barrel debates range very widely and rumors abound.
In the video, Henry and Josh test these rumors and see if its fact or hype. There is no doubt the SOCOM barrel is a good one, but so is an old M4 profile barrel, even in a non-floated rifle.
An ‘old’ M4 with a regular KAC RAS, nothing free or floaty, below and a URG-I type with an FN CHF barrel above. Image by RMFA Photography, J. Sarkody
Watch and learn, Henry does an excellent breakdown of the results.
Short version though, the thicker barrel seems to be one of those poorly or incompletely thought through items that doesn’t do what internet lore says and is just part of a system that still works regardless. The SOCOM barrel, like the M16A2 barrel, appears to be largely unnecessary for what the rifle is required to do and how much stress the rifle is required to endure before any component failure. Floating a barrel has obvious and appreciable benefits but thickening it, for a rifle and without also increasing the endurance on other parts, doesn’t appear to. Rifles, even fighting rifles, don’t sustain rates of fire like machine guns do so they aren’t built to. This means that with good barrel quality material weight can be saved without sacrificing any needed mechanical performance.
Two other items to note that are often given too much false efficacy are chrome lining and 1 in 7 twist rates. These are items that have specific jobs and were chosen for specific things but that also have limiting effects on the efficacy of the rifle accuracy wise. In the commercial space, the law enforcement space, and even the military space if automatic weapons are not in support (rare and less than idea) a 5.56 rifle with a quality nitride treated barrel and a 1 in 8 twist rate for the rifling is a comfortable place to cover down with all kinds of available ammunition.
That said, I almost always get chrome-lined 1:7 twist barrels on my rifles anyway. Why? Because I want them, I’m bad about cleaning guns and that helps. They aren’t more accurate, but they do have some durability advantages. 1 in 8 twist would almost certainly tighten groups for most of the ammunition types I shoot, but not a tremendous amount and I don’t have any rifles I’ve built into dedicated precision rigs. I need the rifles accurate enough and after that I want them able to be kept running on a little lubrication and an occasional wipe down.
If you go and purchase an AR-15 right now, it likely comes with a muzzle device, and that muzzle device is likely the classic A2 flash hider. The A2 flash hider has been around since the 1980s, and there is a reason it’s stuck around so long. The damn thing just works. That’s why even companies at the mid and higher-end levels still use A2 flash hiders. The device is commonly called the A2 birdcage due to its enclosed design.
The first flash hider used by the M16 was a three-prong design that was open-ended. This apparently resulted in the device getting caught in the natural wonders of the Vietnam jungle. When the Marine Corps began designing the A2, they enclosed the flash hider, and we called it the birdcage. So why does the A2 birdcage flash hider still rule?
The A2 Birdcage Does What It Says
It hides flash! It does it very well too. If you have a 14 to 20-inch barrel on your AR-15, it’s hard to find a more effective flash hider. Flash from a rifle can be a big pain in low light and makes it tough to fire rapid follow-up shots and remain focused on the target. An A2 birdcage flash hider cuts the flash significantly and makes it easy to focus on your target for shot after shot.
As your barrel gets shorter and shorter, the flash hider becomes more and more crucial, at least on 5.56 AR-15s. Even 14.5 and 16-inch barrels create some substantial muzzle flash, and the A2 flash hider does some serious work to keep these weapons manageable.
Why Deal With Muzzle Rise?
The A2 Birdcage flash hider has top-mounted ports that act as your flash hider. This cuts flash but also redirects gas upward. Since gas is flowing upward, it’s pushing the muzzle downward. This has the effect of reducing muzzle rise and acting as a compensator. This makes the device a dual-purpose tool that’s fairly effective at both of its tasks. The reduction in muzzle rise keeps the weapon more controllable all around.
Climbing in The Prone
The prone provides you with the most stable position possible for shooting, and it also makes you the smallest target possible. There is a big reason why the infantry will likely find themselves in the prone position more often than not. A lot of muzzle devices aren’t prone-friendly.
They manipulate gasses in different ways, and this often involves shooting them out of the sides of the muzzle device. The A2 birdcage was designed for riflemen and the gas vents away from the ground. This prevents dirt and debris from flying upward and around the shooter. This dirt and debris can be both a hassle and gives away your position with other muzzle devices.
It’s Cheap
Who likes wasting money? If you purchase a rifle, it likely comes with an A2 birdcage, so there is no reason to spend any extra money. If you have to purchase a muzzle device, the A2 birdcage can be found right now for about ten bucks. Hell, I’m surprised people don’t ship them for free with orders. They seem to be a bit cheaper than the stickers PSA includes with everything.
It’s Short and Sweet
The A2 Birdcage is only 1.75 inches long and is .86 inches in diameter. It’s super small overall and adds barely any length to your firearm. At the same time, it’s very effective for its size. There are devices that work better than the A2, but they are often a good bit longer and heavier. It’s efficient in its design.
On the flip side, you might find options that are significantly longer, and you might think I’m an idiot who is just wrong. However, the A2 birdcage design is a popular option for shooters with a 14.5-inch barrel who want to pin and weld a muzzle device in place to prevent their rifles from being SBRs. Those tend to be a bit longer than the standard A2 birdcage.
Is It All Gravy?
Admittedly the A2 birdcage isn’t the best option if you want a QD suppressor mount. I spent a ton of money of my last build including an expensive 80% lower jig and I still used an A2 birdcage. Griffin Armament does make one option for the standard flash hider, but that limits you to one suppressor. If suppressors aren’t your thing, then it’s tough to beat the A2 birdcage. It’s been around for so long for a reason. It just works.
One of the common trends we see in the training world is that people gravitate towards the things they’re already good at.
After all, why not? The past couple of years have been such a raging dumpster fire that it’s reasonable for folks to seek out a dopamine hit wherever they can find one these days.
There’s the ever-present mantra of “you’re never good enough” that drives most people to continue to hone their skills, but I think there’s a dramatic difference between someone who’s already good at something striving to improve their performance, and a complete rank novice on Day 1 that has no idea what they’re doing.
That is what I see as the hidden benefit of undertaking new, and sometimes unrelated, activities.
While there are neuroscientific benefits of diversified skill sets, you’re better off going to one of John Hearne’s lectures to hear about those.
What I’m talking about is far more basic. If you’re a high performer and/or surround yourself with high performing peers, when was the last time you experienced the soul crushing doubt that “I have no idea what I’m doing, and the mountain of ‘shit I don’t know’ is so massive that I wouldn’t even know where to start”?
Now most of us hobbyists and many instructors (the good ones at least) suffer from some degree of imposter syndrome, but that can be tempered by support from peers as well as referencing previous, related accomplishments to help temper that particular flavor of doubt.
But when was the last time you were “the new guy/gal”?
I think it’s important that we all are able to recall that sense of being on the cusp of overwhelmed. It helps us to temper our responses when engaging with folks that don’t necessarily speak our particular dialect or subscribe to our specific world view.
This is very much in line with the “Gun Guys Macro Isn’t Everyone’s Micro” that I wrote, because unbridled enthusiasm can quickly degrade into either an overwhelming info-dump, or snide gatekeeping, depending on how it’s delivered.
If the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time, then when we find ourselves in positions to be the messenger, we not only need to ensure that the information is bite-sized, but that the portions are appropriate to the recipient. After all, bite-sized for your dad is very different than bite-sized for your 2 year old niece.
The other major benefit of being bad at stuff is that it will at worst get you to broaden your skillset beyond just mechanical shooting, into the other various facets of defense-craft (or whatever your chosen flavor of ballistic recreation is), and at best it will broaden your horizons to other pursuits beyond firearms and help you to remain a well rounded person.
The General Assembly was back in Springfield Wednesday and are expected to wrap up their work on the legislation banning assault weapons, known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act. The arguments have largely been emotive rather than substantive.
So I suppose nobody has been killed with a low capacity weapon, especially in a mass shooting?
That is categorically not the case, but that does not stop it from being in the argument. I bet we’ll read the ‘if we can save just one life’ argument next.
