Of Rifles and the Red Queen

I grew up a cowboy. My parents own and work the ranch that my mother’s parents owned and worked, and that my grandfathers parents homesteaded. All the trappings of the cowboy life, going back more than one hundred years, are all over this place and often used right along-side new, modern, gear. The saddles of my grandfathers are in the tack-room, next to mine less than 20 years old. Spurs my grandfather made in his forge, or ones he repaired that were older than him are still used regularly. Other horse tack he owned, made or repaired is used. We used the branding chute he'd engineered and built until only a few years ago.
And the guns - the guns of several generations sit side by side. My grandfather had a Colt .45 revolver that had been made before he was born. He had several lever-action Winchester rifles, two of which were about as old as the Colt (and that he died before he fully repaired). And he had a 1913 Erfurt Luger, which was his carry gun later in life.
The Luger stands out among the rest as the most modern design (although not manufacture, his personal Winchester .30.30 was made later than that), and most incongruous of the group. It is a modern semi-automatic pistol, firing the smaller, more modern, 9mm Parabellum and arguably a purposefully designed "fighting handgun". In my opinion, its one of the finest arms ever built. His is still in spectacular condition, and to hold it in your hand is to purely feel the gunmakers craft at its finest.
I don’t think my grandfather chose it as his carry gun because of its fighting prowess, higher rate of fire, or greater capacity over his Colt .45 - I just think he liked it. It was easier, lighter, and quicker and in better condition than his much worn .45, and probably just felt good to him. He was, by all accounts, a hell of a shot with both, and very capable with both. When the chips were down my grandfather had proven more than once he could hold his own with any weapon put into his hand, from his single action revolver to a Browning machine-gun.
I am personally a fan of the Luger for similar reasons. In my life its greater capacity, higher rate of fire and more generally modern design as a fighting arm become important. Its not one of my go-to guns, its a family keepsake not a work tool.
The .30.30 my grandfather favored is a work tool however. It’s my go to rifle for checking the pastures, and problems with cats and coyotes. Its also my go-to for a fighting rifle, should a problem with a two-legged predator ever arise here. Its great ammunition capacity and faster rate of fire make it superior to my bolt-guns, it’s also smaller and easier to handle in confined quarters or fast movement than the larger rifles. But it’s not perfect. It’s not the ideal "fighting rifle" anymore.
There are tools with higher capacity, even faster rates of fire, improved close-quarter handling, and better fighting accessory options. Tools that are in the hands of the criminals, as well as in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Once upon a time, even fairly recently in this part of the world, a gun like a lever action Winchester was enough. Not just for protecting yourself/your family, from criminal assault. No. It was enough for everything. Hunting, protecting livestock, slaughtering stock or putting down injured animals – Everything.
Depending on your country (“country” is not the nation where you reside, it’s the type of terrain where your ranchito is), you might have a couple – a carbine length in a lighter caliber, and a full-sized rifle in a heavier caliber. But a lot of people just had one. Here the .30.30 can take down most things you’ll meet, game and predatory animals, and works well in this type of country.
I know men who grew up in the conditions that supported that. I have known men, I think they are all dead now, who lived lives that depended on one rifle, entire lives.
I love that idea of one rifle – one rifle that was good enough to put meat on the table, tend to your livestock (your welfare), and defend your family against attacks. One, simple, elegant, rifle that can do all that like the Model 94 Winchester.
But, that era has passed.
Its evolution, the area of evolution between predator and prey, particularly the “Red Queen” principle where-in rapid evolution within a species is prompted by an increase or evolution of the threats against it. As in the character in Lewis Carroll’s through the looking glass, the Red Queen, who has to keep running faster and faster just to remain standing still.
Evolutionarily, as one species evolves it develops an edge over other species in survival – both over the species it preys upon and the evolved defenses of that (or those) species, and also an edge over competing species that lack this new “edge”. To keep up, the other species (prey and competing predator alike) have to evolve, or “run faster”. This is the evolutionary equivalent of an arms race.
In predator/prey interaction entirely within the human species, this has become an arms race, literally.
No longer can you have one rifle. A battle rifle is not a rifle to pack on your saddle, and the rifle you pack on your saddle is not the one you really want when you pop around that corner at 3 AM to find four guys with pistols standing in your living room.
In some ways, I gladly accept the necessity of evolution.
In others, I long for the idea of that simpler world, simpler time.

Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence: Politics Through Terror

As anyone who read this blog knows, I am pro-gun. I like knowing I can put food on my family’s table, keep four legged predators from preying on my livestock (livelihood) and pets, and keep two-legged predators from preying on me and mine. Its not about doing violence, its about stopping violence.
I know a lot of other gun owners, I work with them, I hang out with them, I'm involved in the community. They are good and decent people, with morals like my own about the high value of life (and of liberty), and although a few bad apples (the racist, redneck, uneducated "bubba" types) get a lot of press, as a group we gun owners have fewer "bad apples" than any other group I've ever been involved with, from the art community to the medical field.
But some people, many people, would tear us down. Organizations like the Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence. They will say we are violent monsters, just looking for a chance to hurt someone. They will tell lies about our actions, and about the nature of firearms themselves (for example the infamous "13 children a day" statistic on gun-deaths, the research for which was done from a tiny sample of the population, over a short time period, in major urban areas, and failed to discount police shootings and suicides while also defining "children" as people well into their twenties - thus counting gang deaths, and similar "criminal" enterprises gone wrong, and suicides to bolster their numbers). And when that fails, when they cannot slander us enough to destroy us, they will target our politicians where it hurts - in the wallet. They will buy our politicians, or try to force their hand through money, to enact un-Constitutional legislation against firearms.
It’s not about telling the truth about guns - it’s about making people afraid of guns, so the truth will be obscured. Because the truth is, a gun is not anymore dangerous than anything else. What is dangerous is the desire and intent of people who would hurt others for gain or pleasure. That desire and intent can turn a kitchen ice pick into a weapon, or a rock, or a baseball bat. Or a car. And more people are killed, every year, by cars than are killed by guns - thousands more. But no one cries for legislation to ban cars, or restrict access to them - because everyone understands the value of having a car, and that the car by itself is not dangerous (although, as inanimate objects go, a car has far more inherent potential for harm and injury than a gun - when was the last time you almost had a wreck? when was the last time you were shot at? I've never been shot at, but someone almost hits me every time I go to town. Just a few weeks ago, my car malfunctioned and sent me plowing into an intersection on the red. My guns never do that).
But guns - when you obscure the truth about them, its an easy thing to get people worked up about. None of us (who are not mentally broken) like violence or want to be part of it. Violence scares a great many people. It’s easy to twist some things, and tie guns to violence and make guns the object of fear. Once something is feared, common sense goes out the window in the face of defeating the fear - and facing is not defeating. Defeating is just removing the object we fear. It’s common, that’s how most people deal with a fear they are not forced to face. It’s not healthy, but its how most people do it. So, Guns = Fear, lets get rid of guns, right? Right.
Gun Control organizations are not about telling the truth about guns, promoting gun safety and education. They are about fear. Fear is how they get people on their side; fear is how they get their desires met. And in the end, its not about guns, its just about control. Telling other people what is good for them, what they need and what they don’t - The people who drive organizations like the Brady Campaign are the same people who want to nanny the population in other ways as well - To tell us what music or movies are good for us, tell us what we shouldn’t see on television, or tell us that its not our responsibility to avoid things that offend us, its the States responsibility to come protect us. And they want to be the ones who make the decisions and have that responsibility. Guns are just an easy stirred up, hot button, issue that’s handy for them to get at least a little bit of control. And its all based on fear - making people afraid of something, obscuring the truth with fear-mongering tactics, numbers and jingoism, and uniting everyone they have made afraid to "fight" the fear.
That’s low - using fear, as a political tool is very low. But it’s nothing new either.
But what about using fear to damage the economic stability of a nation or state? Well that’s not new either, but that’s the work of Terrorist Organizations. Right?

