Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Beware of the uninformed in the growing gun debate
Posted by: McQ on Monday, April 23, 2007

Allahpundit, at Hot Air, points out Lawrence O'Donnell's attempt to claim that Cho's weapons were automatics and he used illegal "high capacity" magazines:
First he identifies Cho’s weapons as automatic, i.e., capable of firing repeatedly so long as the trigger is held down. Wrong: both were semi-automatics, requiring a fresh trigger pull for each shot. Then he repeats the media canard about the purported ban on “high-capacity magazines” that expired when the assault-weapons ban lapsed three years ago. Wrong again: as Bob Owens explains, the AWB merely banned the manufacture of those magazines. Sale, purchase, and ownership of inventory that was already on the market all remained perfectly legal.
Obviously the weapons weren't 'automatic' and it remains a mystery to me why this is such a hard concept for the critics of guns to understand.

It also appears the magazines that Cho had for the Glock 19 were standard 15 round magazines. Were they "high capacity" magazines? Not really. Bob Owens explans that here.
Under this law, any magazine with more than ten rounds was declared a "high capacity" magazine, even though the overwhelming majority of these magazines were actually standard-sized magazines as designed by firearms designers. "High capacity" was and is purely a political designation, not a practical one.
Also note that the possession of the declared "high capacity" magazines (which are, in fact, standard capacity for the weapon), is not illegal.

Owens also goes into a detailed explanation of what the provision in the 1994 "crime bill" actually says concerning magazines and their manufacture.

So when Barack Obama says ...
"(Cho) had a semiautomatic weapon with a clip that allowed him to take 19 shots in a row," Obama said. "I don't know any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. The only reason you have 19 rounds is potentially to do physical harm to people. You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer. And if you do, you shouldn't be hunting."
... the answer is "no, he didn't", and "the Second Amendment isn't about hunting and never has been."

The fact that Obama is so ill informed about the weaponry and has apparently invented his own premise on the 2nd Amendment should be worrying. And, of course, being a politician, he would have no problem pushing for legislation which would impose his flawed take on everyone. Politicians live to exploit tragedies like this when it fits their agenda.

The volume of rhetoric is going to rise sharply over the next few weeks. You can rest assured Obama and O'Donnell's won't be the last or worst of the nonsense you're going to read and hear about guns and the 2nd Amendment.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Unfortunately O’Donnell is an idiot that people listen to.
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
But why let facts stand in the way of statism...

I shoot a heck of a lot of bullets at paper targets. Way more then 10 or 15.

In fact, that’s why I’ve got 10 or 12 magazines for my favorite handgun. And they are all the standard capacity for the handgun.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
BTW all of those 15 round magazines were bought during the "Assault Weapons Ban" period. Off the internet mostly.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
I discussed this issue in my blog today. It is a weakness of our society that we try to cure ills by either blaming others when things go wrong (the school should have done more!) or passing laws to try to get perfect protection. Of course, those who argue that everyone should be armed are being just as illogical. The gun haters and gun nuts are both abusing this situation to advance their political agendas. The problem is cultural, not something that can be "fixed" with a new gun control law.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
...for the Glock 18 were standard...
Obviously the weapons weren’t ’automatic’...
Hmm.
 
Written By: CJ
URL: http://
First gun was a Glock 19.
 
Written By: CJ
URL: http://
Of course, those who argue that everyone should be armed are being just as illogical.
Scott, I’ve never seen anyone argue this. Some argue that anyone who wants to should be able to be armed (within the usual constraints on children, felons, insane folks, etc.). That’s a long way from saying "everyone should be armed" and such hyperbole is not helpful to your argument.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
That’s a long way from saying "everyone should be armed" and such hyperbole is not helpful to your argument.

Read any libertarian blog, dude, they absolutely demand that we all carry some kind of fire arm...it would depend on our age and infirmity, it’s one of the few things that unites libertarians on the value of the government, I’ve read COUNTLESS articles in libertarian blogs that support Federal subsidies for the purchase of fire arms!

I think you just don’t like this unpleasant truth being pointed out.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I think you just don’t like this unpleasant truth being pointed out.
Well Joe, you are lying by implication at least.

Just because YOU’VE read countless libertarians saying that—which I don’t really believe for one second in any case—doesn’t mean they all do or even most do.

If you have even heard ONE libertarian argue for that, then I expect it was tongue-in-cheek referencing all the other unconstitutional things government does, it may as well subsidize the exercise of an actual, bona fide constitutional right.

Please, produce all the links you care to.

Most all the ones I’ve heard argue for just this:
Some argue that anyone who wants to should be able to be armed (within the usual constraints on children, felons, insane folks, etc.).
That’s the truth, Joe.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Uh, Tom, I think Joe was doing a bit of leg pulling for Scott’s benefit.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I get caught by Joe when he does that too...

