My response to Jason Alexander

The shooting in Aurora, CO early in the morning on July 20, 2012, needs little in the way of introduction. It was a horrible event, perpetrated by a sick individual. James Holmes likely has severe mental problems, and he will either spend the rest of his life heavily medicated in an institution for the criminally insane, or be put to death. It is my opinion, and probably the opinion of many others, that he deserves the latter; either way, he will never be a part of society again.

This horrible event could be used to spark a nationwide discussion of mental health, the role of family members in seeking help on each others' behalf (note that Holmes' mother was not surprised when she learned what her son did), or anything else that may help prevent future massacres. Instead, the focus is on the instrument, rather than the problem; the symptom instead of the disease.

The mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, jumped at the chance to reignite the gun control debate. He literally jumped - it was too much for him to wait even 12 hours after the news broke before politicizing the event and calling on the presidential candidates to concretely address the issue of gun control. Barack Obama has indicated that he won't pass any news laws for the time being (though he did address the issue for the first time in a while, in a recent speech in New Orleans). Mitt Romney has indicated that he feels the existing laws are strong enough. All the while, commentators of all sorts have weighed in on the subject.

One such commentator is actor Jason Alexander, best known for portraying George Costanza on Seinfeld, as well as a fellow Boston University alum. In a heartfelt, 1700-word Twitter post (cached copy at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht), Alexander laid out his feelings on guns and his desire for increased regulations, arguing that they would minimize the chance of a future Aurora-style shooting.

It's a given that I disagree with a lot of what he says - I'm pro-2nd Amendment and Alexander is not. I don't think he's a bad person for his views. He's just as free to speak his mind on the subject as I am. Where I take issue, however, is where he has inserted into his argument things that are not true, or statements and positions that are so illogical that they necessitate scrutiny. I have reproduced the majority of his post below, and added in my commentary; I certainly urge you to read his post, intact and uninterrupted, at the link in the previous paragraph now if you have not already done so. Alexander's words are in plain type, and mine are in Italics.

----------

I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments [to an earlier tweet questioning the need for civilians to own AR-15 style, semi-automatic rifles] are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

It's unfortunate that gun owners and advocates posted comments that Alexander perceived as threatening, angry, or hostile. There are certainly people like that in the world of gun advocacy, just as there are all over the political world. Inflamed rhetoric isn't good for anyone. Alexander is not doing his cause any favors, however, to paint all gun owners and advocates (keep in mind that there are people in the world who don't own guns yet support the rights of others to own them) as "seeing no value in even considering some kind of control." This is a broad generalization, and if you could survey every gun owner I think you'd see the majority in favor of "some kind of control."

I would also like to see a source on his figure that 100,000 die every year. Statistics from the CDC indicate that, in 2009, "all firearm deaths" in the United States numbered 31,347. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)This number includes suicides.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1      a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
        b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.

It was gracious of him to admit at the outset that he's not a Constitutional scholar. 

The Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570 [2008]) (PDF of opinion available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) addressed the issue of private gun ownership in the context of Washington, DC, which has some of the toughest gun laws in the US. This landmark case, in a 5-4 ruling, affirmed the ability of lawful citizens to individually own handguns and keep them for self-defense in the home, consistent with the 2nd amendment. The Court in fact spent a lot of time discussing the wording of the 2nd amendment, particular the language of "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." which is also known as a "prefatory clause." Through Justice Scalia's trademark historical research, and canons of statutory interpretation centuries old, the Court found that the prefatory language does not limit the second part of the amendment, known as the "operative clause." The Court also clarified the operative clause, pointing to historical precedent and documents contemporaneous with the founding of this country supporting the contention that "bear arms" was not a term of art limited to military/militia contexts. The Court confirmed that the definition of "militia" that applies here is one that Alexander helpfully mentioned: "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." Most notably, and always worthy of repeating, the Court affirmed that the 2nd amendment, like the first and the fourth, was not an affirmative right granted by the Constitution, or the legislature, or any man; it is a natural right, flowing from the right of self-defense; it is the right of all Americans, and the Constitution places a prohibition only on those who would attempt to take away that right. 