“There is no doubt that if we can save a life, just one, a tradition says we can save a whole world.” – Rabbi Ike Serotta
There it is.
The problem is with the total absurd unquantifiability of the premise. Does someone shot with a low capacity handgun instead of a high capacity one count as a life saved, even if they die? Does a shooting that injures or kills multiple people but leaves uninjured survivors count as lives saved if it is later determined the shooter used a low capacity weapon deemed ‘safe’ instead of a high capacity one? Does someone who dies on account of having too little firearm to win their fight, or who was prevented from getting a firearm in time to be of use, count against that ‘one life saved’ net gain that we need for this to be a “just” law?
The moralistic imperative being pushed in the arguments for the PICA has not quantified boundary, there is no realistic measure for success and no discussion of the possibility of negative consequences. How many people go to prison or die because of this law who wouldn’t have otherwise? It’s as fair an argument and inquiry as promising that one life saved, one net life improvement over what otherwise would be the death toll, makes this an imperative to pass.
“Since the age of five, I’ve been learn to duck under desks, turn off the lights, lock the door,” said Stephanie Diaz, who is a junior at Highland Park High School.
I bet you were also taught stop, drop, and roll and where the tornado shelter location is. If the schools are really proactive, they showed you where first-aid kits and fire extinguishers are too and how to use them. Prudent emergency procedures do not provide logical support for a partial and ineffective prohibition on an inanimate object. Just because emergency procedures are scary doesn’t either, emergencies are scary things regardless of their origin.
We must craft policies for the reality of the world. We must accept that we cannot legislate fear away. We can’t ban fear and make it vanish. We cannot ban being afraid. We cannot ban things subjectively that make some people afraid. We cannot legislate to make someone feel safe subjectively. We can’t ban a weapon to make one group feel safer and make another feel less safe if we’re doing this for feelings, we have to weigh both groups feelings with equal regard since the feeling of safety is subjective.
In addition to banning assault-style weapons, if approved and signed into law, the bill would increase the age to own a FOID card from 18 to 21 and, set 10 as the limit of rounds per magazine. All of these provisions are under constitutional scrutiny other places and are very likely to be deemed unconstitutional.
The Illinois legislature is wasting time to appease feelings with policy that cannot work. That should be criminal, instead its just politics.
I’m being serious, actually. I’m impressed with the level of detail that Cox Media Group writer Debbie Lord put into this. It has some easy to avoid errors, but it appears to have been a faithful attempt.
Why I bring this up is that this new space, and others like it, are where the normie crowd is reading about what an assault weapon is or can do. The hardcore anti’s are into Giffords or Vox but the silent majority among the less vehement crowds get their info from sources like this.
The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are used a lot, but when it comes to the two separate types of weapons, there is a great deal of difference.
What is an assault weapon, how does it work and how is it different from an assault rifle? Here’s a quick look.
What is an “assault rifle”?
An assault rifle is a rapid-fire, magazine-fed rifle designed for military use. It is a shoulder-fired weapon that allows the shooter to select between semi-automatic (requiring you pull the trigger for each shot), fully automatic (hold the trigger and the gun continuously fires) or three-shot-burst modes.
That’s… actually pretty good. Far better than average in defining an assault rifle. This definition is functional if incomplete. About the only missing element is the intermediate caliber portion, which is small potatoes overall, and the error in the assumption that all assault rifles have all of the selectable modes.
Properly, an assault rifle is a select-fire, box magazine fed rifle of intermediate caliber. Selections for fire mode include combinations of semi-automatic with a burst of 2 or 3 rounds or fully automatic mode, and with some designs integrating more than two selections, in addition to the safe selection.
Intermediate caliber is important when discussing the alleged ‘power’ of a rifle, which is often brought up in the debate over ‘assault weapons’ as being particularly powerful. As the caliber of assault rifles, and thereby semi-auto only rifles that fire the same ammunition and function similarly, is intermediate, there power is therefore intermediate on the scale of rifles.
But we can’t very well have a heated and hyperbole drenched debate over powerful weapons of war when we’re talking about something mid-at-best on the old power scale, and don’t anyone bring up how the assault rifle is effectively second only to the sidearm as the weakest military weapon by a very large margin.
We’re off to a fairly informative start here. I am overall impressed. Nicely done, Debbie Lord.
What is an “assault weapon?”
Technically, there is no such thing. What’s called an assault weapon (or sometimes an assault rifle) in reports on gun violence is a semi-automatic rifle that looks similar to the assault rifles used by the military. An AR-15 rifle, like one that has been used in some mass shootings, is an example of this type of weapon.
It is possible. It really is possible. Mass media, please take note, Debbie just dunked on all of you and whatever grade of panicky gun rant you are used to publishing as news. It’s a rifle that looks similar to assault rifles.
I’ll go even further, most of them share their majority of parts with assault rifles just like a police cruiser or secret service SUV and the same model commercial SUV do.
Debbie is 2 for 2 on usable definitions and the scarcity of places I can say that is depressing.
Let’s keep going.
What’s the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic weapon?
An automatic weapon (“assault rifle”) can shoot more than one round when you pull the trigger. A semi-automatic weapon (“assault weapon”) does not.
Automatic weapons have not been used in recent mass shootings. In the shootings in Orlando, New Town, Connecticut, and San Bernardino, semi-automatic weapons, one requiring you to pull the trigger each time to fire a cartridge, were the weapons used.
3 for 3, I will give Debbie benefit of the doubt in that an assault rifle is a type of automatic weapon and that her use of the terms assault rifle and assault weapon in both quotes and parenthesis are to maintain reader orientation on connecting the terms.
The weapon used in some of those shootings was an AR-15. Doesn’t “AR” stand for “automatic rifle”?
No, “AR” in the gun’s name stands for Armalite Rifle. That is the company that first developed the weapon nearly 60 years ago. The company sold the rights to the firearm to the Colt company which, in turn, modified the rifle and sold it to the military as the M-16. The M-16 is an automatic weapon: Hold the trigger and multiple rounds can be fired. The AR-15, like the Sig Sauer, requires that you pull the trigger to fire each cartridge.
3.9/4
We’re now confusing the issue and misinforming the readers with the introduction of ‘the Sig Sauer’ in the final sentence. Sig Sauer is a company, they even make a line of AR-15’s and AR-10’s. They make several military assault rifles too for the US and international customers.
Sig Sauer is a large manufacturer of weapons, optics, and ammunition. To say “like the Sig Sauer” and in context with defining semi-automatic weapons muddies the issue. Yes, the commercial Sig Sauer products are semi-automatic or manual action when it comes to firearms but that is far from clarifying on the issue for a normie reader.
FN did a study several years ago now, in that study they were trying to figure out if FN was a ‘household name’ and it turns out that, shockingly, it isn’t. You, reader, probably know who FN is and so do I but we’re consumers in this market space, FN wants us to know who they are because the likelihood they have a product we want in exchange for some money is much much higher than someone primarily perusing Amazon, Home Depot, or Wal-Mart. Those are truly nationally recognized and interacted with brands where any firearm company, to include Springfield, S&W, Ruger, or Taurus, all of which have massive market shares, are still niche on the grand scale.
So speak to the normie, orient them on who Sig Sauer is and what they make and in reference back to the context of the article like we started.
If it is not an automatic weapon, how does a shooter fire so many shots?
Hmm, I have a feeling we’re going to get silly now…
Semi-automatic rifles can accommodate high-capacity magazines – compartments that hold cartridges. That allows the shooter to fire off dozens of rounds in a short period of time. A Sig Sauer and an AR-15 magazine generally holds 20- 30 rounds. There are magazines that can hold more.
I was correct.
3.9/5
I can see where Debbie was going but we got lost and distracted. We used shots, cartridges, and rounds all in the query and three sentence explanation without first establishing that those are linked or interchangeable terms, especially round and cartridge.
At the end here I’m left feeling that it is the magazine that determines the rate of fire whether its an assault rifle or a semi-auto rifle, and maybe even a handgun if I know those have magazines.
This section needed more.
