[Ed: DRGO sees lots of “studies” marketed as gun control justification that we don’t have time to report on in detail, though they all should be. Thankfully, they often are reviewed by other Second Amendment advocates. We thought we’d catch up on a few here this week, some having been mentioned on our Facebook timeline, some not, but all worth attention (sometimes repeatedly). The next installment comes Thursday.]
“California’s comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality” by Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, Garen Wintemute, MD, MPH, et al, in February’s Annals of Epidemiology. We love this one, because it is one of the few from either the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (Webster) or UC-Davis (Wintemute) that is reasonably well designed, following changes in the same location over time (trend analysis) rather than comparing different locations at the same time (cross-sectional analysis). And they found that neither California’s comprehensive background checks (UBCs) nor it’s prohibition of misdemeanor violence conviction status for firearm purchases made any difference in the incidence of firearm homicides or suicides—i.e., in “gun violence”. They were left advocating for “permit to purchase”, naturally, an escalation of infringement rather than admitting that their “gun violence” solutions are not.
Pair this with January’s publication of DRGO member Dr. Mark Hamill’s group of “State Level Firearm Concealed-Carry Legislation and Rates of Homicide and Other Violent Crime” in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. Here, in another quality study comparing the trends before and after changing concealed-carry laws in all states, they found no correlation between these laws’ restrictiveness and rates of violent crime, “there was no significant association between shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators.” We know that UBCs, tightening prohibiting criteria, and freer concealed carry laws do not cause increased violence.
Stir in confirmation by the CDC of Gary Kleck’s seminal work that there were easily over a million episodes of defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year during the 1990s (“Case Closed: Kleck is Still Correct”). That’s most of what we need to know to prove how valuable our responsibly armed citizenry is in keeping this country safe and more peaceful than not. That’s without even checking Dr. John Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center, where the rest of the work has already been done, or GunFacts which keeps track of everything there is to know about it.
Ah, but according to the CDC: School Homicide Rate Up Dramatically from 2009 to 2018. Even if we buy their numbers, this was 514 victims in 431 incidents overall through 24 years, or about 21 people per year. Each one is tragic, yet as national emergencies go, is this? The CDC doesn’t track many causes of death with such little objective impact. We like to point out the more than 400,000 or more iatrogenic patient deaths each year that the health care professions are responsible for as meriting far greater attention from public-spirited doctors; this would be very much in their lane.
And we shouldn’t accept those numbers at face value. By dividing the types of killings into “single” and “multiple”, the authors are ignoring the standard historic FBI definition of “mass shootings”. That requires one or more perpetrators randomly shooting people unrelated to them in a public place, with at least 4 deaths not including the shooter(s). Their classification includes two or more fatalities, without reference to whom.
There were only 30 “multiple-victim” incidents killing 90 children ages 5–18 years old. (The age range is realistic, and relieving, because too many refer to “youth” up to 24 years old.) Obviously, nearly all of the victims were actually killed in single murders, which were nearly all purposeful and personal.
These “school homicides” occurred not only on school property, but also when the victims were “traveling to or from” any school or school-sponsored event. It doesn’t clarify whether every attack had anything to do with these events. Media makes far more of fewer than 4 victims of these not necessarily “school shootings” each year than public policy should.
The CDC researchers’ statement in the study reveals the agency’s unabated agenda to promote “gun violence” regulatory intervention: “A comprehensive approach to violence prevention is needed to reduce risk for violence on and off school grounds.”
CNN (of course) also reports that “Handguns are more popular in US homes, with deadly consequences for children” 1 to 5 years old. This refers to “Family Firearm Ownership and Firearm-Related Mortality Among Young Children: 1976–2016” published in Pediatrics in February. Now there is a good point made by the end of the article, that the intervention that counts is to ensure that unsupervised children cannot access our firearms. But the implication is that increasing numbers of handguns themselves (and not also increasing numbers of long guns?) are responsible. Besides that being nothing but correlation (≠ causation, remember), they are assuming that “changes in firearm ownership from predominantly rifles to handguns” has occurred. No one knows which class predominates, even though there are increasing sales of handguns.
“Child deaths from firearms [sic] . . . were on the decline until 2001” then have increased . . . “over the past decade from 0.36 per 100,000 children ages 1 to 4 to 0.63 per 100,000.” Now there were 80 deaths from all gun-related causes in the United States in the age group 1 to 4 years old in 2017. If we’re concerned about a 75% increase to 80, that means 46 deaths at baseline. Given the overall death rate of 25.3 per 100,000 for these ages in 2016, a change in such small numbers of .27 per 100,000 is not what we’d call a public health crisis—it’s a rounding error. (The point is valid even though years 2016 and 2017 were used here.)
.
.
— DRGO Editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
With the number of “affordable” ARs on the market I was glad to see Sig Sauer produce a practically perfect out of the box AR, the Tread.
When I say practically perfect, it has an M-Lock forearm, flip-up co-witnessing sights, ambidextrous charging handle, ambidextrous magazine release, six position adjustable Magpul SL-K stock, 1 in 8 twist mid-length gas system barrel and crisp single stage trigger. At full retail the Tread is $951, with these options that is a good deal. No doubt, you may find it for less at your local FFL dealer.
Out of the box Sig’s Tread is ready for use.The ambidextrous controls are a blessing for shooters. Unlike aftermarket parts they do not interfere with the trigger.
My sample Tread arrived with a 1-6 power Tango 6 scope with Tread short fore-grip and three prong flash hider. If you prefer to install a different brake or suppressor mount the barrel has ½-28 threads, standard. If this were my Tread I would install a Surefire brake so I could mount my Surefire Mini, to reduce the sonic crack and virtually all muzzle rise. It was very overcast when I was testing the Tread and there was no muzzle flash.
The Tango 6 arrived mounted and with a throw lever, a must for three gun.
What impressed me most about the Tread was the trigger. I have been shooting AR style rifles for nearly forty years and this is one of, if not the best factory trigger I have fired. It was crisp, breaking at four pounds with virtually no reset distance. I know many will want to swap out the trigger for something lighter like pro three gunners shoot, but I am looking at this as an economical carbine to protect myself and others. Dropping in a two to four hundred dollar trigger group defeats that goal. I would prefer to put that money toward a quality optic like Sig’s 1-6 Tango 6 optic.
The Tango 6 is available in first or
second focal plane models. Our sample was a first focal plane and retails for
$1799. When shooting a first focal plane optic you will notice the reticule
size changes in relation to the magnification. This means you will find little
or no point of aim/point of impact shift as you change the magnification. The illuminated
horseshoe BDC is fast and accurate. Once I had zeroed the Tread and Tango 6 at
fifty yards, I was dead on at two hundred yards. I prefer using the fifty yard
zero over one hundred yard zero for my applications. Like Ford versus Chevy,
the choice is yours.
The windage and vertical adjustments are positive and the reticule brightness is easily adjusted.
What I found intriguing about the Tread is Sig’s new design for the forearm. It is not round, it’s not a polygon. I would describe it as a flat roofed house with rounded corners of the foundation. On each of the forearm’s sides there are M-LOK slots to allow you to mount lights, lasers, grips, etc. The best feature of this design is it just feels good. You have the smoothness of a round forearm and the stability of a polygon shaped forearm when using a table or fence as a support. This forearm is just like the last bowl of oatmeal in The Three Bears, it is just right.
The forearm and short grip fit and feel just right. The flat bottom gives you a solid support on tables, auto hoods, etc.
After examining the Tread and lubricating the bolt carrier group and trigger, I ensured the scope was properly mounted and bore sighted. Next I needed ammunition to shoot with. I had a bag with mixed factory 55 grain full metal jacket cartridges that would be ideal to check actual zero and to run through her to check function. To see how well the Tread performed I had two loads from Black Hills Ammunition; 68 gr. Heavy Match and 77 gr. Hollow Points, Federal’s 69 gr. Gold Medal match and three loads from Sig, 55 gr FMJ, 60 gr HT and 77 gr OTM.