The founders were smart people. They easily could have written clear language that limited the right in the way that Alexander contends. They did not.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

This section is poorly-informed and inaccurate. An excellent primer on what an "assault weapon" is and is not is located here: http://i.imgur.com/WRizU.jpg. What James Holmes used in his massacre was an AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the M16. It is semi-automatic, which means that one pull of the trigger = one shot fired. Contrary to some of the more inflamed rhetoric we've seen lately, Holmes was not using an automatic rifle; rifles that can fire automatically or burst-fire (true "assault rifles") are heavily regulated by Federal law (the National Firearms Act). Semi-auto rifles, such as the one here, and AK-47 variants, use a medium-sized rifle cartridge; Alexander's contention that they "accommodate a more lethal payload" is patently false. The rounds used by hunting rifles and "battle rifles" are larger and more powerful, meaning they fire a longer distance as well - rendering another of Alexander's points ("fir[ing] farther and more accurately") untrue. The ability to "fire more rounds without reload[ing]" is dependent on the size of the magazine, not the rifle itself. Many states ban large-capacity magazines, perhaps for good reason, but this is not equivalent to what Alexander appears to be asserting, that something unique about AR-15 style semi-auto rifles gives them the ability to hold more ammunition.

Talking about firearms in this manner indicates to me that his viewpoint is based not on facts but on emotion and fear. Emotion does not make for good arguments, or good public policy.

[The discussion moves to what Alexander calls the "extreme right"]

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.

Fringe elements on the "extreme right" may indeed believe that street-by-street enslavement is imminent. The majority of gun owners - again, many of whom are moderates or even liberals - certainly don't, but that majority does understand and respect the origins of the 2nd amendment. Let's go back to DC v. Heller:

"[the prefatory clause and the operative clause fit] perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights." (this quote is on page 25 of the linked pdf)

It's hard to argue this stuff without sounding like a hermit wearing a tinfoil hat, but the 2nd amendment is there for an important reason, and we should be very wary of thinking that we "don't need it anymore." The founders knew that despots and tyrants get to where they are by first disarming the population to eliminate the possibility of armed resistance. It was true then, and it was true in the 20th century - see Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al - and it continues to be true. A firearms advocacy organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership was started by someone "aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed." The 2nd amendment is an important part of this country's heritage, and that so many are willing and eager to give up its protections is troubling to me.

By the way, I don't understand what he means by "as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem." This section veers a little too much into personal attacks on those on the political right for my taste. If the government attempts to enslave liberals, homosexuals, or democrats, the government would thankfully still have a fight on their hands, since there are plenty of people from these groups who own firearms (google "Pink Pistols"). Though I do not fit into any of these three categories, I would have quite the problem if the government went street-to-street enslaving such people, as would a whole lot of others.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Yes, he was wearing armor, but kevlar body armor does not mean that the bullets harmlessly bounce off of you like Superman. It just keeps the bullet from entering your body. There's still a great deal of energy being transferred when the bullet hits you, certainly enough to make you stumble, if not fall over. 

Alexander's other issue - the chaos of a crowd of CCW holders firing into each other - is admittedly not without merit. Having a CCW does not automatically make you Jack Bauer or give you the ability to take down a crazed and determined gunman singlehandedly. You know what CCW does on a large scale, however? It creates a deterrent. Areas with higher concealed carry percentages have lower crime rates, because it has the effect on criminals of making them think twice about robbing or assaulting someone. Holmes likely wasn't afraid of this because the theater didn't allow weapons - in this regard he was like Seung-Hui Cho or Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold, in that for his massacre he chose a place where his targets would not be armed.

In defense of the individual CCW holder, Alexander's assessment is wrong in many states. Here in Kansas a day-long course, with classroom and practical instruction, is required to hold a concealed carry permit, even though Kansas is a "shall issue" state. It is poor rhetorical technique to paint all CCW holders, who commit felonies at a rate far below the general population and many of whom take their carrying very seriously, as "without training or planning," as though they would be firing wildly around the room. It is worth pointing out that CCW holders shoot someone they mistakenly identify as the criminal at a rate less than 1/5 that of police (2% to 11%) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/, citing "Tough Targets" study by the Cato Institute)

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

This section is what made me want to write this rebuttal in the first place. This is the poorest, most illogical gun control argument I have ever seen. Jason Alexander is arguing in favor of forcing transactions to the black market so they can be more easily tracked. Am I reading this correctly? This is what happens now, in states like Massachusetts and Illinois, where criminals find it easier to just buy a gun for cash on the street. They go to the black market precisely because it isn't "tracked, watched, overseen." When I bought a .22 rifle a few weeks ago, it was tracked, because the ATF has a record of the transaction. This happens everywhere someone buys a gun over-the-counter (even in "K-Mart" [he means Wal-mart]). I am floored by the absurdity of this argument. Forcing buyers into a black market means that 1.) criminals will still have these guns if they want them, since laws don't matter to them; 2.) ONLY criminals will have these guns; and 3.) all hope of tracing the transactions is lost. 