Let’s stick to the format Debbie used and fix the meandering information.
Semi-automatic rifles are also known as auto-loading rifles, or shortened to auto-loaders. This is true for handguns and shotguns that are semi-automatic as well. What an auto-loading firearm does is automatically reload the firearm for the next shot, using some of the firing cartridge’s energy. This reload happens very quickly thanks to the simple mechanisms involved so a semi-auto can effectively fire as fast as the shooter can pull and re-pull the trigger.
Semi-automatics load their ammunition from a magazine, a simple spring loaded box or tube that will push a new round into position to be loaded when the currently loaded one gets fired and then removed from the gun. As long as the magazine has rounds in it, it will keep putting them into place to be loaded. Magazines on semi-automatic rifles commonly hold 20 or 30 rounds, allowing for that many shots before needing to reload a new magazine or refill the single magazine. Larger magazines than that exist too, accommodating 40, 50, 60, or even 100 rounds.
How quickly and how many shots can be fired is limited mostly by how many magazines, not how large they are, and how good at changing them or refilling them someone is. Additionally, that is only about the efficiency of firing the shots, not about hitting anything or anyone or there actually being anything or anyone to hit.
There, it took three paragraphs and not three sentences but we’ve conveyed the information the question asks, which is not as simple as the single sentence may indicate. It’s the difference between answering “Where do babies come from?” with “From Mommy’s tummy.” or an actual basic rundown of the reproductive process. We needed the second answer here and Debbie unfortunately delivered us a mangled version of the first.
How tough is it to get a semi-automatic weapon?
In most cases, it’s no tougher to get a semi-automatic rifle than it is to get a handgun. Seven states — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York – and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning semi-automatic weapons. Minnesota and Virginia regulate semi-automatic weapons. There is no ban on purchasing the weapons in any other state.
In Florida, you do not need a license to own or purchase a handgun, shotgun or rifle, nor do you have to register a gun. To purchase a gun from a gun store, you must pay $8 and complete the paperwork for a background check. If you pass the background check, you get the gun. If the gun is a rifle or a shotgun, you do not have to wait three days to get it. For a handgun, there is a mandatory 3-day “cooling off” period in Florida, one of only 10 states that require any waiting period for the purchase of a gun. There is no federal waiting period required when purchasing a gun. Waiting periods are imposed by states.
And we’re totally lost now. Grading ceases.
In most cases, it’s no tougher to get a semi-automatic rifle than it is to get a handgun.
Which is accurate, in many cases its a little easier because rifle purchases begin at 18 and handguns are 21. The issues begin in full in the next sentence.
Seven states — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York – and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning semi-automatic weapons. Minnesota and Virginia regulate semi-automatic weapons.
Those seven states have not banned semi-automatics, they have some version of ‘assault weapons’ bans which ban certain semi-automatics by certain features, several do similarly with handguns on an approved or disallowed list. These systems are objectively terrible at risk assessing firearms by any objective measure and are about to go through the constitutionality referendum for their continued legal existence.
The second paragraph gets us lost in the complexity of the Federal and state background check systems, and its a mess.
Let’s do as we did previously. Same format, clearer information.
In most states, it’s no tougher to get a semi-automatic rifle than it is a handgun or shotgun. Federally, they are all considered Title I firearms, or what could be called normal firearms, with the only difference between acquiring a handgun and acquiring a rifle or shotgun is that a handgun requires the purchaser to be 21 years of age while the rifle and shotgun require to purchaser to be 18 years of age.
Purchases start pretty much the same way in all states and for all firearms, the Federal 4473 paperwork is filled out and filed for a background check. A few states use their own state systems or both the federal and state systems but the process is similar. Most background checks clear very quickly, delayed checks usually clear within a few days. There is a federal law limiting the amount of time the government can take on a background check to avoid undue delay to the purchaser, this is noted as the Brady Transfer Date and is given by the background check system at the time of the check. The firearm being purchased can be transferred to the purchaser on or after that date if the government does not produce a definitive answer within that time frame, usually three business days. States like Illinois have a special firearm owner ID, a FOID, which is another check of state data nearly identical to what occurs at the time of purchase. States like Michigan require registration of handguns with the state. Once the background check clears, most states will let you leave with your purchase, some have waiting periods after your background check has been passed depending upon the firearm. Length of wait time depends on the state.
Can I buy an automatic weapon?
Here’s where you need to understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. Semi-automatic weapons are relatively easy to purchase. However, the only automatic weapons legal to purchase for civilians in the United States are the ones that have been registered between 1934 and 1986. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an “assault rifle” (or automatic weapon) is a machine gun. No new machine guns can be made or sold to civilians. Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax, filling out an application to register the weapon, submitting passport photos, getting your chief law enforcement official to sign your application, and submitting to an FBI background and fingerprint check. Those weapons are hard to come by and generally pretty expensive. You do not want to violate the Firearms Act. If you do, expect to sit in prison for 10 years as you figure out how to pay the $100,000 fine.
Suddenly we’re back on track. That isn’t a bad summation of the NFA process and the limits on transferable automatic weapons.
Final grade, roughly 4.9/7 major points within a piece meant to inform and clarify.
Why Address This?
Because when a GenPop Normie, someone with a truly average range level of firearm knowledge and competency measured against the general population, is talking to you about assault weapons, bans, gun control and so forth, this is the type of work they are referencing.
Getting mad at them for it or deriding their understanding isn’t going to go far in changing their mind. It wasn’t their idea, they just read it from a source they trusted because that source also tells them about the weather, the school closings, the armed robbery at the gas station that happened late last night, and some of the generalized goings on and happenings in the world. It does so with passable accuracy.
When we stray into topics like firearms or medicine, which require expertise in their sourcing and checking your work for accuracy, things can derail quickly. Especially on a topic like background checks which are complex.
The concept of a background check is simple, the process is complex. This is likely why the concept of a ‘Universal Background Check’ is so popular when put forward, and consequently why when we argue against them the arguments seem to be the unreasonable ones. We are arguing from the place of greater understanding but without properly sharing that understanding of the complex implementation of a simple concept. It is an uphill battle and one that we won’t succeed at often because folks just stop caring beyond a level of complexity if they don’t have to interact with that complexity, it isn’t their problem. They then default back to the simplicity of the concept, rather than the reality of implementation, to justify their stance to themselves.
So for GenPop discussions, especially when they’re wrong on [topic] it is important to remember to be more ‘gentle but firm’ in our rebuke and correction rather than the outright hostility we can get away with on the terminally stupid. We don’t need to change the terminally stupid minds, its an impossible task and they already believe firearms are the root of all evil, at least until you change topics, and they cannot be bothered to critically think the issue through. But for those who are just earnestly professing their opinions on topics based upon their level of understanding, our first goal should be to further their understanding. A change of understanding usually changes opinion, unless the held opinion is dogmatic rather than reasoned which tends only to be true out of ideologues and not GenPop casuals.
Metallic cartridges are typically fired in one of two ways. We have centerfire, which is used for most cartridges. It’s dependable, affordable, and used for cartridges, both big and small. The flip side is rimfire, which is a fair bit older, but a fairly reliable option for small caliber and small case cartridges. Somewhere between the two sits the rarely talked about pinfire.
Pinfire is an obsolete cartridge that doesn’t have the staying power of centerfire or rimfire cartridges. These weapons have a rich history of success and were the firing mechanism that led to the center and rimfire ignition systems we have today.
The Origins Of Pinfire
Pinfire came to be sometime in 1833, according to historical contracts, although the patent was filed in 1835. Either way, it’s clear French gunsmith Casimir Lefaucheux invented the pinfire cartridge. He arguably invented what we know as the modern design for breach-loading shotguns and rifles. His original break-open guns used a separated percussion cap.
Hallowell and Co
These guns had an open port for the percussion cap to be placed over the barrel to ignite the paper cartridge and fire the weapon. He used the same design but added the primer and a small pin to the cartridge. The pin would be exposed and struck with the weapon’s hammer and would strike the primer, which ignited the gunpowder to fire the cartridge. These were not metallic cartridges but did use a reusable brass base.