To feed the Tread ammunition I used Lancer’s
L5, Troy’s Battle Mag and Brownells CS SOCOM magazine, and the OEM P-Mag. I
used a couple twenty round magazines while shooting from the bench using MTM
Case Gard’s Pistol Rest to steady the Tread. The twenty round magazines set
nearly perfectly on the Pistol Rest giving two points of contact to steady the
carbine.
I was not resting the magazine on the rest because I was shooting bowling pins at about 25yds
I had the Tango 6 and Tread zeroed in less than a dozen rounds. After that I fired several groups off hand at distances from seven to fifty yards.
After a couple hundred incident free rounds, it was time to shoot the Tread for accuracy at the traditional distance of one hundred yards. Thanks to the magnification on the Tango 6 and Birchwood Casey’s Shoot-N-C Targets, I did not have to trek down range to check every target. I found the 1 in 8 twist barrel accurately stabilized all the cartridges. There were no great differences in the performance of the loads. Five shot groups of each load all were under an inch and a half. I did manage to get one five shot group with BHA’s 68 grain Heavy Match to come in at 0.634”. After that I quit, figured why press my luck.
Over the last couple of decades I have fired dozens of ARs. Most of them I thought, I need to do XYZ to make it perfect. This was not the case with the Sig Sauer Tread and Tango 6. The only thing I would add are, a quick detachment point for a sling, a light, possibly a section of rail for a front back-up sight, and flip-up back-up sights. Other than that, the Tread is good to go. This carbine would serve well for varmint hunting, three gun competition, and duty or home protection.
For the last few years, Sig Sauer has been responding to the consumer’s wants and needs. The Tread is the latest of Sig Sauer’s fine firearms that live up to Sig’s motto “to hell and back reliability”. If you are looking for a new AR, put the Tread on the top of the list. Take it out to the range to shoot it accurately, safely and have fun doing it.
For those not in tune with the gaming world, or Tom Clancy games, this is the latest in the string of titles released.
The Division 2 is a sequel (hence “2”) of the original title, Tom Clancy’s: The Division. This game series is a departure from classic First Person Shooter and Third Person Shooter styles like Ghost Recon.
Instead we are treated to a “shoot n’ loot” RPG style game where the motivation is basically -kill bad man, take his stuff to kill the next bad man, take his stuff too- “Shoot n’ Loot”.
The reward system in the game centers around acquiring more powerful versions of your favorite guns, some neat gadgets, and armor.
I love a good post apocalyptic yarn. A game that is entertaining and that I enjoy playing I can suspend A LOT of disbelief for.
But… there are limits. The Division 2 crosses those limits several times…
It is apparent to me that the writers for this game did maybe 10% of the viable research to make the game flow smoothly story wise and instead fell prey to easy troupes of both stereotypes and anti-stereotypes. They then gave themselves a hearty well done and hoped nobody would ask questions and just continue the extreme suspension of disbelief.
But again, I like this game. It’s fun. I must reiterate this point. These are just funny little plot and detail points where they could have done better very very easily.
The Plot [Spoilers]
In the very near future an insane evil virologist creates a super viral strain of many bad diseases all rolled into one. The Green Poison or Dollar Flu was spread initially on money and then like any normal hyper contagion. Lots of people died. There was panic. Quarantine was ordered at the origin point in New York City. That structure of containment and control made of government personnel and private corporations failed.
Enter -> The Division
The Division is essentially a group of special operators who only get called up in an apocalyptic emergency, like some kind of super secret squirrel national guard. They are there to assist local government structures and assist in the continuity of the United States… they also have all the extra judicial authority in the universe and are masters of body stacking turbo murder justice… very Judge Dredd.
So these ordinary citizen special operators get activated for NYC and shit goes sideways.. soooo they activate a few more.
This is where you enter in the first game. You then run around NYC dealing justice through automatic weapons fire and helping to restore something like a functioning situation in New York with the help of your Asian sidekick and New Yorker’s New Yorker Police Chief.
You fight groups of looters and rioters, a culty group of former city workers and hangers on who are trying to burn away the plague, and a PMC group turned warlord junkies. It’s actually a really fun premise and makes for a good narrative despite some of the first game’s issues (end game *cough cough* there wasn’t one).
Hooray! You saved NYC… kind of. It’s doing alright..
Sequel Time!
The Division 2 starts a few months later during the following summer. You’re a different agent of The Division’s second deployment and the U.S. has been reduced to tribal clannish enclaves of survivors nationwide.
Then your super secret extra special tech powers all go out and you have to run to Washington D.C. to basically be the heavily armed IT department.
Cool. Still tracking. Fiction requires suspension of disbelief and mine is having a great time. Roll into D.C. and get this party started.
The “Factions”
You roll into a gunfight on the white house lawn (with the weakest baddies of the game who have laid siege to your main base, that’s how ‘bad’ things are in D.C.)
You’ve now met the first faction, “Hyenas” aka looters with a tribe. This loose group of murdery hooligans has a pretty standard motivation in the shell of The Capitol, survive and take what you want/need from everyone else.
You, shiny watch anointed citizen special operator with extra judicious shoot on sight authority, fight this band of thugs in a kind of tribal warfare counterinsurgency with the help of a terribly armed citizenry who semi-regularly take on juggernaut heavy machine gun wielding type enemies with wooden baseball bats.
At other points you roll across “public executions” happening for no apparent reason… and in front of no actual public… except you, special watch operator, who sweep in and start stacking bodies and then OH! look at that the people about to be executed pulled out their concealed carry pieces and now you’re having a merry old gunfight with somewhere between 6:1 and 10:1 odds.
Luckily you’re a Division Agent.
The RPG mechanics are not my beef here, it’s the literal random execution of random citizenry on public display but to no actual public. But hey its a random encounter, and they are fun to roll up.
The fact that the local population are mostly armed this far into the badness actually makes a degree of sense, but the fact that as you progress through the game and “assist them” (mostly by viciously cutting down their enemies with gunfire) they go from packing their pistols and an occasional shotgun or rifle (realistic) to every civilian squad rocking M60E6’s with high end optics (I think I’ve personally picked up more M60’s in that game than were actually produced, glad they’re all in D.C.)
But hey, you did get that fabrication specialist. So she’s cranking out those modern Special Forces level belt feds and supporting equipment… Yeah her, the early 20’s hipster looking minority master gunsmith. She alone is cranking out high tier weapons for you and the militia. The world wide disaster is so inclusive!
You’ll also find a Brit to run your gun range (nobody else was available, I guess), also put it in the bowling alley… seems safe… good thing we have this highly sophisticated target system in the back room! The fine English gentlemen will stare disapprovingly at your targets, some of which you must deliberately shoot the ceiling ala VODA style.
The range is a cool in game feature to try gear and get DPS numbers but the explanation for “staffing” it is weak.
The staffing unlocks that follow the main storyline are an obvious nod to inclusiveness… taken just a tad too far. So far that they are using it in place of narrative instead of including it in the narrative. There is no explanation for these people, like this girl’s mom or dad was a Sig Sauer executive or something, just ‘here is your very well racially and gender balanced team to do things at the base.’
Might be an explanation in the ‘deep lore’ somewhere but literally nothing during gameplay.
Ok, next faction: The “Outcasts.”
Cults!
Everyone loves an evil cult. The twist on the original in the first Division, The Cleaners, was that they wanted to burn away the Green Poison and kinda went crazy with it. Flamethrowers everywhere! Very toasty.
The Outcasts are the opposite, infected carriers who have embraced their demise and seek to keep spreading infections and bring those they blame down with them. Plague spreading hooligans!
Cool faction. Lots of fun to fight. The rusher enemies are straight up just the psychos from Borderlands but that was a good enemy type. The sledge wielding roid raged murder freight train bullet sponges are a trip too.
Anyway, second cool enemy faction with an understandable plausible motivation in our fictional D.C. and well done from a story standpoint. They’re further down the maniacal train than the Hyenas or any other faction actually, probably my narrative favorite.