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

I take issue with his contention that people buy rifles to use against "people who don't agree with [them]." I also wonder why he apparently has a problem with people protecting their homes from criminals using a rifle, though most would agree that handguns or shotguns are better for home defense. He's painting gun owners with an extraordinarily broad brush again; how many semi-automatic civilian AR-15 style rifles have been sold, and how many have been used for massacres? How many have even been used for any kind of crime at all? Statistics (admittedly old; if anyone knows of more recent numbers, please let me know) indicate that an extraordinarily low percentage of crimes are committed with these kinds of weapons - never more than 8%, with an average of 2%. (See Department of Justice Study "An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003," at page 2. PDF located at  https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf)

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

For every angry gun owner firing off angry tweets, there are many who enjoy their hobby and their second amendment rights in peace. Some of us like to speak up when the national debate is hijacked by those who would have us make our laws using emotion and questionable facts. None of us are trying to shut down a reasoned conversation based on hard facts and statistics - I would be elated to see such a thing in the public arena. But that's certainly not what's coming out of Mayor Bloomberg or Jason Alexander's mouth. Gun control advocates like them make arguments (and, unfortunately, sometimes laws) based on emotion, irrationality, and fear. There is also a sublime irony in calling for a reasonable discussion by typing in all caps.


We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

This is the absolute nadir of his contemptible attacks on lawful firearm owners. How dare he accuse law-abiding citizens of planning to commit murder merely by buying a gun. What a vile thing to say. This does nothing for his cause.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander

----------

This is a complex issue. Gun control advocates are coming from a good place - they want people to be safe. It's very easy to get emotional when things like this happen. The fear that the audience felt, the pain of losing loved ones - it's incomprehensible.

But immediately using something like this to advance an agenda to ban certain types of firearms is not only, in my opinion, odious and insensitive; it is a waste of time, and a distraction from what could be a worthwhile national discussion on mental health, what exactly drives someone ostensibly healthy and well-adjusted to commit such horrific acts, and what we can do about it. Why not focus on the sick mind that made the decision to kill innocent people, rather than the inanimate device he used to do it?

It's easy to focus on guns, especially scary-looking ones. But politicians should never take the easy way out, especially when the efficacy of that easy way is questionable, and most especially when it threatens Constitutional rights. I'm all for, as Jason Alexander wants, "sit[ting] down with reasonable people from both sides and ask[ing] hard questions and look[ing] at hard statistics." Let me know when the national discussion rises to that level. Until then, I'll be at the range.

Endnote: The original title of this piece was "GEORGE IS GETTIN' UPSET." I changed it because I felt it did not match the tone I was trying for, but I love that title so much I felt it worth preserving.

Shoot report: Parma Woods, Parkville, MO

Cast of Characters:

Alex M. (AM)

Alex H. (AH)

Myself

Weapons:

Colt M-16-style 22LR rifle

S&W .357/.38SPL revolver

Ruger 10/22

Sig Mosquito

Both of the Alexes are work friends. AM shoots regularly and owns a couple of guns; AH is new to it and has only shot a handful of times, mostly with AM and myself. 

The morning of Saturday the 21st, the three of us set off for Parma Woods, a public, outdoor range operated by the Missouri Department of Conservation. It was about 30 min. from Overland Park - the trip includes a quick jaunt through the quaint-looking downtown Parkville.

The first thing I noticed about Parma Woods is that there are RULES and they are to be FOLLOWED. The Alexes were having a smoke so I went up to put my name in and pay. I was holding my range bag in one hand and my rifle, uncased, in the other hand. I was gripping my rifle behind the trigger group, finger nowhere near the trigger, and pointing it toward the ground. Walking to the man who took names I learned that I was noncompliant in two ways - the rifle bolt was closed and it was pointed at the ground. I put my bag down to lock the bolt open and was informed that it had to be pointing up while I did so. I am not complaining about all the safety here, but if you go just be aware that this is not the kind of place that plays it fast and loose with the rules.