(Wikipedia)
Over time, they evolved into cardboard cases, and Benjamin Houllier of Paris designed and patented a cartridge with a base wad that made the cartridge gas-tight and much more efficient and clean shooting. This was the first metallic pinfire cartridge. On a pinfire shotgun, the pins aligned under the hammers. In a revolver, the cartridges had to be loaded to align with a notch in the cylinder. This allowed the hammer to contact the pin and fire the weapon.
Rock Island Armory
However, these advancements were not particularly popular outside of France until the 1850s. Metallic pinfire cartridges grew to be quite popular. The military forces of France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Sweden all adopted pinfire weaponry. Pinfire revolvers were particularly favored.
The Benefits
At this time period, rimfire cartridges existed, but just barely. They were essentially parlor gun calibers like 6mm Flobert. Pinfire offered a more reliable system than percussion caps and black powder. The metallic cartridges worked better in adverse conditions and were quicker and easier to load than traditional percussion revolvers.
With the advent of centerfire cartridges and the expiration of the Rollin White patent, the pinfire firearm saw a great decline in popularity.
The Downsides
When compared to the firearms at the time, they were fairly anemic. A Colt Army revolver fired .44 caliber ball at 750 feet per second on average, although you could load one hotter than that if you didn’t mind your fingers continuing their safe existence. The Lefaucheux M1858 launched a 12mm projectile at a mere 550 feet per second. Vincent Van Gogh famously shot himself with a pinfire revolver and died two days later.
The pin requires proper alignment and limits the gun and operation that could use these pinfire guns. Breach-loading guns and revolvers were seemingly the only options. You could never have a lever action gun in these cartridges. The pins could also be struck while not in a firearm and detonated, which creates safety issues.
Pinfire Guns Today
These guns still exist. Those little 2mm novelty guns are an example of a modern pinfire weapon. They are too small for any other system, including rimfire. Other than that, they are fairly rare. Reloaders can make their own, and kits exist to do so. Vintage pinfire ammo will cost you an arm and a leg.
The age of pinfire is well and over. However, it did provide us with an interesting concept that gave the world breach-loading weapons. It might not have lived a long life, but it was an eventful one.
Do you ever get the feeling that what’s new was once old? I’ve heard it several times throughout my time in the gun industry. Nothing is ever really new, just advancement on concepts we’ve known about long enough to forget. Well, what if the same could be said for weapon lights? Specifically, elective weapon lights. They seem rather new and have gone from Maglites taped to rifles to lights like the OWL in very short order. What if I said that an electric weapon-mounted light existed as far back as 1910-1912? Well, it did, and it was known as the Wespi Searchlight.
Inside the Wespi Searchlight
According to the patent, the inventor is listed as M B H Waffen-Technische Wespi. The Wespi Searchlight is admittedly more like a laser sight and less like a weapon-mounted light. The Wespi Searchlight is mounted to the top of your favorite gun, and pictures show it mounted to Mauser pistols and S&W revolvers. There isn’t a ton of information about the light, and most comes from a book called Pistol and Revolver Shooting by A.L.A. Himmelwright.
The book describes the function and design of the sight. The Wespi Searchlight was used as a night sighting device. The book describes the Wespi as a sight that was about 6 inches long and ¾ inches in diameter. The light has a dark spot in the center, and the dark spot is what the user aims with.
The Wespi Searchlight had to be zeroed, but it’s not clear how. The Wespi Searchlight was capable out to 60 feet, according to the book. I imagine that’s sixty feet in complete or near complete darkness. I don’t imagine lights in 1910 were very powerful.
Operating the Wespi Searchlight
There isn’t a ton of information on the Wespi Searchlight. A diagram and advert of the sight make it seem as if an almost crosshair-like light shines on the threat. This same advert is in Russian, and I’m trusting the translation from another website. It seems that the light would automatically come to life when the light was orientated forward. When positioned downwards, as if in a holster, it would automatically shut off.
A magazine called Outing which covered numerous outdoor activities mentioned the Wespi Searchlight in volume 79 in 1921. It briefly mentions there is no better choice for night shooting than the Wespi Searchlight, and it was sold by the American Specialty Company on 5th avenue in New York City.
It’s an interesting invention, and it certainly predates the modern incarnation of a weapon-mounted light. We’ve seen white lights used as aiming devices before. The SAS famously used white lights as aiming devices on their MP5s during the Iranian Embassy Siege. At the time, they were wearing massive gas masks and chemical suits, so they couldn’t use traditional sights.
These days we have red dots and numerous IR and visible laser options, so it might not be en vogue, but it’s always interesting to see how old concepts are and observe historical firearms and their accessories.
Bloomberg, not actually a participant in this particular story but I'd bet he supports it.
One of the issues I think lacking most in modern education is an emphasis on critical thinking and proper debate. Sure, there exist in the world plenty of opinions that it’s easier, more polite, and the world turns on pleasantly, if you do not engage in a heated debate upon the issue.
Pineapple’s proximity to pizza.
Bean’s proper relationship with chili.
Is that one dress blue or gold?
Which season of GoT ruined it irreparably?
But when the LA Times, in the spirit of promoting journalism I assume, publishes a high schooler’s opinion on gun politics, a subject they can have less than a year’s worth of legal interaction with beyond the most basic supervised sort at the most. It’s… well it comes across as exploitive on their part.
The United States has become polarized on issues surrounding gun control and the 2nd Amendment. However, research and statistics provide enlightening conclusions about the effectiveness of gun control.
Now, unlike my usual fiskings I am going to attempt to grade this piece rather than merely counter it and I’m certainly not going to hold this young writer to the standards of say, a law professor. I will attempt to point out the problems and the laudable points as they arise, paragraph by paragraph.
The subheading is neutral. A neutral stance in the subheading is a nice way to set up a neutral analysis. It must be followed by a neutral analysis, however, or it comes across as falsely objective.
My theory at this point is going to be that the piece will suffer from regurgitation of manipulated statistics and supposition. Let us continue.
Why should Americans have access to firearms? According to proponents of gun rights, having ready access to firearms is important for personal self-defense, and though this sentiment may seem true on paper, such an open firearm policy would also have consequential downsides to it. The Trace mentions that defensive gun uses occur in only around 70,000 cases annually, while cases of firearm victimization occur at over seven times the rate of defensive gun uses. Reducing the amount of firearms in circulation would limit the ability to purchase firearms for self-defense, but it would also reduce the amount of gun violence caused by such ease of access to firearms. Thus, the benefits of gun control laws would far outweigh the negative consequences.
Heavy on assumptive supposition and objectively dubious premises. Let’s break the paragraph down.
Why should Americans have access to firearms?]
‘Should’ is incorrect. They do have access to firearms. Should implies the default state of not having access, and not only is that incorrect for the United States it is incorrect across most of the world, to include gun control heavy countries. There is, as a natural state, some domestic access to weaponry.
‘Why do Americans have access to firearms?’ or ‘Should Americans continue to have their current access to firearms?’ places the opening inquiry within realistic context.
[According to proponents of gun rights, having ready access to firearms is important for personal self-defense, and though this sentiment may seem true on paper,]
‘May seem true on paper’ when that “paper” happens to be the US Constitution, supported by substantive case law, and with a myriad of real world examples, of which I will cite Greenwood Mall as one recently, is an interesting perspective to take. This perspective must be defended properly. It is akin to saying, ‘While voting may seem a good sentiment paper…” and with a dramatically steep requirement to defend your argument.
[such an open firearm policy would also have consequential downsides to it.]
‘Would’ again is improper, the status of the United States is current, not theoretical. In order to explore this position further and in proper context, the correct term is ‘does’ have consequential downsides to it. We have, compared to everywhere else in the world an open firearm policy and supply.
Let’s put it in the context of voting again, “Such an accommodating voting policy would also have consequential downsides to it.” We could be arguing in favor of tax payer voting vs tax consumer, or property owner voting vs full citizenry. There are numerous theories on properly balanced voting just as their are numerous theories on proper firearm ownership and regulation.