Here it’s your allies who bug me. You’re operating out of a former college campus where a loudspeaker is asking for volunteers to head to the little ad hoc shooting range the compound has set up (mind you far more advanced shooting ranges just spring up randomly as friendly events for some bonus XP) because they need marksman for… deer season.
Yes, deer season. During a worldwide epidemic apparently the DNR has survived and will be checking if you bought your deer tag. Far be it from you to be collecting fresh game for a conclave of survivors. Deer are also everywhere in D.C. , like I shot 4 just outside the compound gate to see if you could collect them, nope… must not be in season.
The story here takes a hard derailment in the suspension of disbelief category and its on a stupid detail. These guys aren’t going to wait until November to grab venison! If they’re hungry it’s going to be game on. People poach today for food and yet the epidemic societal conclave is going to issue deer tags? Are you going to have to wear hunters orange too? So that the other groups bent on murdering you and taking your stuff will recognize you’re hunting deer, not people…
Massive detail fail.
Faction 3: The Last Man Battalion!
Oops, I meant True Sons. LMB was D1.
Faction 3 is a copy paste from the first game with a new tag stuck on it. Narrative wise these guys were allegedly JTF (Government Forces) who went rogue and not PMC’s (Government paid private forces helping the government forces.)
It works, group of soldiers followed a charismatic misguided criminally convicted Colonel who then styles himself a General to restore order under his watch… It’s more lazily done than in D1 and it’s more loosely explained and hinted at but it rolls through and the more active and multifront combat partially makes up for not really knowing what their motivation source is.
The True Sons just end up being another squad of baddies to engage in gunfights and don’t have the narrative gravitas the other two do. They’re definitely evil bastards, they totally gas a settlement of folks (for no discernable reason actually, just a couple of assholes with a mortar that you then go provide sweet automatic weapons justice to) and their squads are attacking and harassing your allies… But there are just holes in the motivational chain all over and are unexplained.
Yes, the bad guys gassed the settlement… but why? Because they’re “bad?” This was a group of soldiers, cops, firefighters, and paramedics who are allegedly still trying to beat the infection and restore order in just a twisted despot survivalist sort of manner. But they keep just doing “bad” things with no narrative motivation.
Game writers just making up tid bits of things the hero should fight against and stop but there’s nothing in the general gameplay to link them.
Maybe it’s buried in ‘deep lore’ but it shouldn’t be! I should clearly understand why I’m running in with an M249 to blast belts of ammunition into these red, purple, and gold health bar enemies. A little more effort into connecting the narrative. It feels increasingly lazy and like the focus at this point was entirely on the loot table (which still had/has issues)
Faction 4: Random Archer Guys
Completely random groups of compound bow armed black clad folk who just need killing. I have no idea if they are in with The Outcasts or not. There’s no intel or motivation for these guys except wanting to try and turn you into an archery target… Maybe more on them comes later?
Faction 5: BLACK TUSK
I assume the conversation for the Black Tusk PMC’s (Hey! Here come the evil mercenaries! I missed them) went something like this.
GameDev 1: We need another bad guy faction for the end game. Some real hardasses.
GameDev 2: Mercenaries?
GameDev 1: Okay, cool. How do we introduce them?
GameDev 2: Have the narrator guy say, “Hey look, mercenaries.”
GameDev 1: After a huge cutscene which takes a giant steaming dump on all the work the character just completed?
GameDev 2: Oh yeah! Hell… Wait, why are these guys here? Who’s paying the near future tech mech armed mercs? They look super expensive and the world probably doesn’t have a functioning economy 7 months after a viral disaster.
GameDev 1: Carl, don’t ask silly questions. We have them hooked on loot drops at this point.
Gameplay
Some nuts and bolts items. (a tradable currency in the game for XP by the way)
Obviously the game is an RPG style which means numbers based damage in place of more “realism” in anatomy when engaging enemies. A head shot won’t drop most bad guys. That’s fine.
They actually do a fair job of keeping the enemies from feeling like bullet sponges even on the high health bad guys. Blazing well aimed shots into a threat will drop them reasonably and you cannot sit in the open taking endless damage yourself.
A significant improvement of note: the accessory system. Instead of acquiring a pile of guns and then a far more substantial pile of accessories for those guns, seeking ever slightly better RNG’d versions of your favorites, once you have an ACOG its accessible for any gun it is compatible with and provides a set bonus. Way less junk management and RNG grinding.
But the guns… for a franchise known for its attention to detail they goofed up a few. The venerable M16A2 is placed in the category ‘Rifle’ and fires 3 round burst. The M4 is in the assault rifle category and fires full auto.
This wouldn’t be a problem if they drew ammo from the same ammo pool (like in real life) but they don’t. The game does a poor job compensating mathematically for it too.
But that isn’t the most confusing one. The single most confusing is the USC…
The goofy neutered version of the UMP (also in the game a submachine gun) is also in the ‘Rifle’ category and draws from that ammo pool. None of it makes sense and the guns do not balance well. The majority of the guns in the game feel like they fit where they sit but these generate just enough cognitive dissonance that it breaks down the suspension of disbelief. If they were good guns in the game, in their categories, they would actually play out alright. But they aren’t.
Not only are they a testament to sloppy detail work by being out of category (the M16A2 could rock in the AR category) but their subpar game performance makes them throwaway items in addition to being totally wrong on details.
I’d be on board with a SMG category semi-auto with high individual round damage andpulling from the SMG ammo pool. Having the USC pull ‘rifle ammo’ from what are largely .308’s (the best performing guns in the category), .300 BLK, and 5.56 SPR type rifles relegates the USC to the trash heap over and over again.
Both the weapons could be good in game but they are in the wrong pile, making them trash and failures in attention to detail analysis.
Am I being harsh on a game too many steps from real as is?
I don’t believe so. Again, I enjoy this game overall. I’m just commenting on a few of the less pleasing details that break me out of the game immersion because they’re just so lazily wrong.
I do not believe that there is any such thing as “gun violence”. There is also no such thing as knife violence, car violence, alcohol violence, etc. Violence is perpetrated by an individual or group. The tool used is irrelevant.
Most articles about ‘gun violence’ are written as if to justify positions that the authors don’t recognize or accept aren’t true. Let’s break it down:
1. Suicide, whether involving firearms or not, is an act of desperation, remorse, inability to accept circumstances, or choosing to avoid a situation that the individual cannot control.
The literature is replete with data about other countries’ numbers and rates of suicide. Culture strongly influences rates as well as the preferred mechanisms. Suicide by firearm makes up approximately half of United States firearm associated deaths.
2. Justifiable homicide falls into the category of self-defense, including law enforcement action. Whether it involves firearms, conducted electrical weapons, blunt objects, pointed objects or blades, or hands makes no difference in the end.
These make up 20 to 25% of firearms associated deaths. These outcomes are socially and culturally acceptable.
3. There are small and declining numbers of accidental firearm deaths in the United States.
4. That leaves approximately 25% of firearms associated deaths due to criminal activity. More than half of these occur in just a few of our large cities and are associated with gang activity and other drug or sex trafficking crime.
With that basic information on the table, the question becomes: What to do about violence? The emphasis on firearms is the proverbial red herring. The problem is not firearms, knives, or tire irons in the hands of the police or honest citizens.
The avowed intent of much of the literature on “gun violence” is to design laws that will preclude criminals obtaining firearms. That idea is either mistaken or malicious. No law will prevent a criminal from breaking the law. That is what defines “criminal”. The only purpose of laws is to punish people for violating them, which may be of some deterrence. Until human nature becomes angelic, there will be the need to punish criminal behavior.
By definition, honest people are not criminals, so the only purpose of such laws can be to harass honest people. To paraphrase Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged: “The government cannot control honest people. The government can only control criminals. Therefore the plan is to pass laws that no one can obey and make everyone criminals. Then the government can control everyone.”