AH and I were new so we had to watch a 6-minute video about procedures. Boy are there procedures! Here's how the range works:

     -Cease-fires are called every 15 minutes. When cease fire is called, you must fully unload your weapon, lock the bolt open, place the weapon in either the pistol or rifle rack with the muzzle in the air, leave the booth, hook up a yellow plastic chain in front of the booth, and change a colored metal placard from orange to green.

     -When everyone has followed this procedure, the target area is open to patrons to go out, change their targets, or move their target holder from one of the target sockets to another, closer or farther away.

     -When done with this you sit back on the bench outside the booth, switch your placard back to orange (or black if you're done shooting), and wait. Once everyone is orange and the range is clear, you're free to reenter your booth to shoot again or clean up.

The staff here is vigilant and enforces rules regularly. The guys next to us fired one shot out of their shotgun before a RSO came up to them and informed them that shooting shotguns at the short distance they were is not allowed - apparently it chews up the foam target holders too much. AM was informed that it was necessary to wait 3 seconds in between shots of his 22LR M-16 - a rule that, for example, The Bullet Hole has on the books but doesn't seem to enforce except in really egregious cases (AM's firing was not one of these egregious cases).

This safety has a point, and again, I'm not complaining - just pointing out that shooting here is a very regimented experience. It sometimes felt like we were spending just as much time seated on the bench waiting to shoot as we were shooting.

Overall, though, I liked Parma Woods and will be going back soon. Being outside is nice - lower noise levels, no ventilation to worry about, and just being out in the elements instead of a hot, dark indoor range. Parma Woods provides free ear and eye protection, targets, and bench rests - the latter of which I had never used before, but really enjoyed and was able to put to good use in learning my 10/22's sights a little better. The price is also quite right - $3 per booth, per hour. The three of us paid maybe $6 in total (not each) for a solid hour and a half.

In short, if you're ok with a little more procedure than you'd get at your typical indoor range, Parma Woods is worth the trip.

Killing

If it came down to it, could I kill someone? It's admittedly an unpleasant subject, but it's something every gun owner should ponder. Thinking about this issue led me to a book called "On Killing" by Dave Grossman (ISBN 0316040932). I plan to read it and do a book review at a later date, but I'd like to get my thoughts as of now down on this issue.

As I said in my post about the four rules, guns are made with a single purpose. Looking purely at the mechanics, that purpose is to propel a small object (or group of objects) a significant distance with great force. Sometimes we propel those small objects at paper targets, game animals, or old computer cases; but the true purpose, the purpose that led man to invent and strive to perfect the firearm, is to propel those small objects at another human.

If you buy a gun for purposes of self-defense or home defense, you need to be able to use it. Being able to use it means, of course, being aware of the mechanical workings of the gun - how to load it, how to aim, how it feels when it's firing in good working condition. It also, however, means possession of the required mental state to use it against an aggressor.

I frequent the gun-related boards of reddit.com, and every once in a while you'll see postings that read like this: "I'd like to get a gun for home defense. What kind of less-than-lethal ammunition can I get, in order to incapacitate a home invader but not kill him?" or "I want to get a shotgun for home defense, so I can use the racking sound of the pump action to discourage robbers." This is not the proper mindset and I, like many who comment on these kinds of posts, feel that these kinds of people, if this is how they plan to use their gun, should not be buying guns for defensive purposes.

It's tough for some people to accept but you need to get comfortable with the idea that, if you're keeping a gun for defense and you grab it when you go downstairs to investigate that crashing sound at 2:00am, you may have to point it at another human being's vital organs and pull the trigger. You will hopefully (yes, hopefully) at least incapacitate that person, and your goal must be to kill him. If you're leaving your bedroom with your pistol or shotgun in hand, you must be prepared to use it. Are you ok with this?

I'm going to be honest and say personally, at this point, I'm not entirely sure. What I do know is that I have no sympathy for criminals; someone who wants to take things that don't belong to him, be they money or possessions or someone's life, is subhuman as far as I'm concerned. There is a social contract that we all need to live by, and thieves and murders are not living up to their end of the bargain. I have the natural right to defend myself against someone who, through their actions, has shown me that they don't give a shit about me, my possessions, and/or my life. I have the right to meet force with force, lethally if necessary. This right transcends laws and is a fundamental truth of existence, which is the main reason I find gun control so odious.