Florida Tourists Warned Locals Could Shoot Them, from The Scotsman.
ALASTAIR JAMIESON
IT IS Britain's most popular transatlantic holiday destination, attracting more than 1.5 million visitors a year with its sun-drenched beaches, theme parks and wildlife.
But Florida's £30 billion tourism industry is under threat from a campaign launched by a gun-control group which warns visitors they could be killed.
A series of alarming adverts, to be placed in British newspapers, warns potential tourists about a new law allowing gun owners to shoot anyone they believe threatens their safety.
It means thousands of British families who travel to the Sunshine State are now caught up in the ongoing political row over gun control in the United States.
The Florida law, supported by the National Rifle Association, was approved by the state legislature in April.
The state's governor, Jeb Bush - whose brother is the US president - described it as a "good, commonsense, anti-crime issue".
Critics call it the "shoot first" law and say it allows gun owners to shoot if they engage in a simple argument in public. Supporters call it the "stand your ground" law and say criminals will think twice before attacking someone.
Previously, gun owners could only use their weapons if they first attempted to withdraw and avoid a confrontation, and were permitted to shoot threatening individuals only inside their home or property.
Now they can use "deadly force" if they "reasonably believe" that firing their gun is necessary to prevent a crime or serious injury. The law also effectively prevents civil legal action by victims of such shootings.
The Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence, based in Washington DC, has pledged to "educate" tourists by placing adverts in US cities, and in key overseas markets such as Britain.
"Warning: Florida residents can use deadly force," says one of the adverts. Another reads: "Thinking about a Florida vacation? Please ensure your family is safe. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads."
The Brady Campaign - named after Jim Brady, the spokesman for Ronald Reagan who was paralysed by a gunshot during the 1981 assassination attempt on the then-president - promises to also run adverts in French, German and Japanese newspapers. The campaign officers also plan to hand out leaflets on roads leading into the state.
Peter Hamm, the communications director of the Brady Campaign, said: "It's a particular risk faced by travellers coming to Florida for a vacation because they have no idea it's going to be the law of the land. If they get into a road rage argument, the other person may feel he has the right to use deadly force."
Tourism officials in Florida are furious at the move. Bud Nocera, the executive director of Visit Florida, said: "It is sad that such an organisation would hold the 900,000 men and women who work in the Florida tourism industry, and whose lives depend on it, hostage to their political agenda."
The Association of British Travel Agents yesterday said the posters were "a matter of concern", but said there was unlikely to be a drop in the number of visitors to Florida.
It said 1.4 million Britons made the journey last year, attracted by the weather and resorts such as Disneyworld and the Kennedy Space Centre.
A spokeswoman said: "We would offer the same advice about Florida as we would any other part of the United States. As far as we are concerned, nothing has changed."
More than 80 million tourists from around the world visited Florida last year, boosting an industry that accounts for one-fifth of the state economy.

This is a frightening example of just how far the Brady Campaign, and similar organizations will go to promote fear.
It’s not about telling the truth, or any honest concern for the safety and well being of travelers to these United States. Because, if it was, the Brady Campaign would be telling the truth about Florida's Deadly Force and Use of Force laws, and they aren’t. The implication of the Brady Campaign ads is that Florida residents are now allowed to shoot anyone who upsets them - The article says, "a new law allowing gun owners to shoot anyone they believe threatens their safety", but that’s patently nonsense. The "new law" going into effect is the same law many other states have, and have had for years, a "Stand Your Ground" law - All it says is that you have no obligation to try to flee a confrontation before using force. It changes nothing about the laws regarding Use of Force, just when you can (and in a reasonable manner, because with a 220 pound rapist on-top of her, a 105 pound woman isn’t going to be able to even attempt flight). Under the old law, everywhere but inside your home, you had a "duty to retreat" before using force - including inside your vehicle or boat. The new law says that Standing your Ground outside the home is permissible, provided that the requirements for using deadly force are met. Florida's Use of Force laws still maintain that to use deadly force you must be in imminent jeopardy from someone who has the ability and opportunity to do great violence/cause your death, and that other methods of resolution have been precluded.

Chapter 776 Justifiable Use of Force: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

That’s the Florida law, right there.
Someone yelling at you, even pulling your hair or thumping you in the chest is not the kind of threat that merits legal use of force. The new Stand your Ground legislation in Florida doesn’t change that.
The closest it comes to changing Use of Force law is its re-interpretation of the "castle doctrine", which has always allowed standing your ground inside your home, to now say that the conditions required for use of force have been met when someone forcibly and unlawfully enters someone else’s home. This is entirely reasonable, and can be supported by crime statistics - people do not break into others homes to do nice things to begin with, but they certainly don’t break in while the homeowner is home without intention of something nasty. Crime reports, self defense experts and police will all agree on this when polled.
But nothing was changed in the law that gave Florida citizens the right to use force, without meeting the already established requirements. The Stand your Ground laws don’t change those requirements.
Anyone who says differently is ignorantly wrong, or lying. In the case of a multi-million dollar organization devoted to tracking and fighting pro-gun (and. as in this case, pro-self defense) legislation, there is no way they could be ignorant of the facts. They are lying. They are lying to promote fear, terror.
Now, there is no inherent value in terrorizing the people of another country, a country outside your realm of influence or concern. Unless that other country has something you want to possess, or want to discourage. The only reason to discourage another country from something is for personal or organizational gain - In this case, the Brady Campaign cannot gain anything financially or politically from the UK, but by promoting terror among UK tourists to Florida they can create economic leverage against the government of Florida by disrupting the tourist based income. Or at least they can attempt to.
That is, simply put, using fear, Terror, to create a negative impact on the economic stability of a state, for the purposes of political leverage. And that is Terrorism. The same kind of terrorism being propagated by Al Qaeda, and Jemaah Islamiyah when they bomb tourist resorts in Bali. The Brady Campaign has the ability to create an artificial body count, and strike fear into a populace without actual death or carrying out violence themselves - but, its violence (or the threat of it) they are using to create fear, and they are exploiting that fear to negatively impact governments (state government in this case) that they deem oppositional.
That is Terrorism.

STI Lawman

Occasionally I buy a gun magazine to drool over the pictures (because I havent read a really good article in a gun magazine in years) and check out current trends and "whats hot" etc.
I've looked at STI guns off and on before, and nothing has ever really jumped up and struck me - but I happened to catch an ad for their Lawman model in the current issue of American Handgunner, and was impressed enough with its looks to take a look at the website.
Sweet piece. Out of my price range, but still very nice.
When I get myself a 1911 I'm probably going to get a low-end box-stock Springfield Armory or a Kimber and then build it up to something close to that Lawman right there, save a little money and get a better idea of what I'm getting.

Why Would Anyone Need to Own a Gun?

As a gun owner I've been asked, many times, "why in the world would anyone actually need a gun?" and my answer to that question is very good, although not always short. I'm sure some readers of this blog have wanted to ask me that question, and although my answer can actually be found in older entries, I've got an answer for you from someone else.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0509/18/A17-318167.htm
The Detroit News is not exactly a conservative rag - in fact I'd have ventured to say it was a leftist bastion of anti-gunnery before today, so I'm not just spreading around a sermon to the choir.
Read it, its a good article.

[Update]Actually, since its short, I'm going to quote it here, given the fickle nature of eNewspapers and active links.

Katrina chaos boosts case for 2nd Amendment

By Nolan Finley / The Detroit News

As New Orleans flooded and whatever civil society the city could lay claim to disintegrated, those left behind needed two things: a powerful will to survive and a gun.

Hurricane Katrina might end up being the best friend the Second Amendment ever had.

Gun dealers across the country are reporting increased sales. People who saw on television what happens when government can't deliver on the promise of protecting its citizens are buying firearms as an insurance policy against anarchy.

That assurance of government-provided security has convinced individual Americans to gradually trade in their unrestrained constitutional right to bear arms.

But for days, there was no law in New Orleans and no government to speak of. All rules were off.

While the politically correct version of what happened is that desperate people looted stores for food and water, that's only part of the story. Bands of armed hoodlums roamed the city, smashing their way into businesses and homes, carting off jewelry, liquor, televisions and other goods that had nothing to do with survival.

People were murdered, raped, stripped of their meager provisions.

Those with the best chance of surviving were the ones who had shotguns, rifles and pistols stashed away in closets and drawers.

Homeowner John Carolan ran off a mob of young men armed with knives and machetes and intent on stealing his generator by firing a few rounds from a .357 Magnum over their heads. "They scattered," he told reporters.

After looters poured into a nursing home and carted off the food, water and medicine, administrator Peggy Hoffman told the Associated Press, "we'll have to equip our department heads with guns and teach them how to shoot."

Lots of Americans are thinking about shooting lessons today.

The tiresome question, "Why does anyone need a gun?" now has its answer.

Order can deteriorate in this country to the point where nothing stands between the law-abiding citizen and the marauding mob except blue steel. It happened in New Orleans. It can happen anywhere else in America at anytime.

It will be harder now for the anti-gun lobby to convince Americans to dismantle even more of the Second Amendment.

Of course, they'll try to spin this to say that were there no guns to begin with, the looters wouldn't have been armed and dangerous. But thieves, murderers and the rest of the rabble have always been more ingenious at procuring weapons than law-abiding citizens.

No amount of gun control laws will keep the dark side of this society from arming itself for evil purposes.

To twist the old bumper sticker, Americans will give up their guns when they can be certain all the guns have been pried out of the cold, dead fingers of all the bad guys.

Until then, they'll prefer to keep a little heat in the house.

Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The News. Reach him at (313) 222-2064 or at nfinley@ detnews.com. Watch Nolan Finley on "Am I Right," 8:30 p.m. Fridays on Detroit Public Television, Ch. 56.