The emphasis on firearms by many of our politicians and academics represents their blatant failure to grasp reality. Life circumstances do not explain the venality of Bernie Madoff, the pederasty of some clergy, or the violence of gangs. They have all chosen to manipulate and control people criminally. A firearm is a tool some use to exercise that control, nothing more or less.
I value laws that are based on the moral principles of society. Abusive behavior toward other human beings is the problem, not the tools used in doing so.
.
.
—Robert A. Margulies, MD, MPH, FACEP, FACPM is an emergency medicine specialist, retired Navy Medical Corps captain, sworn peace officer, and firearm trainer with multiple certifications from the NRA and the Massad Ayoob Group.
With
the onset of spring it is time to start getting ready for this year’s
competition season or to start getting ready for hunting season. One of the
biggest things to learn is shooting from non-traditional positions. When I was
a kid, my dad told me to practice shooting “like Daniel Boone (one of the
greatest woodsman of the colonial era)”.
What dad was telling me was shoot off fence posts, use your hand as a
support on a tree trunk, use a cross timber on a fence as your rest, shoot
seated, etc. These non-traditional shooting positions will improve your scores
and increase your odds of getting a trophy. If you carry a firearm
professionally you will find hoods of vehicles, window ledges and even your
partner’s shoulder maybe an improvised supported position.
Bracing on a tree, rail, or any vertical object gives you a stable platform.
If your range be like mine, you can
use the bench and roof supports to simulate shooting off of a tree, a stump,
hill rise, etc. You can also practice seated shooting, prone, or kneeling-double
knees down, traditional kneel; whatever position you can come up with; as long
as it is safe. In the woods, on duty, and in competition; you never know where
or when you will need to execute a shot, so practice in various positions. You
can practice them dry firing in your house as well.
Double kneeling is a stable shooting position that raises you above obstacles. When combined with a fence rail it is like shooting from a bench rest
Kneeling and seated positions have been used by hunters and armed professionals since the dawn of shooting. The key to making these stable positions is to have the fleshy muscle of the triceps/bicep resting on the inside or outside of the knees. You can see in the accompanying photos how LLP has positioned herself. If you place your elbow directly on the knee, you will slip. Two hard objects are not stable; the belly of the muscle acts as a shock absorber against natural movements such as breathing. In the photos you will notice she also has looped her hand through the rifle sling. If you are sitting in front of a tree, use it to further stabilize your position. Combining a sling and proper positioning; kneeling and seated shooting positions are nearly as stable as the prone position.
Wrapping the sling around your back and shoulders ensures you have a solid lock on the rifle. Wrapping it around the support hand further improves the position.
Slings create a support when you
wrap your hand through the forward portion of the sling in a shooting position.
This increases the isometric tension across your back from the butt of the long
gun to your wrist to your support hand. If your sling is properly fitted the
long gun will be rock solid without the use of your shooting hand. What this
does is allow you to take more precise shots, because your shooting hand only
shoots, it does not support the firearm. You will find many examples of how to
fit a sling on youtube or Kyle Lamb’s page Viking Tactics. Both are invaluable
resource to improve your shooting.
Substituting the wall of our range building for a tree, you can see how the seated position becomes as solid as a rock
Because the sling is a tool not a
carry strap buy a quality sling.. When I say a quality sling, the sling should
be a two point military leather or nylon style sling; slings from The
Wilderness (Giles Sling), Gunsite (Ching Sling), Blue Force Gear and BLACKHAWK
come to mind. These allow you to adjust the sling to fit for carry and
shooting.
Another piece of gear all hunters
should have that ensures a reliable rest and works from a number of shooting
positions is shooting sticks. Shooting sticks were around long before modern
bi-pods and weigh substantially less and far more versatile. Those with
diminished upper body strength from injuries or simply by virtue of your size
will find shooting sticks give you a rigid shooting position. Folks who hunt
with scoped handguns swear by shooting sticks. The other feature that makes
them popular is the ability to fold them and for easy carry in a pack.
Shooting Sticks come in a variety of styles. The traditional style is a pair of sticks bungeed together to form a “V” that is the rest. These are generally sized for use in a seated position but they can be had in lengths long enough for standing. Here in the states the seated length works well for most applications, the standing length because of all the tall brush and grasses is popular for big game hunters in Africa.
When using shooting sticks grasp them at the “X”. This stabilizes the sticks and rifle.
You will also find walking sticks that are shooting sticks, this come in handy when trekking over rugged terrain. Another popular version is the tripod version. These are slightly heavier but more steady, especially when used shooting while standing. You can find shooting sticks at most popular big box stores such as Cabelas, Bass Pro, Brownells, etc.
You will find your backpack makes a solid rest in the field. The reason I and many others use a pack as a rest is its versatility. It can be laid over items such as a log, a rock, rise of a hill; all to give you a make shift “sandbag”. The pack like a sandbag cradles your long gun, giving you a solid rest and it will protect your long gun from getting damaged if you are using a rock or other natural item that could scratch your firearm.
As you can see there are many stable positions to shoot from that do not require you to have the additional weight of a bi-pod on your firearm. Hopefully this will help you while hunting, in competition or just on the range. As always; shoot straight, shoot safe and have fun.
I recently received a letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics, requesting my participation in one of their surveys about three issues – Suicide Prevention, Maintenance of certification, and the topic I particularly want to discuss—“Firearm Injury Prevention”. The letter and survey were accompanied by a 2-dollar bill as a “token of appreciation”.
I was treating this as just more AAP junk mail, when I perked up at reading the part about firearms. I briefly considered participating in the survey. Maybe they are finally wising up, I thought naively. But my excitement wasshort-lived as I read over the wording of the questions and saw how slanted the survey was from the get-go.
When I was in college, and also in my Master’s program in public health, I distinctly remember being taught that survey creation is a delicate process because of the amount of bias that can be introduced merely by the wording of the questions. Iʼm going to share a sampling of these firearm-related survey questions, and you can decide for yourself if this survey is a biased load of hooey or not (not that Iʼm trying to bias your opinion or anything).
Iʼd include a few photos of the survey questions, but unfortunately I already scribbled smart aleck comments all over most of them in my initial fit of pique.
Hereʼs a sampling [emphases are mine]:
13. When providing health supervision, how frequently do you or your staff: (Always, Sometimes, Never)
___ Identify families who have firearms in the home.
___ Recommend to families who have handguns their removal from the home.
___ Recommend to families who have any firearms their removal from the home.
___ Recommend to families who have firearms the unloading and locking away of guns.
___ Counsel families to inquire about the presence of guns in homes where their children play/spend time.
#?. If you do not always identify families who have firearms in the home or counsel them on removal or storage, what are you reasons for not doing so?
___ Parents object to inquiry/counseling on firearms.
___ I am fairly certain no families in my practice have firearms.
___ Firearm injury prevention is not an important issue in my practice.
___ There is not enough time in health supervision visits to address firearm issues
___ It is not the role of a pediatrician to ask/advise families on firearms.
___ Concern that the law does not permit me to inquire/counsel on firearms.
#?. Overall, how well prepared do you feel to counsel patients and their families on firearm injury prevention? (Not at all, Somewhat, Moderately, Very Prepared)
#?. Overall, how interested are you in receiving additional training on firearm injury prevention? (Not interested, Somewhat interested, Moderately interested, Very Interested)
#?. Pediatricians should support community efforts to enact legislation:(Strongly Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neutral, Somewhat Agree, Strongly Agree)
___ Restricting possession or sale of handguns.
___ Banning the sale and possession of handguns.
___ Banning the sale and possession of assault weapons.
___ Banning the sale and possession of high capacity magazines.
___ Requiring universal background checks.
___ Holding gun owners responsible for child and adolescent use of guns.
___ Requiring safe storage of all guns (ie; trigger locks, storing firearm and ammunition separately, using a gun safe)
___ Requiring firearms be subject to consumer product regulations regarding child access, safety, and design, thereby restricting access to unauthorized users, and facilitating reporting of firearm-related injuries.
