A rifle has a long rifled barrel. Rifling is a spiral groove that causes the bullet to spin. A spinning bullet flies straighter, so point-blank range is longer. Point-blank is not gun-to-the-head (or rifle-to-the-head) distance, it is simply the distance over which a straight sighted shot will hit its mark without compensating for the bullet falling in the Earth’s gravitational field.

In the old days, to fire a second (or third, etc.) bullet from a gun, you had to shove powder and shot and wadding and stuff down the barrel. Over time this got easier to do, so we ended up with things like revolvers and the rough (but different) equivalent in long guns, a way to get the second bullet into the right place (the chamber) by pulling and/or pushing on a bolt, lever, or other doohickey. Then they invented a way for the bullet to load itself up so that it was ready to go, generally using some of the energy from the previously fired bullet. These were initially called by terms such as “self-loading,” “repeating,” or “auto-loading.” I think the term “semi-automatic” emerged at a later time to clarify the distinction between what eventually became known as “fully automatic” and “semi-automatic.”

An fully automatic weapon fires a series of bullets with only one pull of the trigger.

A rifle is a gun, a gun is a weapon, a rifle is a weapon, and many weapons are rifles or guns.

An assault weapon is often thought of as a rifle or rifle-like gun designed to attack and kill people, maximizing casualties and ease of use during hut-hut-hut situations.* It may have a way to suppress muzzle flash, it usually has a pistol type grip allowing it to be maneuvered and aimed more quickly, it may be light weight, it usually can carry a lot of bullets or can be modified to carry a whole-bunch-of bullets, etc. There is not a formal definition of assault weapon, though in the process of legislating guns, some statues define the term, but that is not official-Webster-linguo-defined. An assault weapon need not be fully automatic

Most gun aficionados will tell you that an “assault rifle” is always a fully automatic. Period. And, to them, this is true. Not an assault weapon, an assault rifle. Totally different thing, they say. You’re using the wrong word, they’ll tell you.

Yet, a gun is a weapon, so a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip, flash suppressor, large magazine, etc. is an assault rifle.

Why is this important?

It is not. Not at all. Means nothing. There is nothing whatsoever to the problem that people who talk about guns and rifles and stuff use terms that do not match what a subset of the terms currently active gun aficionados prefer.

But if you use these terms in a way not anointed by the gun slingers, you will be corrected, and that correction will be used as a tool to derail the discussion. You will be trolled. Slinger-trolled.

When it comes down to banning guns, when a bill is passed that bans specific guns in a specific state or country, definitions must be created for use in statute, as referred to above. Even though many gun slinger trolls will tell you that all the terms are defined, understood, and fully deployed across the gun-o-sphere, they are not. There are all kinds of edge cases and vagueness. For example, an automatic rifle fires several shots, but to most gun slingers, an automatic pistol does not. But a machine pistol is a fully automatic pistol, which is a pistol not because of its pistolosity so much as its lack of long rifled barrel and relative smallness. And so on. It will not do to ban firearms without attending to the definitions very clearly. Meanwhile, it will not do to have the conversation constantly derailed by yammering gun slinger trolls insisting that they own the English Language. They do not.

When the famous Clinton assault weapon ban went into effect decades ago, the fist thing the gun slingers did was to eviscerate it by insisting that definitions had to be very very clear, in a certain way, such as naming specific known weapons or lines of weapons. The production of this clarity was demanded in order to allow the creation of loopholes big enough to pass a naval gun through. The purpose, on the part of the pro-gun lobby, of screwing around with definitions, was to avoid actually banning entire categories of guns. Ultimately, the legislation did not work very well.

For much of the time they’ve been manufactured, a typical semi-automatic rifle that is also an assault weapon, depending and varying across time and space, can be turned into a fully automatic weapon with a kit that goes with that rifle. Newer regulatory standards have made it more and more difficult to make this conversion. There was a time when it was trivial, now it is harder. As the old method of making a weapon fully auto (removing the bit that causes the firing pin to only hit the bullet once, then adding a part that controls the hammer’s cycle so it does not try to fire a bullet before it has entered the chamber, etc) has become more difficult, the bump-stock was invented, a device that totally circumvents the measures take to make this conversion very difficult. And so on.

My message is this: When talking about regulating guns, beware the pedant: the person who tells you that you don’t know what you are talking about because you are not using specific terms, and tries to make that the main point of the conversation.

Yes, ultimately, we will need to have proper and correct definiteness, but it is simply not true that adherence to this absurd level of specificity is required to have a productive conversation. It isn’t true because one of the most important differences between weapons is semi- vs. fully-automatic, and that distinction is artificial. Eventually, we will likely see the difference between an “assault weapon” and a “hunting weapon” similarly mucked up, as we decide as a society to ban assault weapons but protect hunting weapons. There will be a weight limit put on weapons, so light weight (a feature of assault weapons) is not allowed. So heavier weapons will be created that can be lightened by changing the stock. Flash suppressors will not be allowed, but there will be instruction to make and add your own. All of it.