Defend your position.
[The Trace mentions that defensive gun uses occur in only around 70,000 cases annually,]
The Trace is not an unbiased source on this issue, I do find their data (usually) well sourced however. Their most common problem is usually an omission of data or filter because the personally find the context implied thereafter socially problematic.
Competing sources, including those of the revised Kleck numbers, put the number of DGUs at several hundred thousand to in great excess of one million. If we are going to cite DGUs we must also acknowledge that 70,000 is the lowest estimate and therefore probably in error, as is the highest estimate of 4.7 million by the NSPOF. A conclusion was reached by a 2018 RAND Corporation report, which stated that the Kleck-Gertz estimate of 2.5 million DGUs per year, which until recently was cited by the CDC, and other similar estimates, “are not plausible given other information that is more trustworthy, such as the total number of U.S. residents who are injured or killed by guns each year.” The same report also stated that “At the other extreme, the NCVS estimate of 116,000 DGU incidents per year almost certainly underestimates the true number,” concluding that “… there is still considerable uncertainty about the prevalence of DGU”
So there is serious concern with the Trace’s 70,000 estimate, as RAND concludes that the number is very likely over 116,000. When the likely minimum estimate for DGUs is actually 65% higher than the number being quoted from Trace, defense of the argument suffers.
[while cases of firearm victimization occur at over seven times the rate of defensive gun uses.]
Only if you use the Trace’s data, which is not supported by several other studies on the issue and is well below RANDs 116,000, which is also too low. Due to the problems with DGU data it would be most effective to credibility of the argument to run the victimization comparison from multiple estimates and place them in context to the estimate.
Cases of firearms victimization appears uncited and its parameters are therefore unknown. The audience is left to assume this means homicides, 10,000-15,000 annual occurrences, and aggravated assault/attempted aggravated assault, 800,000-900,000 annual occurrences. The math works out to around 500,000 instances of ‘firearms victimization’, making firearms used in just over half the annual total instances. This tracks with homicide and method of injury trends, but the comparison remains less than certain.
If we split the 2.5 Million of Kleck and Gertz against the 116,000 of NCVS study, which RAND has said are likely too high and too low respectively, we’d get about the same number of DGUs as their are aggravated assaults in total. If we then adjust lower, since other estimates from other studies indicate numbers like 250,000 or 370,000, we still end up with around a 1:1 defensive use compared to criminal offensive use ratio, not 7 crimes per DGU.
A legal DGU is the direct prevention of a reasonably assumed attempt at homicide or sexual assault. It is used against what would be classified as an aggravated assault, but the aggravated assault category likely also covers instances in which a DGU would not have been justified. In general though, the crime of aggravated assault meets the legal requirement for a justified DGU response.
[Reducing the amount of firearms in circulation would limit the ability to purchase firearms for self-defense,]
Correct. But overly generalized and not constructive to the defense of your position, especially considering your Crime:DGU ratio cited is almost certainly false in favor of your argument.
Reducing by what method?
Prevention of future sale?
Confiscation or ‘buy back’ scheme?
[but it would also reduce the amount of gun violence caused by such ease of access to firearms.]
Supposition. This assumption only works if there is a meaningful way to reduce the firearm supply specifically to the criminal element by reduction in the legal supply, there is not.
This is spurious reasoning, once you put into context that you do not make 370,000,000+ firearms vanish, even if you halt all legal and illegal firearm sales right this instance, the premise of ‘reducing firearms in circulation’ becomes increasingly absurd.
Now recall that just over half of the aggravated assaults are committed with a firearm, by our quick math ~500,000. What evidence is there to suggest the assault would not have occurred if a firearm had not been present, knowing just under half of them are committed without a firearm? Reducing legal supply does not equate to a 1:1 reduction in illegal actions. What percentage of assaults are estimated to still occur if the firearm is removed from the situation but other methods and motive still exist?
Are we trying to prevent the crime? Or are we trying to prevent the crime happening with a gun involved? The former is a marked improvement on the safe continuity and civility of society, the latter is not but can be claimed as such “on paper” when using filters like ‘gun crime’.
The theory that we can stop a series of motivated illegal acts, that we know are accomplished through far more than one method of potential injury, by the ill defined ‘reduction of the supply’ by some small percentage of a common legal good (we won’t even touch on constitutionally protected yet, just the common ownership), that is again only one method of injury for these actions, without having an estimate of the likelihood the motivated illegal act will still occur or how much of the supply can be reasonably removed, is all just an exercise in wishful thinking.
[Thus, the benefits of gun control laws would far outweigh the negative consequences.
Supposition unsubstantiated by worldwide evidence. Defense of the premise has, so far, been conjecture and wishful thinking supported by bad math. Gun control laws is too vague, which gun control laws? Be specific with the law, benefits, and negative consequences.
Gun rights advocates may point to Chicago gun laws as evidence of strict gun control being ineffective. While it is true that Chicago is home to some of the nation’s highest rates of gun violence, the cause behind it isn’t due to the ineffectiveness of the state’s gun laws. NowThis News explains that the reason behind the city’s high rates of gun violence is largely due to the simplicity of smuggling firearms from states with looser gun control laws. In fact, Indiana, a state bordering Illinois, has some of the loosest gun laws in the nation, making it incredibly easy to purchase a firearm (even as a minor) and transport it across state lines into Illinois, leading to the high rates of gun violence in the state. Although it may be easy to point at Illinois as an example of the ineffectiveness of gun control, closer examination proves the opposite actually: looser gun laws contribute to higher rates of gun violence.
Let’s go again.
Gun rights advocates may point to Chicago gun laws as evidence of strict gun control being ineffective.]
Incorrect. They do so, regularly, and with strong evidence. Click that link.
[While it is true that Chicago is home to some of the nation’s highest rates of gun violence, the cause behind it isn’t due to the ineffectiveness of the state’s gun laws.]
Correct. Guns do not cause crime, they are a convenient method of injury.
[NowThis News explains that the reason behind the city’s high rates of gun violence is largely due to the simplicity of smuggling firearms from states with looser gun control laws. In fact, Indiana, a state bordering Illinois, has some of the loosest gun laws in the nation,]
Illinois ranks 19th in the US for violent crime. Indiana ranks 28th. Wisconsin, 32nd. Iowa, 35th. Kentucky, 45th. Of all the states that touch Illinois, and all of them have looser gun laws, only Missouri ranks higher at 8th. Missouri is 348 miles from Chicago. Do these states export criminal demand for firearms? Where comes this demand? Why would strengthening restrictions in these lower crime states influence Chicago’s crime?
[making it incredibly easy to purchase a firearm (even as a minor)]
Supposition. Hyperbole. What is ‘incredibly easy to purchase (even as a minor)’ when purchasing as a minor is illegal federally? What is the scale of difficult between a purchase in Illinois compared to Indiana or Wisconsin? Are we supposing the illegal action of purchasing a firearm as a minor is more difficult in Illinois, despite being equivalently illegal, than it is in Indiana? To what degree? How many firearms are purchased by minors in Indiana or Wisconsin vs in Illinois, all illegally?
[and transport it across state lines into Illinois, leading to the high rates of gun violence in the state. Although it may be easy to point at Illinois as an example of the ineffectiveness of gun control, closer examination proves the opposite actually: looser gun laws contribute to higher rates of gun violence.
Red(der) States have loose gun laws.Red(der) states, and DC, have higher violent crime rates.
If the assumption that loose gun laws increase violent crime were the case, the top map and the bottom map would look roughly the same. They do not. In many cases they are inverse.
Furthermore, Washington DC had among the most onerous firearms laws in the nation, to include a total ban on handguns starting in 1976. Between 2008 (Heller) and 2017 (Grace) the DC firearm laws were shredded in court, specifically the handgun ban was eliminated and shall issue concealed carry began. This was followed by, and maintained, a 17% reduction in violent crime. The rate dropped by 200 incidents per 100,000 almost immediately, despite DC residents now having and being able to carry firearms and the assertion that the rate should increase, not decrease.