Thereʼs more, but you get the idea. This is nothing but a laundry list of their usual party line anti-gun talking points. Iʼm surprised that they even included the option to disagree. And there is one (count ‘em, one) option which allows you to check the idea that none of this is the pediatricianʼs role. Iʼm especially interested in number 20, and who they think is going to provide this “additional training”.
There is no doubt in my mind that the AAP leadership plans to use the results of this slanted survey to claim that the membership supports their anti-Second Amendment agenda. They will continue to do what they are already doing, but now they will claim that they represent their membership in this “mission”.
How about if the AAP bigwigs stick to actual medical issues, like—oh, I dunno—maybe measles outbreaks, and why we have to medicate literally millions of American children just so they can make it through the school day? That ought to keep them busy for the next 20 years or so.
They need to stay in their lane, and leave their nanny-state paws off the Second Amendment.
As for me, Iʼll not be returning the survey, but I will be taking their $2 “token of appreciation” and buying more ammo.
.
.
—’Dr. LateBloomer’ is the pen name of a female general pediatrician (MD, MPH, FAAP) who enjoys competitive shooting sports, including IDPA, USPSA and 3-Gun. Evil semi-automatic firearms are her favorites.
This weekend marked the first truly ‘good’ range weekend of this year in my home state. A wonderful 67 degrees, dry, and partly cloudy.
So who grabbed their rifles to knock the dust and rust off?
Sometimes you just have to go have fun. It’s not always about drills. It’s not always about running best kit with the best times. So when my good friend tells me we need “to shoot” I know exactly what she’s talking about.
For things to shoot at… RE Factor Tactical. Shooting 2-Gun match next weekend and the IDPA standard silhouette is the scorable target. The GTG Baseline covers IDPA and USPSA. It gives a myriad of other drill options too. Zeroing groups. Dot torture light. Consistency gauging.
We tore up the targets and dusted off the unused skills box. Getting back into the rhythms of consistent proper fundamentals.
And ultimately, just had fun punching holes in the paper.
I did work a couple items for the ACTS 2-Gun. Reloads, controlled pairs, transition from rifle to pistol, just waking up skill sets I haven’t used seriously beyond dry fire practice in months.
Ultimately two things.
First, get out the guns and get them running again, especially anything used for serious purposes. Double check zero, function, clean and lubricate, make them ready.
The Ed: note in our last article “Beating Dead Horses” mentioned that statistical significance does not prove a contention and is not necessarily determinative. The Nature article “Scientists Rise Up Against Statistical Significance” referenced is important both for describing this real problem in a multitude of research and for the more than 800 scientists from 50 countries who want us to know about it.
A finding of statistical significance in a study generally means that the association being examined has at least a 95% chance of being meaningful. That is not the same as being true in the sense of causative or even necessarily concurrent. In the same way, not finding an association significant just means that in that particular study there appeared to be only a less than 5% chance that there really is one. (This can be phrased in other ways, such as in the Nature article. For an entertaining but serious discussion on how correlation does not equal causation, see Dr. Przebinda’s “Spuriouser and Spuriouser”.)
Too often, the 95% “confidence interval” justifies authors claiming that they’ve more or less proven the hypothesis they designed the research to test. (Confirming theories is a lot sexier, more publishable, and better for career advancement than failing to.) Yet there is far more value in disproving the countless ideas that scientists come up with because narrowing down a range of possibilities is what ultimately leads to consensus about the best ones.
The big problem is that the majority of studies published, especially in the social sciences (yes, I’m talking to you “public health researchers”—because that’s not medical science), have not been replicated. And when the attempts are made, most can’t be. (We discussed this in 2015 in “Trouble in the Ivory Tower”.) Invalid significance is (only) one reason.
A “significant” finding is also just the tail end of the formal process of research design, and is utterly dependent on the quality of the preceding steps. They begin with a theory about something contributing or causing something else, whether mechanical, biological, geological, psychological or social. A question has to be posed about the theory which, if testable, could shed light on the theory’s validity. Then a way to answer that question experimentally has to be designed. The design has to be able to be carried out in a way that observing it does not influence the results. Once obtained, the results (data) from the experimental test have to be understood. Here is where statistical analysis comes in, with various mathematical tests to put them together in meaningful ways. With that comes tests for “significance”.
A study can go wrong at any step of that sequence, from the logic of the theory to the kind of question posed to the way it is experimentally tested to the way the results are interpreted. As even scientists, despite popular belief, are human—and rather egotistical—there are usually problems that can be identified. The proper course of science is to critique and question all those steps in order to do a better job of ascertaining the utility of the approach and the accuracy of the findings. And there are always issues worth identifying.
That is, unless the researchers are publishing studies with biases that their professions and publishers share, with agendas that politicians and their media fellow travelers want to promote. Which, of course, includes work purporting to show that guns are dangerous to society. That lane is where DRGO’s counter-insurgency as a scientific watchdog group fights back for the right to keep and bear arms.
We want readers to understand what to look for and how we look at such research. In 2016 we published a piece “Critiquing the ‘Research’ Criticizing Guns” listing a number of ways we can get fooled into accepting experts’ claims. This is worth another read, and thanks to the Nature article, we’re adding another item to that list: Insignificant Significance. You can find the whole list via our home page set of “Positions & Resources”, under “Gun Research”, which directs readers to our PDF “Reading ‘Gun Violence’ Research Critically”.
Here’s the whole list:
1. Personal bias: Antipathy toward gun ownership is often evident in the language of the introduction and summary of the work. It may arise from the authors’ personal histories or fit their career arcs. Hoplophobia is often present.
2. Guns as independent risk factors: Studies that treat guns as a causative agent (e.g., the “guns as viruses” meme). Then a hypothesis is proposed and analytic approaches are chosen that reinforce the notion.
3. Selection bias and cherry-picked data: Choices are always made about what data will be sought, from what sources and over what time periods, and then how it should be interpreted. Smart academicians (and they are very smart) can skew outcomes from start to finish. Scrupulous ones don’t.
4. Arbitrary analogies: Comparing deaths from gunshot to entirely different phenomena (e.g., vehicle accident deaths). Using flawed premises and logic that have no relationship to the ways that guns work and can harm (e.g., that we must have “smart guns”, because autos have built-in safety devices).
5. Blame mongering: Holding responsible people other than the ones in the wrong who wrongly use guns at the wrong times.
6. Diversionary tactics: Setting up straw men, such as proclaiming that being shot by someone you know is more likely than being attacked by a terrorist.
7. False attribution: Depicting correlation as causation, a near universal tactic. Presenting gunshot deaths and injuries as consequences intrinsic to the existence of guns, rather than as aberrations from normal gun use and users.
8. Data Withholding: Refusing to share data avoids criticism, probably when it is most merited. Charging for access to articles behind pay walls is another, commercialized way to limit criticism.
9. Insignificant Significance: A significant result only demonstrates a > premises and methodology chosen, is accurate. It does not prove something is or is not true, nor does it negate criticism of any part of the study
That is quite a list of potholes on the road to enlightenment. But we’ll keep steering ahead even while navigating the bumps.
.
.
— DRGO Editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
The Rigger is a limited edition, precision-engineered cutting tool constructed of premium materials and featuring signature Magpul form and function. This first-ever Limited Edition Frame Lock was designed by the team at Magpul and is an expression of Magpul’s design ethos and commitment to quality and innovation. The modified Wharncliffe blade is forged from Crucible Particle Metallurgy (CPM) S35VN stainless steel, considered to be one of the finest blade steels in the world, and one of the first designed specifically for knife blades. This CPM stainless steel construction provides improved strength and wear resistance which means the blade holds its edge longer than lesser steels, reducing the need for frequent sharpening.
The jimped blade flipper deploys and locks the modified Wharncliffe blade open with an audible click. An innovative secondary locking feature (SLF) in the Rigger’s precision-machined frame lock can also be engaged, preventing accidental blade closure, even in the harshest of environments and during demanding use. A flick of the thumb disengages the SLF, allowing quick, controlled blade closure, with or without gloves.