Face it: Gun slinging trolls are simply not honest contributors to this conversation. And that does not matter. It does not matter because we are tired of listing to them.

*the hut-hut-hut situation:

Some of it appears to lie in their (“our”) biological vulnerability. … about 30% of males (versus 9% of females) have a form of the MAOA gene that reduces the levels of an important neurotransmitter, and this in turn impairs their ability to deal effectively and prosocially with stressful situations …

But [genetics] is only a part, perhaps a small part, of the larger story. Males are also especially immersed in a culture that glorifies and justifies violence, and particularly male violence. …

These cultural messages and themes poison male consciousness. To put it bluntly, although the mentally ill on average are no more violent than the sane, even “crazy people” act within a cultural framework. They respond to cultural scripts that tell them “if this, then that.” For example, no account of the massacre of nine African Americans in a Charleston, South Carolina, church in June of 2015 is sensible without the recognition that there is a long tradition of racism as a rationale for killing black people in America…

…

All of these factors are compounded when the issue is young males. In recent decades, neuroscience researchers have demonstrated that human brains do not mature fully until people reach their mid or even late 20s, for the most part. These immature brains are particularly prone to make mistakes in interpreting the meaning of emotions in others, of judgment, and in assessing the risks and benefits of action. …

What is more, when young males have had an accumulation of adverse childhood experiences, the odds that they will have problems with both emotional regulation and executive function increase….

Finally, of course, there is the matter of arming troubled young male with lethal weapons. It is the access to guns that makes young male people so dangerous, especially when they are troubled, angry, or somehow “crazy.” …

Despite growing gender equality with respect to access to guns culturally and physically, it remains true that males are more gun-identified than females. And it is guns that make American violent behavior so lethal. Guns make suicide attempts particularly deadly (85% lethal vs. less than 10% for pills). It is guns in the hands of males that make domestic disputes—mostly violence against women—so dangerous. It is guns that make cop–civilian confrontations so deadly (most of which involve males on both sides). It is guns that make racist ideologies in the heads of troubled young males lead to nine dead bodies in a church in South Carolina, because “guns don’t kill people; people with guns kill people.” Or more accurately, “male people with guns.”

From the commentary, “Mass Murder: A Perspective on Young Male Killers“, Violence and Gender. 2:3, September, 2015.

Paper: Mental Illness and Gun Violence: Lessons for the United States from Australia and Britain. Evans Richard, Farmer Clare, and Saligari Jessica. Violence and Gender. September 2016, 3(3): 150-156.

Abstract: In the United States, the nexus between mental illness and shootings has been the subject of heated argument. An extreme expression of one point of view is that “guns don’t kill people, the mentally ill do.” This article seeks to demonstrate the falsehood of this argument, by examining the real-world experience of two comparable societies. Australia and Great Britain are both Anglophone nations with numerous points of commonality with the United States, including high rates of mental illness and significant exposure to popular culture that perpetuates the stigma of the mentally ill as a violent threat. However, in Australia, it is difficult to obtain firearms, and a mentally ill person behaving aggressively is unlikely to be able to harm others. On the contrary, police are almost the only people routinely armed in Australian communities and are often too ready to use firearms against the mentally ill. In Britain, guns are even more difficult to obtain, and operational police are not usually armed. The authors examine statistical data on mental illness, homicide, and civilian deaths caused by police in all three nations. They also consider media and popular opinion environments. They conclude that mental illness is prevalent in all three societies, as is the damaging stigma of “the dangerous madman.” However, the fewer people (including police officers) who have access to firearms, the safer that community is.

The mental illness part:

The part about the police:

The part about the guns:

The part about the mass shootings:

Homicides and firearms related deaths in the UK, Australia, and US:

The homicide by firearm rate in each of the three countries that differ mainly in access to and abundance of guns:

The conclusions:

Australia, Britain, and the United States are directly comparable societies. Statistical data confirm that they have similar rates of mental illness, including those forms of mental illness most likely to be associated with violent behavior. …

The significant differences among the three societies are the number of firearms in the community and whether the police are armed….

The benefits of strict gun control and unarmed police are most starkly illustrated by the differences in deaths due to police action. The population of the United States is almost five times greater than that of Britain. This means that, according to data known to be a vast underestimate (Planty et al. 2015), a US civilian is between 171 and 226 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a person living in Britain in the worst recorded year of the past decade (Teers 2015).

The contention that “guns don’t kill people, the mentally ill do” is unsustainable. Guns kill people. The fewer guns there are in a community, whether in the hands of civilians or of police, the safer that community is.