At the same time, how can I possibly know that I have the ability to pull the trigger when I have another human in the sights? While we humans, when taken collectively, are a murderous lot, when it comes to one-on-one mortal combat we really are quite loath to take the life of another member of our species. Law enforcement and particularly military undergo significant training to overcome the healthy modern man's aversion to killing - you'd be surprised at the research showing that it's really a tough thing to overcome, though the military (for better or worse) has gotten better at it in the last few decades. Further adding complexity is the fact that at the pivotal moment, adrenaline and stress hormones do strange and incredible things to the body and mind. Can I, a civilian who's never so much as been in a fistfight, overcome this?

I can only hope that once I'm married and, hopefully someday, a father, instinct will be the motivator. I have a feeling that, especially when kids are in the mix, something deep in the reptilian brain kicks in and a man becomes far more willing and able to face danger to protect his family. In a real sense, however, the criminal is not the problem. I have a feeling your run-of-the-mill home invader, while callous and disrespectful of other people's property, will be far less of a threat than I. His weapon may be cheap and not in working order. He may be strung out on something that impairs his faculties. He's also probably not that smart. I, on the other hand, will have a good firearm in working order and will have practiced; I will be alert; and my goal in the actions I will be taking will be protecting my family, which is a far more salient motivator than stealing a nice TV. The criminal is not the problem - the adrenaline that will be flooding my system and my natural aversion to taking the life of another is the real obstacle.

Ruger 10/22 First Impressions

The bad news is that I didn't make it to the outdoor range. I was really looking forward to it, but one member of our party had an unexpected girlfriend's family obligation. These things happen and we'll make it to Parma Woods next week. I was still determined to shoot my Ruger yesterday, though, and shoot my Ruger I did (at the indoor range by myself). Here are my observations:

It is not a picky eater. I fed it nothing but the cheap Federal red box stuff from Wal Mart (the 550 round value pack, high velocity, 36 grain copper plated hollow points) and in 200 rounds there was not a single failure. I am delighted that it eats the cheap stuff and I'm looking forward to having an excuse to try other varieties of 22LR. 

The trigger seems fine to my uneducated hand. It didn't feel mushy or gritty or any of these other adjectives I see thrown around. Maybe it's because I don't yet know what a good trigger pull feels like but I had no issues. Not heavy, either. 

Honestly that auto-bolt thing is starting to seem like a pretty non-essential upgrade. I might change my tune after a few trips to the outdoor range, where locking the bolt on the firearm is required during cease-fire periods, but yesterday I felt that the way it works out of the box was fine. The Ruger doesn't hold the bolt open after the last shot like the Marlin does, so every time I loaded a fresh mag I just pulled it back, it then went forward, and the round was put into battery. The mag release seemed slightly awkward, though, and since that's such an easy replacement job I'm still looking to do that.

The BX-25 magazine makes it extraordinarily easy to burn through a lot of ammo. Between the 25-rounder and the stock 10-round magazine I went through 235 rounds yesterday in a pretty short time. Good thing 22LR is so cheap.

22LR brings people together. A couple of guys next to me at the range were shooting pistols and at one point I heard them talking about my 22s (I also had the Mosquito out, put 20 or so rounds through that to mix it up). A few minutes later, when we were trying to figure out what another guy was shooting (it was his home defense shotgun), they asked me directly what I had - I told them what it was and invited them to give it a go. They shot off maybe 10 rounds each, and as I told them how little I spent on the gun and how cheap ammo is their eyes lit up and they said "man, I gotta get me a 22!"

The most important thing I learned yesterday was that my sight picture was all wrong. Here is a MSPaint illustration:

The 2nd picture is what I interpreted the manual was telling me to do, but all my shots were going above where I wanted them to go. Pretty tight groups, but too far up. Some research later indicated that the 3rd picture is what I want, which would explain why my shots were going above. I'm confident that the next time I take this out I'll be a little more on target.

In closing, I can't stress enough what a great purchase this was. Everyone should have one; if not the Ruger then some kind of 22 rifle. The recoil is nonexistent, the ammo is plentiful, and the fun is endless.

I Take that Back...

Well, contrary to the previous post and all the time I spent looking at Marlins, I bought a 10/22.

I think the main thing that did it was the aftermarket support. I figure the rifle is ubiquitous for a reason. I don't think I'll be replacing the stock and buying new receivers that cost more than the gun itself ($180 - very lightly used from my local gun store/range), but I wanted to ensure that I had options going forward for perhaps more sensible modifications. That, and with the 10/22 I have tons of options for extended magazines (including Ruger's own BX-25, one of which I bought along with the gun) and with the Marlin there was effectively none. I just couldn't get over that.