So, do loose gun laws equal violent crime? Are we just looking at Mississippi and not, Maine, New Hampshire, or Vermont?
Let’s look at one more comparative example. Texas and California have dramatically different gun laws and are so large they could qualify as small nations. They also both have concerns with crime bleeding over from Mexico, much like Chicago allegedly has from Indiana.
And yet…
California was more violent than Texas 7 of the 10 years, 2011-2020. We should be observing dramatically more issues in Texas than California if loose gun laws beget violence. There is no conceivable way populations of that size could hide the differences. Or is it that California getting all its crime exported from Arizona and Nevada, who both actually do have higher violent crime rates (Arizona quite a bit higher), unlike Illinois to Indiana, but whose violent crimes combined don’t quite equate to 29% of the incidents in California?
Are we supposing that for every gun incident in Nevada and Arizona combined that they’re illegally giving 3 to California?
The comparison gets even worse when you realize that the homicide rates in Nevada and Arizona are only 7.3 and 7.5 compared to California’s 6.0, meaning the suicide rates in those states (which both make it into the top 10 causes of death) are responsible for more than half of both states’ ‘firearm death rates’.
NowThis News goes further to elaborate that 60% of guns found in Chicago crime scenes come from out-of-state, illustrating how Chicago’s gun violence may have more to do with its neighbors than its own gun control laws. Furthermore, Indiana is ranked 28th in terms of strictness of gun laws, which corresponds to its high firearm death rate in the state, higher than Illinois. Although firearm advocates often use Chicago as proof of the ineffectiveness of gun laws, this example actually backfires on them. Rather than prove that stricter gun laws don’t work, they actually prove that looser gun laws correlate with a higher firearm death rate. Chicago’s strict gun laws aren’t the problem; it’s Indiana’s loose gun laws that are, and coupled with the ease of transporting firearms across state lines, Chicago’s gun violence is evidently a problem influenced by external forces, not internal.
Once again, piece by piece.
NowThis News goes further to elaborate that 60% of guns found in Chicago crime scenes come from out-of-state, illustrating how Chicago’s gun violence may have more to do with its neighbors than its own gun control laws.]
May have, or does? A firearm from out-of-state has entirely legal means of entering the state by entirely legal possessors of that firearm, this seems to indicate that the gun control laws of Chicago and Illinois are, in fact, ineffectual and that it may just be less hassle to shop in Indiana or Wisconsin as those states are more firearm friendly. A FOID card holder is still a FOID card holder, whether in or outside Illinois.
[Furthermore, Indiana is ranked 28th in terms of strictness of gun laws,]
And Illinois is ranked 8th.
Top ten states by gun law strength according to Giffords
Yet there are 6 F rated states with lower death rates than Illinois, New Hampshire’s is significantly lower and its gun safety rating is right next to Indiana’s (26th and 27th respectively according to Giffords). How is it that external state gun policies are undermining the internal state law’s efficacy, but not their native efficacy and crime rates?
[which corresponds to its high firearm death rate in the state, higher than Illinois.]
But lower than other comparable states.
[Although firearm advocates often use Chicago as proof of the ineffectiveness of gun laws, this example actually backfires on them.]
Only if we are using cherry picked evidence, partial evidence, or noncontextually sorted evidence like ‘firearm death rate’ instead of homicide rate.
[Rather than prove that stricter gun laws don’t work, they actually prove that looser gun laws correlate with a higher firearm death rate. Chicago’s strict gun laws aren’t the problem; it’s Indiana’s loose gun laws that are, and coupled with the ease of transporting firearms across state lines, Chicago’s gun violence is evidently a problem influenced by external forces, not internal.
“Firearm death rate” is problematic. So far we have been addressing gun crime specifically, however ‘death rate’ includes suicides and accidents. Firearm suicides outpace firearm homicides. Firearm suicides are especially prevalent among an older white population. Indiana is roughly 80% white. The Giffords maps and charts being cited here do not filter for individual state suicide rates (but the CDC does) only suicide by racial population. This is deliberate. Showing individual state data would change how things look dramatically. Giffords maps only cite sorted state data when it is substantively in support of their message and will obscure the data behind a more agreeable filter otherwise. Hence, “Firearm Death Rate” instead of filtered suicide and homicide rates by state.
For a direct comparison, the Indiana homicide rate (9.7) is lower than the Illinois homicide rate (11.2) and the Indiana violent crime rate (357.7) is lower than the Illinois violent crime rate (425.9) so the higher Indiana ‘firearm death rate’ of 17.3 compared to the Illinois ‘firearm death rate’ of 14.1 can only come from one source.
Suicide.
Are we to believe that Indiana’s lower crime rates, but higher ‘firearm death rate’, is anything other than suicide? Suicide is an event which does not influence the flow of firearms to Illinois in the least, but it is being scapegoated (by omission of outright saying it) as a reason Indiana is problematic to Illinois?
But what about the 2nd Amendment? Don’t all Americans have a right to own firearms? Sure, under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, American citizens have the right to own firearms, but that doesn’t mean that everyone has free and unopposed access to owning a gun. In fact, the Supreme Court even ruled that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, and that gun control laws are not exactly unconstitutional with the exception of laws that outright ban the ownership of firearms such as the handgun ban.
Okay, let’s explore this.
But what about the 2nd Amendment? Don’t all Americans have a right to own firearms? Sure, under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, American citizens have the right to own firearms,]
So do many non-citizens. And not just own, do not make that mistake. Under the US Constitution and as affirmed by Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, US citizens and applicable legal residents have the right to own, to carry, and to clear, reasonable, and objective criteria to licensure of carry, free from any requirement to show ‘special need’ for it.
[but that doesn’t mean that everyone has free and unopposed access to owning a gun.]
That has never been the topic of this discussion, or indeed a subject of the debate at all, although the phrases ‘keep and bear’ and ‘shall not be infringed’ should now come into focus as very poignant to the discussion.
[In fact, the Supreme Court even ruled that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, and that gun control laws are not exactly unconstitutionalwith the exception of laws that outright ban the ownership of firearms such as the handgun ban.
I would suggest you strongly take a look at the Bruen decision and the directions given by the Supreme Court to the lower courts on their cases. Most of the popular gun control laws that fall under the ‘not exactly unconstitutional’ banner are about to be found exactly unconstitutional. Magazine bans, bans that rely on dubious features to determine an ‘assault weapon’, overreaching bans on carry in public spaces, prohibitions on requiring a ‘special need’ to carry a firearm and so forth are far more than an ‘outright ban of ownership’ and most of these law types are just waiting for the process to finish before being declared unconstitutional in specificity. Anti-gun states are, for the most part, just riding the cases out as a form of protest to the necessary limitation on their authority over firearm ownership vs their clear authority over criminal behaviors regardless of method. They are throwing tantrums.
Another thing to consider is the society in which the 2nd Amendment was drafted. Following the American Revolution, there was widespread hatred and fear of a tyrannical and overbearing government resulting from the many years of unfair treatment by Great Britain. Thus, the founding fathers found it necessary that the people of the US had the power to resist and counteract a tyrannical government should it ever come to power. The idea of the 2nd Amendment made sense at the time, but times have changed over the centuries. The idea of an authoritarian government coming into power is hardly realistic given the numerous checks and balances present within the government, and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not very applicable today.
A read of Bruen is very much in need. It specifically requires historical precedent.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. The United States government has its own extensive list of abuses of its power, if you believe for a moment that the 2nd Amendment is ‘not very applicable’ today you are not paying attention to world events. The 2nd Amendment is one of those checks on power you are referencing, it is a very important one.
If an authoritarian in power is so unlikely, what were Trump opponents so afraid of? How about the various COVID decisions of dubious legality and constitutionality? Statements like ‘ the idea of an authoritarian coming to power is hardly realistic’ do not stand up to scrutiny when both political parties, with reason, have pointed out those tendencies in the other, and that the acceptance of authoritarianism (so long as its your brand of it) is on the rise in both parties.
Reevaluate these declarations.