You betcha, Texas, give this man all the guns he wants!

“The gunman who turned a Texas church into a shooting gallery had a turbulent past, including a court-martial from the Air Force for assaulting his first wife and child — and a habit of harassing ex-girlfriends.”

But, in Texas, of course you can have as many guns as you want! Who cares!

By the way, half the victims killed by Texas Gun Lover Devin Kelley were kids.

Those close to him were shocked and claim this is out of character, though one of his ex girlfriends was utterly unshocked. Also, I got a recommendation a few months ago for a contractor from for a very simple job, and the best he could do was 300% of the average cost. And, I’ve recently been to two business establishments with excellent reviews on Google and Yelp one of which was mediocre the other, basically, sucked. The lesson here is: recommendations, reviews, and opinions, by anybody of anything, are useless. Especially, it seems, about taco joints and gun nuts.

Texas Gun Nut Devin Kelley was court-martialed in the Air Force because of his violent behavior including against a child. Did I mention that he killed a dozen children in that Texas church? He was actually house-jailed in the military for a year for his behavior.

But hey, Texas, give the man all the guns he wants! Yahoo! Shoot ’em up!

Two of his ex girlfriends claim that Texas Gun Nut Devin Kelly is a stalker. One claims he tried to pay her to hang out with him, called her all the time, pranked her. She claims he would say things that were “very sick” and that she won’t repeat. And eventually, he assaulted her.

But seriously, Texas, you better give this stalky violent assaulter all the guns he wants! Yippe! Bang Bang!

When he was 18, he got himself a 13 year old girlfriend who now recalls being stalked by him after she broke off the relationship. She had to change her phone number over and over because he would not leave her alone.

This guy, Texas, needs a gun, don’t you think? Keep those 13 year old girls in line? And who doesn’t love the smell of gun metal and discharged powder, and the sound of expended shells clinking as they hit the ground until their sound shifts from ping ping to plop plop because they are now falling into pools of your victim’s blood! Yahoo!

He offered that same young girl, later on when he was married, a deal. I’ll take care of you, he said, if you move in with my wife and me, and all you have to do is remain topless. I suppose this helps explain this thing I may or may not have mentioned: He killed a dozen children in his shooting spree. Revenge, I suppose.

That’s the kind of guy I want to give all the guns he wants to! Yesireee! I should be a Texan, that idea feels so good.

It is still not clear if Kelly killed himself after his murder spree, or if he died of wounds inflicted by a Texas Good Old Boy with a Gun who happened on the scene.

The rate of gun ownership in a state predicts the rate of gun deaths in that state.

This works across countries as well.

Once again. Politicians who have voted in favor of NRA policies need to go.

Photo above from TIME

But I digress.

You need to do this before any upcoming elections. Find out who is

on the ballot has a record of opposing guns vs. who has a record of supporting guns, and vote against the gun supporters and for the gun opposers.

I made a list of current members of the Minnesota US Congressional delegation, and put it at the top of the post, with relevant information. I also looked some details up from HERE and HERE.

In a recent rating of recent and current members of the Minnesota House delegation, the NRA gave Rick Nolan, Keith Ellison, and Betty McCollum the grade of “F” and none of these three lawmakers have taken money from them.

Collin Peterson took $2,500 bucks from the NRA, Michele Bachmann took $3,500, Erik Paulson took 2,250, John Kline $2,500, and Tim Walz took $2,000. They all got a rating of “A” from the NRA.

Notice that party lines are being crossed here.

During the recent congressional session, Congresspersons Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison supported zero bills that support guns, but have supported 14 gun control bills.

Richard Nolan has supported one gun control bill.

Al Franken has supported two gun control bills.

Amy Klobuchar has supported two gun control bills.

Those are the clear good guys in Congress from Minnesota. But you might ask why the great variation in number of bills?

Congressman Erik Paulsen has supported one gun rights bill and has not supported any gun control bills. Collin Peterson has supported three gun rights bills and zero gun control bills. Tom Emmer has supported zero gun control bills and five gun rights bills. John Kline has supported a whopping nine gun rights bills and zero gun control bills.

Framework for Addressing the Loopholes that Led to the Las Vegas Shooting

October 5, 2017

We would support a proposal that would comprehensively address the loopholes that led to the Las Vegas shooting. More specifically, this proposal would include the following components:

1. Register existing bump stocks and other trigger activators under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and prohibit the manufacture, sale and transfer of such devices. Bump-fire devices are just one type of a variety of attachments sold in the United States to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms to mimic the firepower of a fully automatic machine gun. Such devices do not belong in civilian hands, and the future manufacture, sale and transfer of such devices should be prohibited. However, an unknown number of such weapons have already been manufactured and sold to civilians. In order to address these existing devices, we suggest requiring them to be registered to the current owners under the NFA. The NFA, enacted in 1934, prohibits possession of an NFA weapon — which currently include machine guns, silencers, destructive devices, and certain other highly dangerous firearms– unless it is registered in the person’s name with ATF. As a result, millions of NFA weapons currently exist in civilian hands, yet are rarely used in crime. The Las Vegas shooting is evidence of this fact: no registered machine guns were used in the attack. Yet, the shooter was able to fire very rapidly to kill or injure hundreds in just minutes, due to his use of bump stocks.