I stopped myself because THIS is a libertarian blog, and it doesn’t demand everyone carry a weapon.

Since that pretty much goes against the whole "choice" thing...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
But it’s good to see that Tom can trot out the "Those people don’t represent us" argument for libertarians, too. Daily Kos, FireDogLake, MyDD, they don’t represent us, they aren’t AUTHENTIC critics of the Iraq War...Free Republic doesn’t represent Conservatism...and now libertarians can do it too.

And Tom that whole "Truth" thing...so passé, we worry more about narrative and purchase, and anyway what IS the "truth?" Obviously if I have read many articles supporting my contention, that still doesn’t count as "truth" for you. What would 100 articles, 1,000 articles, postings in any libertarian blog or only Reason or Cato?

And in this I AM being serious, because it hits me that the "truth" to you is the position that you like and that causes you the least mental discomfort. What if I COULD demonstrate that Hayek, Ted Galen Carpenter, David Boaz, Jacob Sollum, Radley Balko and Badnarik had published, at one time or another, calls for state subsidies for the purchase of firearms? Would they be the "truth" or would they merely be opinions of SOME libertarians? At what point does the libertarian or any group have a position, then? Interesting question, at least to me? Is the "truth" the libertarian position according to Tom Perkins?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I just want to know who Obama thinks is hunting with a 9mm handgun.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I just want to know who Obama thinks is hunting with a 9mm handgun.


I find the 9 X 19mm to be useful on:
Fish, very close to the surface...
Small animals, geckos, skinks, gerbils and the like...
Tot’s 9 and under, I guess (Unless they’ve got a Nerf Gun, then I usually break out my trusty Webley-Vickers .455 Caliber) Tot’s over 9 generally get the Weatherby .460 Magnum.

I’m waiting for my Aid to Families Deprived of Colts cheque to come in...I have my eye on a near-new .600 Nitro Express, for the Rec Room.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
calls for state subsidies for the purchase of firearms
Which equates to "walk around armed" in what fashion?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Mark Steyn gets it:
“The "gun-free zone" fraud isn’t just about banning firearms … but part of a deeper reluctance of critical segments of our culture to engage with reality. …What kind of functioning society can emerge from such a cocoon?”
Mr. Steyn is not directly referring to the liberal cocoon, but he might as well be doing so.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
calls for state subsidies for the purchase of firearms
Which equates to "walk around armed" in what fashion?
Oh you slow slow man...once you’ve got all those Federally subsidized firearms, dripping off of you, OF COURSE you’ll "walk around armed." Dude, can’t you see this...and the fact that mayhap, just mayhap someone’s leg is being pulled?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It is my understanding that Cho used several 33 round Glock magazines as well as the standard capacity (15 round) ones.

Frankly, 10 vs 15 vs 33 doesn’t make much difference. I suspect that the 33s were designed for full auto Glocks, which probably fire 10 rounds per second, so a standard capacity gives you only 1.5 sec of fire . . .

Of course, if Cho used full auto he would have expended a ton of ammo to kill those people . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Of course, those who argue that everyone should be armed are being just as illogical.
No one argues that, except some here after consuming too much single malt scotch whisky.
The gun haters and gun nuts are both abusing this situation to advance their political agendas.
The gun haters have always done so, with every such event, and in some cases they have had success. It makes sense for us gun nuts to do the same, and at least we are defending our rights. Furthermore, our solution might actualy reduce such shootings.
The problem is cultural, not something that can be "fixed" with a new gun control law.
Liberalizing CCW further can reduce such events. Not a 100% solution, but a partial solution. For gun control to claim a reasonable chance of success requires essentially a full ban, fully enforced, and as England’s crime rate shows even that may not work.

But a full ban will not float with today’s Americans, so the banners push comparitivly modest laws that have no value whatsoever.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
It also appears the magazines that Cho had for the Glock 18 were standard 15 round magazines. Were they "high capacity" magazines? Not really.
I think he had a Glock 19 (a reduced size Glock 17). Magazine capacity is: 15, 17, 19, and 33, so Obama could be right about capacity, although I think that he is repeating news reports that assume the "19" indicates magaine capacity.

The Glock 18 is the full-auto version of the Glock 17. I assume you made a typo . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
At first I saw the "Gun Free Zone" argument, then very briefly the gun control argument, but both of those dissipated when the "Nut Control" argument kicked in.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I assume you made a typo . . .
Yup ... corrected.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
it remains a mystery to me why this is such a hard concept for the critics of guns to understand.
I don’t know why it’s such a mystery, McQ—gun critics are lying because it’s the only way they can continue to support their position.