Wood over synthetic - this was also something that took a while for me to get comfortable with. I planned on synthetic. A few weeks ago, at Cabela's, I came very close to buying a 10/22 with a black synthetic stock, a slightly longer barrel, and fiber optic sights for $230. It was the last day of the sale and I figured I'd be able to find a similar deal elsewhere; no luck. My local gun store said they'd order it and match Cabela's sale price, but turns out it's a discontinued model. Throughout all of this I was going to Bass Pro and other stores, asking the guys behind the counter if they preferred wood or synthetic - everyone said wood. Synthetic is cool and all, but I think wood is a timeless look that also adds some needed heft to the rifle, and I'm confident it will last so I can give it to my grandson or granddaughter.

So now I have a 10/22 in great condition but completely bone-stock. What am I going to do with it?

Internal Modifications

At first I thought this was a weakness of the 10/22 - the fact that all over the internet are people who will rattle off a laundry list of mods that YOU MUST DO AS SOON AS YOU TAKE IT OUT OF THE BOX. Even though I haven't shot it yet, I'm sure that this is just typical internet hivemind hyperbole; however, I am finding out just from handling the gun that some of these mods, while not essential, are easy enough and provide enough of a boost in usability and enjoyment that I will be doing them pretty soon.

The first is the auto bolt release. At present, the way you lock and unlock the bolt is sort of weird. To lock the bolt open, you pull back and hold the bolt, and then with your other hand press in a little metal piece on the trigger guard. To release, you hold back on the bolt again and press the little metal piece upward. It's hard to describe and weird to execute. Even when you get it, which in fairness happens pretty quickly, you still have to juggle the thing around when you want to release the bolt - I think that having to do such a complex maneuver to perform a standard function is kind of irritating.

Enter the auto bolt release modification. There's a metal plate in the trigger assembly that governs the bolt's behavior, and when a certain hole in this plate is made wider the action of the bolt is made infinitely easier. Once this mod is complete the operator need only pull the locked bolt back a fraction of an inch, and then the bolt will move forward and place the round in battery. To the best of my knowledge you will still need to press the metal piece in to lock it back, but that is far more forgivable. So to perform this modification, you can dremel out the hole on your own (I am not confident in my ability to do this) or buy a replacement plate (much easier). No gunsmithing required - all that is needed is to open up the trigger assembly and take a bunch of things out to expose the plate.

I have less of a problem with the mag release - it's on the underside of the gun and it's a lever you push forward. Not nearly as awkward as releasing the bolt. But companies make extended, thicker, and other replacement mag release levers, and installing it is even easier than the auto bolt release mod, so why not?

External

I think it would be really fun to throw a scope on my 10/22. Maybe a cheap red dot sight instead. For this I will need a rail and scope rings, if I'm mounting a scope.

10/22s don't come with rails already installed. Had I bought one new in the box there'd be a Ruger factory rail packaged with it, but I bought the gun and the gun alone so I need to decide what rail is right for me. Much more research is needed here - there are a couple different kinds of mounts, for one thing. I can get a "low profile" rail that will allow me to still use the factory iron sights if I take the scope off.

Once I figure that out I have the even more difficult task of settling on an optic. Cheap knockoff red dots might not be of super high quality, but I can get them for $40 or so. Scopes come in fixed zoom or variable; many recommend a fixed 4x scope for a rimfire rifle, as it is well-suited for the kinds of distances at which I will be engaging targets. Scopes range wildly in price, from a $40 Wal Mart special to something many times the cost of the rifle and undoubtedly more optic than I need. Research is needed here too.

I could, of course, forego the optic and buy a set of Tech Sights, which I mentioned in the previous post about 22 rifles and which come highly recommended. These would replace the irons and foreclose the possibility of mounting a scope, since the rear ring sight is mounted in two of the holes in the receiver. This is a situation where I would have to make the decision of irons vs. scope; even though you can still unscrew something mounted in with blue loctite (the non-permanent threadlocker of choice for mounting stuff on a gun), I wouldn't want to keep adding and removing things like that.

Worth mentioning as I bring this to a close is that I have made one tiny modification to the 10/22 so far; I bought some bright orange nail polish from Wal Mart and put a couple of dots on the gold dot on the factory front sight to make it more visible. Everyone starts small!

I'll be taking this out for the first time on Saturday morning at an outdoor range in MO; my range report will detail the performance and operation of the gun. Stay tuned.