Moreover, the aforementioned gun laws that would drastically reduce firearm deaths aren’t unconstitutional either, since they do not outright prohibit the ownership of firearms, but rather make the process more stringent. So while the Constitution does state that every citizen has the right to bear arms, it doesn’t mean gun control laws are unconstitutional in any way, shape, or form. It is still possible to implement gun control laws while abiding by the Constitution. In fact, just about every gun control policy in the US today is constitutional, the very same laws that have been proven to save lives. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment isn’t unlimited either; former supreme court justice Antonin Scalia directly stated that it, “like most rights,… is not unlimited,” as recorded by Vox. This sentiment is reflected in the success rates of 2nd Amendment claims in court: a mere 1% according to the same source. Considering that the American justice system doesn’t place excessive importance on the 2nd Amendment, why should the rest of us?
Many more problems arise in this paragraph too. Let’s begin.
Moreover, the aforementioned gun laws that would drastically reduce firearm deaths]
Supposition, no substantive evidence exists, internally or externally to the US, supporting the concept that these laws (unnamed) and not the overall socioeconomic climate have a great influence over homicide or suicide rates. The phrase ‘gun laws that would drastically reduce firearm deaths’ isn’t merely assumptive, its fantastical.
[aren’t unconstitutional either, since they do not outright prohibit the ownership of firearms, but rather make the process more stringent.]
Incorrect. Many laws that ‘make the process more stringent’ have been found unconstitutional. Again, see Bruen. The recent ending of the concept of ‘may issue’. Defacto bans are just as much a ban, even if the language does not outright ‘ban’ an item.
An example, out of Chicago area if I recall correctly, had an ordnance in place that forbade a gun store from being within X number of feet from a K-12 school, the distance was chosen after carefully making certain of what the maximum distance was of any viable commercial property that could house a gun store within city limits was from a school, and then deliberately made greater. They didn’t ban gun stores within city limits by text, just by fact.
[So while the Constitution does state that every citizen has the right to bear arms, it doesn’t mean gun control laws are unconstitutional in any way, shape, or form.]
In contrast, just because a law is called gun control or ‘gun safety’ does not exempt it from constitutional scrutiny. Under this species of rather spurious logic however, an Assault Weapons Ban is by default unconstitutional since it bans firearms, yes?
[It is still possible to implement gun control laws while abiding by the Constitution.]
It is, the gun control laws that are falling to Heller, McDonald, and Bruen are ones that have arbitrary, unfair, and or outright absurd provisions in place for the state to exercise uneven power over the citizens ability to keep a firearm and bear it under the guise of ‘public good’, which is a phrase similar to ‘national security’ that gets brought out when they don’t have evidence enough to back the policy. They are infringements which constitutionally shall not be allowed to remain.
[In fact, just about every gun control policy in the US today is constitutional,]
No, they are not and Bruen will be making that plain.
[the very same laws that have been proven to save lives.]
No, they have not. They have been proven to be quite unfair to lower socioeconomic groups though.
[Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment isn’t unlimited either; former supreme court justice Antonin Scalia directly stated that it, “like most rights,… is not unlimited,”]
‘Not unlimited’ and ‘every gun control idea that isn’t an outright ban is automatically allowed’ is quite the leap in logic. ‘Not without limit’ and ‘any limit is allowable’ are not the same concept.
[as recorded by Vox. This sentiment is reflected in the success rates of 2nd Amendment claims in court: a mere 1% according to the same source. Considering that the American justice system doesn’t place excessive importance on the 2nd Amendment, why should the rest of us?
Yet in the next breath most gun control proponents will argue that 1% that did succeed, like Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, were somehow wrong, against the public good, and will “cost lives” in some nebulous form. So which is it? Are the courts to be respected or are they getting it wrong, we cannot seem to decide.
But that is an excellent question. If the US Justice system cannot be bothered to deal with a fraction of a percent of current firearm violations cases now (failed background checks) then why should we add more laws for the legal system to not care about? How would that generate positive efficacy on reducing suicide or homicide rates? Please explain your answer.
Oh, Vox should not be considered a serious source. You might not consider me a serious source either, but I cite and analyze serious sources and attempt to do so from an honest point of view, concealing nothing behind a favorable filter, so take that for what it is worth.
American society has been polarized by the issue of gun control, and in the wake of the Uvalde shooting, it has become clearer that we need an answer to this issue immediately. It has been proven that gun ownership has a correlation with an increase in firearm injury within the home, and the belief that having a gun makes you safer has long been debunked. The Harvard School of Public Health outright states that there is no correlation between owning a firearm and higher levels of safety, but there is a correlation between firearms and deadlier violence at crime scenes. Real-world examples prove to us that stricter gun control laws are effective at reducing the rate of firearm deaths. It is indeed possible to increase gun control without violating the constitution while saving the lives of innocent people and children.
Let’s unpack this.
American society has been polarized by the issue of gun control,]
Usually along the lines of whether or not the individual believes it is an actual constitutional right or not. It is a wonder that only the 2nd Amendment gets treated with this kind of fractious attention, to whether or not it is a ‘real’ right, and that was also commented on in Bruen.
[and in the wake of the Uvalde shooting, it has become clearer that we need an answer to this issue immediately.]
Conjecture. Every crisis spurs this talking point hot take. We need to solve this proverbially ‘now’. That urgency is then used in place of reasoned debate for or against the problems of a given policy.
[It has been proven that gun ownership has a correlation with an increase in firearm injury within the home,]
Check again, that study had many problems and didn’t pass RANDs checks.
[and the belief that having a gun makes you safer has long been debunked.]
That study was also found wanting by RAND. Data has instead found that gun ownership’s motivations are highly societal/social. Westernized ideals do see firearms defensively, but many also have an acceptance of suicide. Not all western residents and citizens ascribe to the so labeled ‘Western’ ideals and do so to varying degrees. Guns making you ‘safer’ is too nebulous a term when accident, homicide, and suicide are all vastly different ways to die and different elements within society value the firearm in highly variant ways.
Guns do not make you safer from attack any more than an airbag makes you a safer driver or less likely to be hit by another driver, that is not how they are utilized as a tool of safety. They are, like a fire extinguisher or a first aid kit, a responsive device in the defensive context. In that context, their lack of use is as much a testament to their efficacy as their successful use is.
Not needing a fire extinguisher because you do not have a fire to extinguish doesn’t devalue the fire extinguisher, and incidents where a fire extinguisher was misused, failed to stop a fire, was improperly used and resulted in injury or death do not either.
[The Harvard School of Public Health outright states that there is no correlation between owning a firearm and higher levels of safety, but there is a correlation between firearms and deadlier violence at crime scenes. Real-world examples prove to us that stricter gun control laws are effective at reducing the rate of firearm deaths.]
Real world examples also prove to us that responsibly armed people save themselves and others.
[It is indeed possible to increase gun control without violating the constitution while saving the lives of innocent people and children.
Substantiate this claim. Specify. Which gun control policies have strong life saving correlative evidence and do not violate the constitutional protections the US citizenry has.
I’ll give you the list.
Safe Storage
List ends.
All in all, it is in the best interests of the American public that lawmakers do more to expand gun control laws. It’s far too late to save the victims of gun violence in the past, but with rapid action we can save many more in the future.
To learn more about the hazards posed by firearms, check out my article on firearm ownership.
D+
The prose is engaging and readable and the author does not come across as anything other than earnest.
However, the references to sources of dubious quality, the lack of using multiple sources for each claim when claims are difficult to substantiate, and the variation on the overall topic of conversation all distract and detract from the premise. We went from crime in Chicago is Indiana’s fault, to accidents and suicide are bad, to combining them all, to using specific examples of contrasts between states that don’t hold up when given other comparisons between states, to tyranny doesn’t exist anymore since its the modern day and all, to saying that the only gun control that was unconstitutional was bans when it demonstrably isn’t, to all-in-all gun control is really good for everyone and there are no bad things in it actually as long as we don’t ban things.