The modified Wharncliffe blade edge has a distinct distal taper and slight belly that enhance ease of sharpening, maintenance, and overall utility. The primary grind / bevel decreases weight while maintaining blade strength and rigidity. The straight unsharpened back curves slightly and has an abrupt downward edge near the tip, creating an aggressive point for piercing and detailed work.
The titanium pocket clip features a hollow pocket clip screw for lanyards and can be removed or reversed with a slotted screwdriver for easy disassembly and cleaning. At 7.59 inches open and 4.52 inches closed, it’s an ideal size for everyday carry, yet large enough to handle demanding field tasks. The Rigger also comes with a custom high strength, injection-molded, weather-resistant polymer case that’s internally lined with soft foam.
Features
Blade Design: Modified Wharncliffe with Tapered Dual Bevel Grind
Secondary Locking Feature
Blade Material: CPM S35VN
Titanium Frame: 6Al4V
Limited Edition: Individually Serialized
Custom high strength, injection-molded, soft foam lined, weather resistant case
Titanium Pocket Clip: 6Al4V
Lanyard Hole
Primary Frame Lock
Jimping along blade spine and the flipper for increased grip during use
As is the nature of a litigation process there is an ebb and flow.
Well the flow… or tsunami rather of magazines that have shipped to the west coast must now temporarily recede.
The panic stricken California Attorney General has been granted his injunction on the ruling over turning his precious magazine capacity restriction while it gets settled in finality within the courts. However by that very same injunction the cessation of legal sales will occur at 5pm today within the state. The traditional end of a business day. A week of orders has swamped California already and all of those magazines are ‘grandfathered’ in as protected.
In my opinion, the magazine ban is dead. It just doesn’t know it yet. The order from the Honorable Roger T. Benitez destroys California’s arguments against the possession of the magazines and puts them in the legal dumpster where they belong. Reading it is well worth your time as it basically summarizes the blanket ban of magazines as pulled out of someones rectal cavity with no factual basis as an effective policy and hoping blindly that they wouldn’t need something as inconvenient
What happens now?
Now, if you’re CA resident you should still be ordering magazines if you can.
But in a practical manner, we sit and watch one of the most arduous examples of the curtailment and infringement of a constitutional right die. It is a law that never should have lived and it was advocacy in the face of fact that allowed it to live this long.
But the torrent of freedom will be turned off in Cali, for a time, at 5pm Pacific.
So get them now. Just in case this case takes a while.
Welcome to Part 3 of “A Pediatrician Builds Her Own AR” or #soeasyapediatriciancandoit, brought to you by Aero Precision and Ballistic Advantage.
In Part 1 and Part 2 we covered the ordering process, and then the receiving, organizing and preparations for the build.
Now in Part 3 we get to do some actual BUILDING!
I decided to start my build with the lower receiver, because I had done a few of these associated procedures before. I wanted to lead with what was already somewhat familiar in order to gain some confidence. So I worked on the trigger install first.
I chose a Geissele SSA-E two-stage trigger, because I’m not a huge fan of mil-spec weight triggers. The SSA-E has an initial pull weight of 2.3 pounds, and then a second stage weight of 1.2 pounds, for a total trigger weight of 3.5 pounds. This is a good bit more sensitive than mil-spec but still heavy enough to be safe.
Geissele designed the install process to be pretty easy, and I watched a couple video how-to’s online before I started. My biggest issue was exerting enough pressure on the under-tension hammer to be able to align the holes for the pin, but after a couple attempts, I got it lined up and the pin tapped right in. No profanity was required!
Trigger install complete!
(And drop cloth in place)
You may note from the photos, that I took the precautionary measure of laying out an old vinyl tablecloth – fuzzy white side up – to use as a piece catcher, should I drop anything important. My fine motor dexterity isn’t always the greatest, so I wanted to have a bit of insurance to keep from losing tiny pieces as they rolled under the workbench.
My next step was attaching the magazine release. That was much easier than the trigger, and I got it right on the first try. It went exactly like the video said it would.
I also noticed with delight during this process that the holes in the Aero lower receiver all lined up correctly, they weren’t half plugged-up with cerakote, or full of burrs that kept things from going together smoothly. These are all problems I’ve heard about from people who have done builds with other brands. That’s another plus for my choice of Aero parts for this build – it all FITS!
Seriously, that’s an important selling point for me. I have a very low frustration threshold for things that don’t fit or don’t work they way they are supposed to. Parts that don’t fit or holes that don’t line up can make or break a project for me. Once I start throwing things, it’s all over – ha! That has NOT happened with this build. Everything FITS!
You may be wondering why it has taken me so long to complete the steps of this build. My answer is that it’s because I know myself and my frustration threshold. I purposely only assembled a few pieces per evening and only when I felt rested and clear headed. For me, gun-building has turned out to be kind of like sewing – it’s a “good mood and clear head” project. So I opted not to invite any problems. I went slowly and quit for the evening when I was ahead. You may be a much more patient person than I, so YMMV, but I went with small steps at a time.
Attaching the buffer tube was my next assignment. This threw me for a minute, because most of the videos I watched showed the installation of the detent and spring for the rear takedown pin as part and parcel of the buffer tube installation process. (See all the new terms I’m learning?)
Except the Aero M5 lower wasn’t set up that way. After a little closer inspection I found that the hole for the detent and spring were located such that the rear takedown pin would be part of the pistol grip installation instead. (Ahh, see how I figgered that out for my own self? I’m so proud of me!)
And don’t you experienced guys dare roll your eyes. Any time I can figure out some little hitch like this by myself and avoid phoning a friend or polling the audience, I consider it to be a small personal victory and confidence booster. This process is all about baby-steps. I didn’t grow up wrenching on things or building erector sets. This is a whole new experience.
Without messing with that additional spring, the buffer tube installation was easy-peasy. I opted to hold off on attaching the stock yet, because I wanted to be able maneuver better for the pistol grip installation. That was going to involve holding the safety lever and spring and detent, and the takedown pin and spring and detent all in place while screwing the grip into place. So I wanted as much working space as possible.
That procedure turned out to be not nearly as difficult as it sounded. My only hitch in that process occurred when I couldn’t get the safety lever to slide through the hole. I realized that it was hanging up on the trigger mechanism and then remembered that the video said I had to cock the hammer first. Oh yeah, look how much easier that is when you follow directions – D’oh.
I didn’t realize until after I was completely finished and had a leftover piece that there is actually a very tiny “set screw” that is supposed to hold the spring in place for the takedown pin detent during that operation. But I didn’t see it mentioned anywhere that I looked for installation instructions. Obviously I managed without it, but that’s a heads up for anybody else. I had no idea. Now I’m debating whether to go back and install it or not. [Editor’s note: This is a feature on many Aero products to help the builder, end user, and home modifier better manage their parts and not yeet a spring or detent somewhere into hyperspace]
Watching videos before each procedure really helped me out. Beside the Ballistic Advantage Builder Series, I also found some videos from Midway helpful as well. God bless Larry Potterfield and his calm, grandfatherly voice.
The front pivot pin was my next project. I couldn’t find a video that exactly matched what the Aero lower looked like as to hole placement for the detent and spring. So I had to improvise a little with some trial and error. There is apparently a specialized tool for this, but I didn’t have one.
I nearly uttered my first profanity of the project when I heard the detent hit something behind me as it sprang out of the little hole. The drop cloth was not going to help me find something that had rocketed off into the distance. Going by what the sound was like, I decided that it sounded like a “thunk” – as if the detent had hit cardboard. I grabbed a flashlight and searched the carpet in front of a cardboard box located behind me in the detritus of my basement. BINGO! Yay – I did not have to stall the project while I ordered another detent!
Thereafter, I tried to place my body and fingers in such a way that I cut off further means of escape for that little bugger. It still flung itself onto the drop cloth at least twice more, but at least it was easy to find. The improvised tools that finally worked for me were an Allen wrench and … a paperclip I found lying on the floor! Don’t laugh – it’s not crazy if it works!