It’s time to stop giving gun control advocates the benefit of the doubt by being "mystified" by their lies. They’re capable of researching the facts like anyone else, but they refuse to do so. We need to call them on their mendacity whenever and wherever they reveal it.

 
Written By: Brian Martinez
URL: http://cluebyfour.livejournal.com
Uh, Tom, I think Joe was doing a bit of leg pulling for Scott’s benefit.
It’s not any stranger than other things he’s said, and usually when he’s unintelligently bashing libertarians, he means it.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I don’t know why it’s such a mystery, McQ—gun critics are lying because it’s the only way they can continue to support their position.
If you knew me better Bryan you’d know I was being sarcastic when I said that (and yes, I also know sarcasm doesn’t always translate well in the written medium).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I don’t know why it’s such a mystery, McQ—gun critics are lying because it’s the only way they can continue to support their position.
In California gun control supporters avoided forensics studies prior to banning assualt weapons back in ’89, since they knew that "forensics studies would likely undermine the basis for their legislation".

When DiFi pushed the ’94 federal AWB, she used facts that were known garbage: gun trace statistics, which have no direct correlation with criminal gun use.

Gun control supports have been lying consistently.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
As with most cases these days, perception trumps reality. O’Donnell may have known the truth or not, he could care less. The general public’s perception is what he is latching onto and holding on with both hands and feet. And that perception is the "Scary Gun" Ban made high capacity magazaines/clips illegal. It doesn’t matter that it did not do such a thing. O’Donnell is, if anything, consistent. (Remember his defense of John Kerry vs the Swiftboaters during the ’04 elections.) He was and is pursuing his agenda and will use whatever methodology that will work - even if it is a flagrant lie.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
It really doesn’t matter whether he had a Glock 18, 19, or 3.14159. Since he was unmolested by anyone else and had plenty of tme to reload, he could just as well have used two revolvers.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Since he was unmolested by anyone else and had plenty of tme to reload, he could just as well have used two revolvers.
Bingo.

33-round or 15-round... Just means he’s reloading twice as often, and frankly it doesn’t take that long anyways...

And it’s why you put your head down, shoulder forward, and rush the SOB... Better to die on your feet than on your ass.
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Tom I never UNINTELLIGENTLY bash libertarians...you just don’t like criticism....Criticism=Untelligently bashing libertarians, which actually translates into:
Joe disagrees with me. He’s unintelligently bashing libertarians...

Get a sense of humour...lighten up on the libertarian foolishnesses.....realize we are disembodied voices on a communication system and as such we have no power, ergo get over yourself...I try to realize that all this is pointless blather, because our net effect is close to nil.


As to the uninformed well, most places that are Pro-Gun do a good job of informing folks. And it’s not 1968 and so Tucker Carlson gets to make Congresspeople look stupid on TV. "Our side has a voice and uses it fairly well.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Scott, this dying on your feet thing has a number of tactical flaws...

1) for the longest time the folks under attack didn’t KNOW they were under attack. In Iraq I expect gunfire, in Intermediate French, in Blacksburg VA, I don’t. Sorry first they had to grasp they were threatened. In only 1 class did someone IMMEDIATELY draw the right conclusion, as I have read, and that dude bolted and got shot...He realized it was gunfire, panicked and ran into the maniac. Not a wise tactical decision, but he isn’t an E-3/E-5 either.

2) They all weren’t in one big room, with lots of time to say, "Let’s roll." Cho shot up four classrooms, in turn. He didn’t face 50-plus people, he faced 4 groups of 12-13 disoriented, civilians....

3) and BTW, the nature of the "battlefield" as I understand it from the papers was to HIS advantage. You could rush him, 1 at a time...he came thru a doorway and started shooting. Rushing him in a doorway is NOT the same thing as rushing him on a football field. In fact, the doorway also worked TO THE ADVANTAGE of some, because they barricaed the door, with tables or with their bodies. The door as a choke point limited both sides options.

Bottom-line: this is a case where I don’t see "The Nanny State" Culture or anything else leading to mass casualties. This is an unsuspecting group of young men and women, being shot in four relatively small groups, from a doorway, by a well-armed maniac. When were they supposed to "Man Up" and decide, "Better to die on our Feet, rather than our knees?" It all sounds very noble, but let me wander by most any campus and I’m betting that for the first 10-15 minutes I get to have pretty much free reign/tactical initiative. Even in the Army ROTC building or in a building housing the Marine PLC’s...it goes without saying that AFROTC would be cleaned out pretty quickly, without a multimillion dollar aircraft and a horde of technicians supporting them what is the USAF gonna be able to do?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Are you kidding? The USAF would backstab him to death in seconds.
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
For clarification, I’m not military (yet - waiting on my B.S. first, plus i’m disgustingly out of shape). My neighborhood (well, down 3 or 4 blocks) has had a couple of pot-shots this last mont hor so, and a rash of break-ins. I’ve grown up around guns my whole life, and can identify a gunshot from, say, an m-80 or a car backfiring. I hear a gunshot, and I tend to take a knee and look around. When the pot-shots happen and I’m in bed, I reach for the 9mm that sits next to me (see the afore-mentioned break-ins).