2. Provide for a transition period: The bill should provide people currently in possession of these devices a reasonable amount of time to register them with ATF under the NFA. During this period of time, a person would have the opportunity to surrender these devices to law enforcement, and individuals who intend to maintain their ownership over such a device would be required to register the device with ATF at some point during the transition period.

3. Provide ATF with a surge in funding so that it can begin to enforce the NFA with respect to these and other NFA weapons, including resources necessary to modernize and upgrade its equipment. There is already a long delay in ATF’s processing of NFA weapons, such as silencers. If existing bump stocks and other trigger activators must be registered under the NFA, ATF will need even more resources to process those registrations. While the NFA imposes a $200 tax on the registration of each NFA weapon, that money currently goes to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s General Fund, and not to ATF. That money should be redirected to ATF to provide these resources.

4. Require gun stores to report multiple sales of all firearms, not just handguns, to ATF. Under current law, federally licensed firearms dealers must provide a report to ATF any time a person buys more than one pistol within five consecutive business days. This provision should be expanded to all firearms. The Las Vegas shooter purchased 33 firearms, mostly rifles, over the course of an 11-month period, according to a spokesperson for ATF. This should have been a “red flag” providing law enforcement with the opportunity to investigate him.

5. Provide ATF with the resources needed to meet its goal of inspecting gun dealers on a regular basis in order to ensure compliance with the multiple sales reporting and other key requirements. A 2013 report by the Office of the Inspector General found that only 62% of licensees it inspected were compliant with federal firearms laws and 58% of dealers had not been inspected within the past five years due, in part, to a lack of resources. ATF should be provided with the resources necessary to fulfill its goal of inspecting dealers every three to five years.

We estimate the necessary resources for ATF to implement these provisions to be approximately $50 million in addition to the redirection of the transfer tax to ATF.

Comments?

But I digress.

You need to do this before any upcoming elections. Find out who on the ballot has a record of opposing guns vs. who has a record of supporting guns, and vote against the gun supporters and for the gun opposers.

I made a list of current members of the Minnesota US Congressional delegation, and put it at the top of the post, with relevant information. I also looked some details up from HERE and HERE.

In a recent rating of recent and current members of the Minnesota House delegation, the NRA gave Rick Nolan, Keith Ellison, and Betty McCollum the grade of “F” and none of these three lawmakers have taken money from them.

Collin Peterson took $2,500 bucks from the NRA, Michele Bachmann took $3,500, Erik Paulson took 2,250, John Kline $2,500, and Tim Walz took $2,000. They all got a rating of “A” from the NRA.

Notice that party lines are being crossed here.

During the recent congressional session, Congresspersons Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison supported zero bills that support guns, but have supported 14 gun control bills.

Richard Nolan has supported one gun control bill.

Al Franken has supported two gun control bills.

Amy Klobuchar has supported two gun control bills.

Those are the clear good guys in Congress from Minnesota. But you might ask why the great variation in number of bills?

Congressman Erik Paulsen has supported one gun rights bill and has not supported any gun control bills. Collin Peterson has supported three gun rights bills and zero gun control bills. Tom Emmer has supported zero gun control bills and five gun rights bills. John Kline has supported a whopping nine gun rights bills and zero gun control bills.

But anyone with 2+ neurons to rub together and who has not been living in a cave for the last 30 years knows the exact meaning of “clenched fist” and “I’m freedom’s safest place [gasp]” against the propaganda spread by the (here’s the part about the Jews) entertainment industry about how “them,” “them,” “them,” and “them” (insert visuals of uppity black people).

I’m not going to link to that appalling ad. But it has been described as

a … propaganda video disguised as a recruitment ad that takes aim at the Black Lives Matter movement and uses lies in order to whip its supporters into a frenzy and encourage them to take up arms to protect themselves from a supposed enemy.

As activist Deray McKesson notes, “If I made a video like this, I’d be in jail.”

Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, Dignity and Power Now, The Reverence Project, RISIST, and Defend Movement produced the following powerful and true video in response to the NRA’s call to White Supremacy.

Don’t just watch part of it, watch the whole thing. It has a structure you do not want to miss.

It is actually very simple.

hat tip Rachel/Laura