If I were to summarize this into a more accurate title than ‘How effective is gun control?’, which is not addressed in any but the most vague and cursory sense throughout and fails to be substantiated, it would become ‘All gun control that isn’t an outright ban is both good and constitutional’, that title is an outright falsehood.
The piece fails to specifically address any single gun control policy or support where that policy, implemented in the real world environment, has objectively solid results. Chicago blaming Indiana is actually an outright admission of failure of their laws since they cannot build a policy to account for the influx of ‘crime’ firearms from a state with both a lower violent crime rate and lower homicide rate than they have.
No specific examples of the efficacy of gun control are given or defended, merely the premise that not all gun control is necessarily unconstitutional and the repeated belief, unsubstantiated and only professed, that gun control saves lives.
Real world examples where gun control policy is in place, and violence and deaths are high, and where gun control policies are not in place, with lower rates of violence and death, repeatedly contradict the combined assumptions that gun control is ‘good’ in an overall or any specific connotation.
For example,
In Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the minimum age for gun ownership being 25.[1] It is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence, and a special permit granting the right to do so is granted to certain groups, such as law enforcement officers.[2] For citizens to legally own a gun, they must have a gun license, which costs R$88,00[3] and pay a fee every ten years to renew the gun register.[4] The registration can be done online or in person with the Federal Police.[5] Until 2008, unregistered guns could be initially registered at no cost for the gun owner, the subsequent referring fee each decade would then apply.[6]
Handgun registration became law in 1934, and automatic firearms registration was added in 1951. In 1969, laws classified firearms as “non-restricted,” “restricted,” and “prohibited.” Starting in 1979, people who wished to acquire firearms were required to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate (FAC) from their local police agency. From 1995 to 2012, all firearms owners were required to possess a firearms licence—either a possession and acquisition licence (PAL), a possession-only licence (POL), a FAC, or a minor’s licence—and all firearms were required to be registered. In April 2012, the Parliament of Canada enacted the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act to eliminate the requirement to register non-restricted firearms. The requirement for all firearms owners to possess a valid firearms licence remained law.[2]
Two similar firearm legal systems, Canada being the more permissive of ownership.
Brazil, with more gun control, has a homicide rate of 22.5 and a suicide rate of 6.4. Canada, with more permissive gun laws, has a homicide rate of 2.0 and a suicide rate of 10.3. Brazil, with more gun control, has a death rate of 28.9 vs Canada’s rate of 12.3. Brazil, with more gun control, have their deaths 4:1 in favor of homicide vs Canada whose are 5:1 in favor of suicide.
The United States, with substantially more permissive firearm laws and number of firearms than either nation, sits in the middle with a death rate of 21.0, 14.5 from suicide and 6.5 from homicide making the ration a little more than 2:1 in favor of self inflicted deaths.
Substantiate these examples against the assertion ‘gun control laws save live’.
“But Canada is 1st World?”
Ah, and the whole idea comes crumbling down…
Maybe, as evidence suggests, it is the general civility and prevailing attitudes of the society, as a whole and within the different socioeconomic groups, and not the law ‘as may seem true on paper’ that can accurately gauge deaths, by violence or self inflicted, within a nation?
So if it isn’t the law, why are we worried about making more laws, especially with dubious enforcement, instead of cultivating the societal civility with programs that promote the ‘westernized’ outlooks that keep deaths low and focus them upon the socioeconomic niches where those attitudes are lacking most of all? Gun control laws tend to negatively impact those same socioeconomic niches that need the uplift the most, the laws are harming the locales they are supposed to help and being little more than an nuisance everywhere else where they aren’t needed to begin with.
Before we discuss the proposed Washington AWB (Assault Weapons Ban), In 2018, Washington State passed I-1639, which defined “Semiautomatic Assault Rifles” (SARs) as ” a rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge”, and mandated background checks, as well as a training course prior to purchase, and prohibited sales of such to anyone under 21. To anyone with a passing acquaintance with the function of firearms, this is an obvious play at making literally any gun that isn’t manually operated an “assault weapon”, and thus subject to the increased scrutiny and de-facto registration I-1639 placed on the purchase of such.
Not satisfied with that, Washington Governor Inslee and anti-gun advocates have now proposed a ban on the very “assault weapons” they vastly broadened the state’s definition of in 2018. It seems likely that should such a ban be enacted, functionally every modern firearm that isn’t pump, lever, or bolt-action would become unavailable to Washingtonians. The proposed Washington AWB would fall among the most draconian restrictions on 2A rights in the US, potentially making even California look somewhat reasonable by comparison. Which is an admittedly depressing concept to mull over.
Apparently, watching the debacle Oregon is going through with Measure 114 has only encouraged those pushing the Washington AWB. Whether voters agree or not is to be determined, but one has to hope that FPC, SAF, GOA, and the like can set the stage for its eventual defeat. With Measure 114, Bruen-response cases in NY, NJ, and their ongoing efforts in cases against California AG Bonta looming large, and potentially headed to a seemingly gun-friendly SCOTUS, that hope is not unfounded. The Bruen decision should have chastened these people, but instead emboldened them to attempt to ram through an obvious middle finger to the Supreme Court, and we anxiously await the results of these and many other ongoing RTKBA cases. The Washington AWB, should it eventually pass, faces an uphill and costly legal battle thanks to the efforts of those currently filing lawsuits as fast as these poorly thought out, anti-liberty bills are passed.
Sighting systems on handguns don’t have much variation. We have the red dot option and the standard notch and post style. Other than that, anything else is often somewhat odd. One of the odder styles of handgun iron sights is trench sights. Trench sights is a bit of a misnomer. There isn’t really a set of sights. Trench sights are a notch carved from the front to the rear of the slide. As the name implies, it’s a trench.
It’s tough to find information on the history of trench sights. They seemed to gain some popularity after the 1960s. One of the first notable weapons to use some form of trench sight was the ASP pistol. In all fairness, it wasn’t a real trench sight, but a proto version of it, if you will.
The Asp Guttersnipe Sight (Rock Island Auction)
In the 1970s, AMT put out the Backup, a micro-sized pistol in numerous calibers. As the name implies, it was designed for deep carry and as a backup gun. They featured a trench sight across the top. A small company called Sterling produced the Model 302, a .22LR pocket-sized automatic with a trench sight.
Most recently, the Colt New Agent had a trench sight, which seems to be the last modern handgun to feature trench sights. They have certainly waned in popularity over time, and as point shooting disappeared from the training consciousness, trench sights went with it.
Benefits of Trench Sights
What’s the purpose of hacking sights off your gun and carving a notch in it? Well, the main benefit is tied to deep concealment. The purpose of trench sights is to eliminate snags when drawing from concealment. Sights were seen as a snag waiting to happen. Without sight, how do you aim the gun?
(Crossbreed Holsters)
You carve a trench into it and then look through the trench to attempt to index the weapon in the correct orientation. They are just a step above using the end of the slide to aid. Trench sights make it easy to ensure your gun is at least pointed at the bad guy with the tip of the barrel in his general direction. It lacks the ability to give you a proper and precise sight picture.
Trench sights do promote more of a target focus than standard iron sights. Focus on the target and put the trench between you and him. That can be a faster and better way to fight, but it does limit you to extremely close range.
Do Trench Sights Work?
If you set a silhouette target at seven yards and gave me a SIG P365, I could put ten rounds into what’s essentially one area of the chest, likely grouped very close together. Put me at the same range with the same target and a pair of trench sights, and I could hit him in the chest. It likely won’t be in a tight group, but the shots would be in the chest.
They do work, at very close range, on a big target. On smaller targets and at longer ranges? Well, maybe. If the target sits still, sure, but how likely is someone to sit still in a defensive encounter? With my Sterling 302, I can hit a 10-inch gong at 15 yards most of the time.
The Truth About Guns
SIG and the P365SAS use something similar to a trench sight, kind of, and it might be the most usable of the trench sights out there. Honestly, with modern guns and modern holsters, the chance of a snag seems rather lower. In some real niche deep concealment situations, I guess it could happen, but it seems like the age of the trench sight is over.