Seriously – I held the detent and spring into the hole with a bent paperclip, while sliding the Allen wrench the opposite way into position where the pivot pin was going to go, and allowing it to hold the detent in place. Then I slid the pivot pin into place, pushing the wrench out of the way and allowing the detent to pop into the groove on the pin. It worked!
Front pivot pin installed!
(With help from a paperclip)
I was again briefly thrown with the bolt catch install, because it looked like there was a pin already in place on the lower. I consulted the Googles and found my answer on a Reddit page of all places. It turned out that this was a threaded pin for the bolt catch. Rather than pounding a roll pin into place and risking a scratch on the finish, I could just use a hex wrench instead. This great feature eliminated the whole punch and hammer business completely. I still put down some duct tape just in case, but a 1/16 hex wrench took care of that install – genius! That’s another plus for going with Aero Precision.
A threaded set screw is genius! (Yes I used gold duct tape to prevent scratches – ain’t it purty?)
The last portion of my lower build was installing the Magpul PRS Gen 3 stock. I chose this one because of the adjustability. A standard collapsible stock would certainly have been cheaper and lighter, but I’ve talked before about my issues with stocks. I need to be able to have a shorter length of pull AND a fairly high cheek rise – especially for a deer and hog gun that I’ll be putting a scope on. The PRS allows adjustments to comb height – saving me the indignities of my usual pipe insulation and duct tape remedy. There is some trade-off for weight and cost, but the difference was worth it to me for the fit.
The stock installation was smooth and easy. There were directions included in the box from Magpul, and everything went right the first time.
The completed lower!
And with that – my lower build was finished! I can’t tell you how proud of myself I am! I did it ALL by myself and there was NO profanity. I even had a couple gun club friends inspect it for me this past weekend and I got two thumbs up for a job well done!
Now to take a deep breath and tackle the Upper receiver – a procedure which I have never before attempted. Catch that process in the next installment. Stay tuned!
If you haven’t yet read about the Great Magazine Ban Judicial Smackdown of 2019, you must live in a cave. I first read it myself here. If all you’ve read is quoted pieces contained in other articles (including this one), you OWE it to yourself to read some of this for yourself in the judge’s own words. Holy Cow, this is a thing of beauty.
Judge Roger T. Benitez GETS IT. He didn’t just take this magazine ban law to the woodshed, he took it to the proctologist!
In one section he provides his own examples of times when citizens needed more than ten rounds to defend themselves.
In another section he essentially calls out the Cali Attorney General for using crappy supporting documents – like “double or triple hearsay” Mother Jones level crappy.
He addresses the circular logic involved in the presumption that magazines holding greater than ten rounds are not “in common use”. Saying essentially that claiming something is not in common use – because you have banned it – is a logical fallacy that will not fly.
Then, addressing the claim that larger capacity magazines are “dangerous”, there is this quotable quote:
“The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. [citing Heller] ‘If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.’ “
The judge goes on to discuss what is considered a burden upon rights:
“But describing as minor, the burden on responsible, law-abiding citizens who may not possess a 15-round magazine for self-defense because there are other arms permitted with 10 or fewer rounds, is like saying that when government closes a Mormon church it is a minor burden because next door there is a Baptist church or a Hindu temple. Indeed, Heller itself rejected this mode of reasoning …”
He compares the magazine ban to a burlap bag that was not at all tailored to scrutiny. My paraphrase of that section is that the magazine law is a burlap sackful of failed scrutiny that was tossed over the heads of citizens in an attempt to kidnap their rights.
Judge Benitez calls the magazine ban a “statutory bludgeon”.
This decision will likely be appealed and then maybe even go to the Supreme Court. But this well-researched opinion is a piece of judicial solid gold. I’m no lawyer but this reads like Heller or McDonald level stuff. Go read it. Save it to your files. It’s worth your time.
NEWINGTON, N.H., (April 2, 2019) –SIG SAUER, Inc. is pleased to announce the P320 XCOMPACT is now shipping and available in retail stores.
The new SIG SAUER P320 XCOMPACT is a modular, striker-fired, 9mm pistol with a serialized trigger group that combines concealability, with full-size XSERIES features. The redesigned grip module features an improved beavertail, fastback profile, contoured magwell, and a deep trigger guard undercut fitted with a subcompact slide and barrel.
Additional features of the SIG SAUER P320 XCOMPACT include X-RAY3 day/night sights, a flat trigger, and night sight rear plate making it optic ready. The intuitive 3-point takedown of the pistol requires no trigger pull for disassembly, and safety features include a striker safety and disconnect safety. The P320 XCOMPACT comes standard with two 15-round magazines.
Total length:7”
Barrel length:3.6”
Weight (incl. magazine): 25.3 oz.
Height:5.3”
Width:1.3”
Sight radius:5.5”
To learn more about the P320 XCOMPACT and the entire SIG SAUER P320 series of pistols visit sigsauer.com.
About SIG SAUER, Inc.
SIG SAUER, Inc. is a leading provider and manufacturer of firearms, electro-optics, ammunition, airguns, suppressors, and training. For over 100 years SIG SAUER, Inc. has evolved, and thrived, by blending American ingenuity, German engineering, and Swiss precision. Today, SIG SAUER is synonymous with industry-leading quality and innovation which has made it the brand of choice amongst the U.S. Military, the global defense community, law enforcement, competitive shooters, hunters, and responsible citizens. Additionally, SIG SAUER is the premier provider of elite firearms instruction and tactical training at the SIG SAUER Academy – a world class, state-of-the-art, 140-acre training facility. SIG SAUER is headquartered in Newington, New Hampshire, and has more than 1,700 employees across eight locations, and is the largest member of a worldwide business group that includes SIG SAUER GmbH & Co. KG in Germany. For more information about the company and product line visit: sigsauer.com.
[Ed: Continuing to carry the beat, so to speak, here are a few more studies that, with any study, wouldn’t have been reported at all. “Statistical significance” does not prove a contention and is often of insignificant significance.]
Indeed, the lede is factual. About 1,144 law enforcement officers and military personnel were killed on duty in 2017—fewer than any year’s shooting deaths of 5 to 18 year olds since 1999, fewer even than those of 15 to 18 year olds. Of course, to start with, the common notion of “children” is not generally 15 to 18 year olds. But it makes a great headline.
We don’t even have to look at the original research. Daily Mail “social affairs” reporter Valerie Bauman tells more than she understood in graphs. You’ll see that 2013 had the lowest number of 15 to 18 year old shooting deaths since 1999; 5-14 year olds had an average number for the period, but together choosing the year 2013 to compare to 2017 gave the most dramatic change to publicize. There have been wide variations above and below their means since 1999. If we looked at 1999 versus 2017, the conclusion would have been that there has been no change, just as deceptive a finding as theirs implying a new dramatic death spiral.
Most died in assaults, about 1/3 by suicide and just 5% by accidents. As we might surmise, knowing where “gun violence” is endemic, black youth are far more often the victims than whites, especially among 15-18 year olds. Cherry-picking data and stating painfully obvious descriptive facts gets us no nearer helping these young people, many of whom would be attacking each other or killing themselves by other means if necessary. (Hanging is becoming increasingly popular among suicidal teens, for example.)
Next, U.S. News & World Report reassured us March 21 about a “Study: Stricter Gun Laws Linked to Safer High Schools”. This came from the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, a British medical publications that is peer-reviewed yet routinely overlooks the reality that laws don’t cramp bad actors’ style. The original is available here. The heart of their claims is “that strengthening gun laws at the state level was associated with teens being less likely to report being threatened or injured with a weapon at school, or missing school because they felt unsafe. Stricter gun laws were also linked less incidences of students carrying a weapon anywhere.” But it ain’t necessarily so.
To begin with, they used a gun law rating methodology that gave any restrictive law +1 and any law easing firearm availability (including limiting manufacturer liability!) a -1. (Absence of a law = 0.) This equates all measures regardless of reach and impact. Because the great majority of laws affecting firearm possession and use are restrictive, this technique always emphasizes the presence of gun control and deemphasizes the effect of fewer laws period.