But I’m a little jumpier than most, I suspect, and possed by more than my share of "eff you, pal".

This is, however, a perfect example of Nanny State.

There were no doubt many students who COULD have been carrying a weapon had the State Assembly decided to allow them to carry the weapons on campus (The weapons the could have carried into a car dealer or fastfood place because of a CCP). Because of the "guns are bad, m’kay?" attitude of the lefties, these kids were without a mighty handy tool.

And I wouldn’t call CHo "well armed". A glock-19 and a .22 ain’t what I call "well armed". He was, however, "better armed".
what is the USAF gonna be able to do?
Careful dude. In Vietnam the AF’s MP’s had the highest kill-rate of any US unit. The USAF SpecOps are some pretty tough folks... They aren’t ALL pansies...

Just most... ;)
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Are you kidding? The USAF would backstab him to death in seconds.

*ROTFLMAO* Oh that was too good.....
Careful dude. In Vietnam the AF’s MP’s had the highest kill-rate of any US unit.
Shooting your own people doesn’t count.....
The USAF SpecOps are some pretty tough folks...
I just finished Robert’s Ridge, the PJ’s and the Air Force Combat Controllers were certainly an amazing crew.
They aren’t ALL pansies...

Just most... ;)
*LOL* OK, Dale is excluded, but if I recall he wasn’t an officer, but an NCO.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Of course, those who argue that everyone should be armed are being just as illogical.

Scott, I’ve never seen anyone argue this.
Oh, I’ve seen that argument — in an extreme case arguing that it is a duty to be armed (I think in a discussion on talk.politics.guns) but also by libertarians who say they wouldn’t force anyone to arm themselves but they believe everyone should be armed as a rational procaution.

But I really was focusing more on the people who say "if only there were more armed people then this wouldn’t have happened." That is no more logical than the argument for banning guns or imposing stricter gun control laws.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Well, Scott, except for all those irrelevant statistics showing that states which pass easier CCW permits have violent crimes go down while gun crimes stay the same or decrease..... not to mention Britain’s experience with having gun crime and violent crime go up after confiscation. But, hey, details, right?
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Shooting your own people doesn’t count.....
Actually, the guys tasted with defending the airbases had some impressive kill-counts...

However, it ishard to deny that they are all sissies when their bootcamp these days consistes of little more than bike-riding and paperwork...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
the guys tasted
Tasked... The guys tasked...

*sigh* I’m gonna put my head down for a little nap...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
the guys tasted
Tasked... The guys tasked...
Being that you were discussing the USAF I just assumed the worst and thought you mean they were cannibals.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"If you knew me better Bryan you’d know I was being sarcastic..."

Think of these incidents as a test of who has actually read your posts and how well they comprehend and remember them. You and Joe seem to have the same problem.

" I reach for the 9mm that sits next to me..."

Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night with an itching back, and look for something to scratch it with. I do hope you are not a heavy sleeper. If you are as semi-comatose as I am when I am looking for that backscratcher, there could be an unfortunate accident. Imagine the investigating officer’s puzzlement, as he tries to figure out why you shot yourself in the back.

"And I wouldn’t call CHo "well armed"."

Well armed is a relative thing, I think. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Well armed is a relative thing, I think. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".
"Well armed" is relative.

For a campus that was unarmed, a 6 shot revolver could be well armed.

A person could have had a single shot derringer and possibly been able to stop the psychopath.

It’s not the size of the gun, it’s how you use it.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
It’s not the size of the gun, it’s how you use it.

That’s what men keep telling themselves, at least......
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night with an itching back, and look for something to scratch it with. I do hope you are not a heavy sleeper. If you are as semi-comatose as I am when I am looking for that backscratcher, there could be an unfortunate accident. Imagine the investigating officer’s puzzlement, as he tries to figure out why you shot yourself in the back.
I wake slowly to my alarm clock and my cell phone. I wake VERY quickly to sudden noises. My cat cratching a closet door has bolted me upright. Try and talk to me, and you’ll here the random swear word and mumbles...

Besides, using a 9mm to scratch my back? Are you insane?

That’s what the shotgun is for... (kidding, not shotty at my house - yet).

And as I said, I would term Cho as "better armed". I just can’t wrap my head around a .22 pistol being "well armed".
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider