People in Britain no longer have guns to kill each other, so now they’re using knives. The excuse this time (note that no one wants anyone else to assume responsibility) is that violent video games are making them do it. That’s right, boys and girls. Great Britain wants to have a tax on violent video games to get funds to help them combat knife crime. Here’s an idea–why don’t we put a tax on watching cooking shows when you buy a box of twinkies? It’s the same “impeccable logic” at work.

Let me put on my quality engineer hat for a second and make one point. This is so simple that it defies any sort of embellishment or further explanation:

They’re missing the root cause of the problem.

That’s it. It’s Occam’s Razor.

The root cause of the problem is that no one is taking personal responsibility. Parents aren’t assuming responsibility for what media their children consume. Children aren’t being held responsible for their actions, and parents aren’t being held accountable when their children turn into little monsters. In steps the benevolent, wise, and helpful government (who also needs money in an economic downturn). Using a tragedy, the British government has concocted an entire house of cards that allows them to villify video games, take broad aim at future knife control, and slur America with broad generalizations. They also make a little bit of money, too.

(If I go to Britain next year, will I even be able to cut my steak, or must a licensed government official, trained in the safe use of a knife, cut my meat prior to me consuming it?)

Video games are this generations version of misunderstood youthful recreation, like comic books, science fiction, and Dungeons and Dragons before them. I find it laudable that the leaders of our governments are such poor students of cultural history that they don’t recognize the same cycles being perpetuated over and over again before their eyes. Tying this new “medium” to a murder really stoops to a new low, even for our government.

Click the option to watch in high quality. You can see the bullet holes a lot more clearly. Take that, punk!

It shoots better (for me) than a Glock, but not quite as well as a Sig. (Disclaimer: I have small hands, so most who like the Glock will level the “girl hands” criticism at me.) My groups are all in the eight ring on a silhouette the first time I put rounds through it. After some tweaking to my grip/stance, I tightened up the group quite a bit (although I was still about half in the eight ring). With practice, I imagine that this will be my new go-to sidearm when I want a full-size carry. 

The real reason why I like this handgun is that the magazines are interchangeable with my CX4 Storm carbine. One load out lets me carry ammo for both.

Mr. Heller, of Heller vs. Washington D.C., is at it again. He’s filed a second suit which claims that the city of Washington, D.C. goes too far in its restrictions against semi-automatic handguns. He futher alleges that the requirement for ownership of a firearm in the home precludes its use for self-defense.

I predicted this would happen in an earlier post. I’m delighted to see it come to fruition.

How awesome is that?

Unfortunately, the Channel Five news in Oklahoma City (known even fifteen years ago for its sensationalism), liberally re-used shots of a youth firing what appears to be an Uzi at gallon bottles filled with water. To end the footage, they also showed a paintball contest, but to the uneducated eye, it would look as though they were being trained in SWAT tactics. The dubious spin placed on the story by the reporters really makes my skin crawl. Bottom line, they are teaching teens to handle firearms safely and responsibly in a supervised environment.

Should a church be giving away a weapon?

I suppose a better question is should a church be giving anything away at all, especially given that the mission of the church is to minister to the needy and spread the Gospel. Using a raffle or a contest to draw people to the church to hear the message is a time-honored trick, so perhaps we can forgive the church for that. Likewise, the use to which the prize (an AR-15) is being put is for sport; i.e. shooting targets in a controlled environment. The prize comes with a degree of experience and instruction, and may even allow someone to defend their family one day. God works in mysterious ways, friends.

If a church has decided to give away any prize (something I’m not entirely comfortable with given the mission of the church), I suppose a gun is as good as anything.

For those that are confused by the title, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the recent ruling in Heller vs. Washington, D. C. in which the Supreme Court upheld the right of citizens to bear arms as individuals. Furthermore, they ruled that the law in Washington, D.C. banning handguns was unconstitutional.

Washington, D. C. has responded to the court ruling with this document (pdf format, Adobe Acrobat required).  There are a few requirements for exercising your constitutional rights:

You must be 21 years of age.

While I think it’s ludicrous that you can enlist in the military and be entrusted to protect our country with deadly force at the age of 18 but not be responsible enough to own a gun, I can’t really say “No” to this one. Twenty-one seems to be a good age, where responsibility might finally begin to catch up to capability.

Complete a firearms application.

No one has to apply for free speech or to practice a religion. Why should they have to “apply” to own a firearm? This is something guaranteed. The application is pointless and unnecessary.

Bring proof of residency.

See above; this is undoubtedly to satisfy the D.C. Secret Police that you are, indeed, in their jurisdiction.

Bring two passport photos, front-facing.

I’m not the one requiring registration. If you, as a municipal body are wanting to register me to own a firearm, buy a camera and an inkjet with some glossy paper. It isn’t my responsibility to pander to the bureaucratic nonsense that you’re already wasting my tax dollars on.

Be fingerprinted.

What crime has a potential registrant committed that they must go through a pre-book? Does D.C. fear the murder machines so much that have to go ahead and have half of the booking process completed before you commit a crime? Or is it that if you want to own a firearm, you’re halfway to becoming a criminal already? Again, ludicrous. Go ahead and add DNA samples and a retinal scan while you’re at it. If you’re going to be Big Brother, at least do it right.

Pass a 20-question multiple choice test.

You can’t even require someone to read to be able to vote. How, then, you can make someone pass a test (that they don’t define) to exercise their second amendment right? What exactly is on this test?

Complete a notarized firearms eligibility statement.

This one is pure nonsense–it’s just another piece of paper that creates a job for a bureaucrat in D.C. Who pays the notary? The registrant does, I’m sure.

Once you have completed all the necessary paperwork, you must pay $13 dollars per firearm to register them, plus you must pay $35 for the fingerprint processing fee. That’s a total of $48. After you do all that, we find out that semi-automatic handguns are still banned in D.C. You can own a revolver, a rifle, or a shotgun, but the shotgun must be greater than 20″ in length (eliminating a host of home defense weapons with 18″ barrels) and the rifles must not hold more than twelve rounds (or be readily converted to HOLD more than twelve rounds). That means that anything that can take a magazine that holds more than that is right out. That includes popular weapons such as the AR-15, the Ruger Mini 14, a Ruger 10-22, or a lot of the pistol caliber carbines.

I envision D.C. going back to court on this one.

To bring this full circle, I would like to point out that poll taxes were declared unconstitutional in Harper vs. Virginia Board of Elections. This case is similar in that a local government was using a “fee” as a prequisite for exercising a right guaranteed under the auspices of the constitution. Even though the rights here are different, the principle is exactly the same.

Everyone can now breathe a collective sigh of relief.

For a California paper, the article seems to be fairly balanced. The author merely shines a spotlight on the movement itself and talks about the motivations of people who carry firearms openly. The men (and women) he picked to showcase are normal, well-adjusted individuals who would do well to hold the banner for responsible usage of firearms.

Unfortunately for the author, he totally gets the make and model of a handgun incorrect:

Nearby, Scott Thompson picked over the remains of a salad, his Springfield Armory XD-35 sitting snugly in his hip holster.

Likely this was an XD .45, but how can you expect a Starbucks-drinking-lib-journalist to notice that?

And let’s face it, who wouldn’t want to say this to your wife:

As Clachelle pushed the shopping cart holding their two young children during a recent trip to Costco, her husband admired the new holster wrapped around her waist. “I like the look of that low-rise gun belt,” he said.

That’s bedroom talk that’ll get the old heart racing.

Texas is a restricted open carry state, which means that you can openly carry in your vehicle if you are “traveling” somewhere. You are not allowed to openly carry on your person without a concealed-carry permit, and even with it, your weapon must be concealed.

What do I think of all this? Obviously, I think open carry goes a long way toward deterrence. What criminal in their right mind robs a bank when it’s a guarantee that there are armed citizens inside? What thug dares to snatch a purse when it’s an even bet that the woman he’s stealing from is carrying a pistol on her belt?

Does open carry mean that the job of a law enforcement official is more difficult? There are two sides to this; without hard research (which means trying this on a large scale), I’m not sure you can really say for sure. I do think incidences of vigilantism would rise, but is that a bad thing? More people watching out to ensure that this world is a better place, free from crime and vice, is a positive in my book. My tax dollars pay the police dangeld now; let’s pay them for paperwork after the fact instead.

The flip side of an open carry movement is that some people will regard their firearm as a talisman. I recently read an article on one of the firearm discussion groups that I participate in that talks about how many regard their weapon as a charm against harm. (Pardon the rhyme.) The firearm is not some magical crucifix that you wear around your neck; it is a tool that you must be prepared to use in the defense of yourself or others. That requires training, familiarity, and the proper mindset. If you, as an individual, are wearing a firearm because “it makes you feel better,” then put it back in your gun safe and admit that you’re not the right kind of person to carry. Carry the weapon because you are willing to risk your life for the betterment of society, standing between danger and the defenseless. If that sounds like chivalry, you’re probably correct, but it is the only attitude that grants you the right frame of mind to be a responsible, firearm-carrying citizen.

GK passed this along. The matches are in Tulsa, OK, but no one can deny that it looks wicked fun.