The “researchers” did not do original research. They assembled data for 1999 to 2015 from the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey which asks 900,000+ high school students every 2 years to report their incidence of carrying weapons in school, how often they were threatened or injured, and how many school days they missed due to fear or carrying weapons (where?). They also rated the 45 states surveyed on their gun laws in each of the survey years. They say they controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment and crime rates.
16% of students on average reported carrying weapons anywhere (but this was supposed to be about school). “Stricter laws” were associated with slightly less frequent reports of being threatened at school or carrying weapons anywhere. But they “do not observe a significant association between gun laws and weapon carrying at school”, which should be the main thing. And lots of other things changed for students over those 17 years–how schools are administered, increased attention to the risk of attacks, changes in neighborhood environments around the schools, and our culture in general and the micro-cultures of those kids’ peer groups. Most of all, the high schoolers surveyed were different every 2 years.
To their credit, they were trying to correlate the self-reports with their assessment of gun laws as they changed each year, so it is better than just a cross-sectional, single-point-in-time observation. Also to their credit, they point out that “Specific measures of firearm violence at school were not available and . . . the only direct question on gun carrying was not asked in a large number of states.” Both of these are gaping holes in their data.
There were over 14 million high school students in 1999 and well over 15 million in 2015. A 7% sample for a national survey is commendable, but 11 states plus the District of Columbia were not even covered (Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming). The data obtained did not cover each state of the remaining 39 throughout all survey years.
Finally, more for grins, here’s one from the Journal of the American Medical Association in July 2018 recently pointed out by a DRGO member: “The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults”. Yes, Virginia, there is an association that only dedicated public health researchers could possibly have discerned. The larger the caliber, the greater “the likelihood of death from gunshot wounds in criminal assault.” (The series examined were all shooting deaths and a random sample of injuries recorded by Boston police from 2010 through 2014.)
While it was not their chosen “lane” for this paper, they did state a central problem unsusceptible to correction by gun laws: “Most gunshot victims and survivors were young minority men with [criminal histories]. Most attacks occurred . . . where gangs or drugs played an important role . . . Most were in outdoor locations in the disadvantaged Boston neighborhoods.” But being shot indoors was much more likely lethal, 2.6 times more than being shot outdoors. Being shot in the head or neck was quite a bit more likely to kill rather than in other parts of the body. All these factors, we know, correlate with the biggest problem—gang murders.
The calibers were virtually all typical handgun rounds, everything from .22 up to 10 mm. (Weapons were not identified. They were not always found, but some rounds could also have been used in some rifles, a fact they don’t seem to recognize, calling all but the 7.62 “handgun” shootings). There were only three shootings with .44 Magnum and, interestingly, just one, fatal shooting with the 7.62 x39mm exclusively rifle bullet.
And, mirabile dictu, “the intrinsic power and lethality of the weapon had a direct effect on the likelihood that a victim of a criminal shooting died.”
Their preferred interpretation is that “The result is [there would have been] a 39.5% reduction . . . in the gun homicide rate if the same shootings had occurred but with small-caliber weapons, rather than the actual mix of small, medium, and large calibers.”
So they find that “regulation of firearms could reduce the homicide rate” by outlawing higher caliber firearms—another example of the incremental approach to banning guns. Or perhaps we should promote “replacing all types of guns with knives or clubs” for even “larger reductions.” But they’re correct in concluding that no “particular regulation would [necessarily] satisfy a cost-benefit test”—because they never consider benefits.
This paper accomplishes nothing more than to validate a truth shooters have known for generations: Carry a gun with the biggest, hardest hitting caliber you can shoot accurately. That’s the benefit advantage for millions of safe, responsible legal gun owners that overrides everything else in this “research”.
However, that and a dollar won’t buy you a cup of coffee anymore. But millions in hoplophobic billionaire funding will get you plenty more publications like these!
.
.
— DRGO Editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
Marom Dolphin is an Israeli tailored made tactical nylon manufacturer that has the privilege of serving the IDF as their latest standard issue. Add to that list a myriad police agencies and several worldwide military clients for armor, carriers, packs, and ancillary equipment.
Their product line is tailored to the unit request and made to order.
They are a quiet, professional, and insanely innovative group of mad science nylon artists. I’m quite serious with that descriptor. These guys are good.
Made by the wizards at Marom Dolphin and sold by YRS, the Fusion is an evolving load bearing mission system that seeks to problem solve certain overlooked logistics for warfighters.
Most prominently, comfort and time efficiency.
The speed with which these guys prototype and work is astounding. Marom Dolphin and YRS shipped me an early fresh off the press Fusion for a no BS evaluation.
I’m a line company Marine. Strapping on a pack and walking long foot, knee, and back traumatizing distances is a subject I am familiar with. I took the Fusion and I abused and evaluated it top to bottom, it was not perfect. It wasn’t even good in my opinion and at the juncture.
But the potential of the concept was there and I gave the MD guys my list of sustains and improves. I was unsure what to expect back from them. An angry email telling me I was wrong? A polite ‘we’re going to ignore you’ because we like our stuff but thanks anyway?
What I received was an invitation… and I was sheparded into their booth at SHOT barely more than 100 days later with a fully adjusted system to my exact recommendations… minus one caveat they were working on, a noise dampening idea we brainstormed but was far from a necessary item. Heavily armed, armored, and loaded troops are not quiet.
A revolutionary unified carrying system for attaching a vest and a backpack in the most comfortable and ergonomic way. This new and innovative system was developed to offer a backpack with a detachable carrying system and with removable combatant accessories. Different sized backpacks can be carried with the system without additional configuration. The essential equipment such as ballistic plates, hydration system and radio are integrated into the system, usable even when the backpack is off.
The Fusion is a stackable load bearing and protection system.
The system’s base is the duty belt. With a single buckle or two buckle option the belt can support your standard array of MOLLE on equipment. IFAK, radio pouch, magazines, holster, etc. The back of the belt as a quick attach/quick detach circular mount for the shoulder strapped backplate and harness.
This harness houses the back SAPI, load bearing frame, and balanced hydration bladders. The load bearing frame on has straps (seen above) but the packs that mount to it are strapless. They click and lock into the frame. No more shoving arms through an 80lb pack’s straps, immediately losing circulation or falling over. Over the head and clicked into place in a durable polymer mount. Need to drop the pack? Pull up on the release.
The hydration system is modular and removable. It does not interfere with the pack and doesn’t have to be rigged to the pack in any of the aggravating time honored ad hoc methods of patrolling. It’s one less time consuming swappable item from and it can be easily filled by a team mate while its on the body or the front plate and frame can be quickly removed, refilled and adjusted, and put back on.
The chest plate and front load bearing MOLLE is a press on buckled system that integrates with the rear frame. Both the shoulder buckles and side buckles can be pressed to lock in a manner similar to the belt, frame, and pack. This allows an unparalleled level of one handed use that conventional designs cannot emulate.
The entire system is built around the concept of saving an individual soldier time dawning and swapping their mission essential equipment. The armor is better supported and in a more comfortable manner by the pack system, with or without the actual pack. The frame can support a pack in an 80, 60, or 20 liter volume stock or custom volumes and designs for the customer’s needs.
Packs and tools can be tailored to a specific mission by Marom Dolphin at the end user’s request and designed to quickly mount to the QA/QD frame. Need a breacher system? A pack to carry M72A7 LAWs? A medic specific field kit pack? All can be tailored to mount to the Fusion frame.
Marom is pushing the only radical departure I have seen from the old sustainment pack systems that haven’t evolved much beyond the old Alice, and they are doing so in a manner to give greater freedom and efficiency of independent small tasks to the soldier.
Quicker to fight, quicker to move, quicker to support.
If you have an agency or unit need give the folks at Marom Dolphin a call. Contact YRS if you want to put some Fusions on a brown truck of happiness your way.
I’ve got an order waiting myself for a Marine carrier they had in prototype, review to follow.
