Daniel Defense Superbowl ad

The big deal in gun circles over the last day or so is the rejected Daniel Defense Superbowl ad. I watched the commercial this morning - for those who have not, it's something like this:

A man narrates throughout the commercial. We learn that he has returned home after serving in the armed forces. He informs us that things are different since he got back and his family (wife and baby daughter) is the center of his universe now. He's responsible for providing for them and for keeping them safe. "Nobody has the right to tell [him]" how to defend his family, and he's going to use the best tool for the job. Cut to black screen with a white silhouette of a Daniel Defense rifle, and the slogan "Defending your nation. Defending your home."

The commercial was rejected, or as some say, "banned." NFL rules don't allow firearm advertisements, rules which the NFL stuck to even after DD offered to change the rifle at the end to an American flag. So obviously the NFL is a tool of the statist left, and they rejected the commercial because it goes against their globalist agenda of disarmament.

Rules are rules. The NFL is a private entity with whom other private entities wish to transact business. They make the rules - Daniel Defense is a firearm company and those companies can't advertise during the superbowl. This is not "censorship." I also don't like the use of the word "banned." Nobody is banning it, the NFL made a decision to not air the ad during the superbowl. DD uploaded the ad to youtube instead, which is why we're all talking about it. 

Ads get rejected all the time. Are the NFL's rules somewhat arbitrary? Sure - the latest Call of Duty game or Expendables movie ad will no doubt air without issue. But in the grand scheme of all the bullshit gun owners have to put up with, this is not very much and I can't really get fired up about it.

I also think the ad wasn't all that great. It was schmaltzy and bland. Attractive suburban family, nice car, tree-lined street, cute baby, cut to black. I do enjoy this kind of depiction of firearm (particularly AR-15) ownership as the province of normal, successful folks as opposed to weird range commandos, and I like the association of higher-end rifles like the DDM4 with this crowd as well. But let's be honest - if you take away the rifle silhouette at the end, as Daniel Defense was prepared to do, who outside of a subset of the gun community even knows what Daniel Defense is? I'd be willing to bet that the average person watching the ad would think it's for a home security company. "But they could google it!" Sure, but would they? On the one hand I want ads like this to air, because showing a huge audience that the AR-15 is the best home defense gun is nice and it would get people talking. But in order for this to work, a gun has to be involved in the ad. 

I wish the NFL would allow firearms companies to advertise. I'd love to see an ad that takes it a step further. Show people competing in a 3-gun match, soldiers, SWAT, as well as the suburban dude protecting his home. Men and women showing off the versatility and power of the platform. DD's ad was trying to do an end run around the rules - not only did that not work, it resulted in a boring ad that probably won't go viral outside of the loudest of gun types. If they pushed the envelope, maybe it would get people talking a little bit more. Not as much as full-on super bowl ad exposure, but some.

Winning the media war is tough because of the types of people who are entrenched at the very top. That's the world we live in. You and I have the power to chip away at this, though - take someone new out to the range. I'll believe my buddy who has personal experience with a product far more than the claims of a commercial; gun ownership works the same way.

Maverick 88 Review

I've accumulated a handful of comments on this blog, and most of them are to my CZ P-07 review. I'm glad people are reading the review and enjoying my pretty pictures, and if I've steered even a handful of folks toward that gun I feel like I've done a great thing. Prices for it have gone up but I still feel like it's a terrific pistol at a fantastic price. I've been shooting it quite a bit these days since 9mm is easier to find and it feels like I'm falling in love all over again.

Anyway it dawned on me that I've bought a gun since then but I haven't done a review. Here are my thoughts on the Mossberg Maverick 88 shotgun.

Specs

The Maverick 88 is a pump-action, 12 gauge shotgun. It can accept either 2 and 3/4" or 3" shells. It has a tubular magazine under the barrel that can hold 6 of the 2.75-inchers or 5 3" shells.

The Maverick 88 is a Mossberg 500 assembled in a different factory with a few parts switched out. This means that, with a few exceptions, it can accept Mossberg 500 parts and accessories. Unlike my CZ this gun has market penetration and then some. Aftermarket stocks, choke tubes, fiber optic bead sights, and barrels are widely available. Owing to the cross-bolt safety you can't use 500 trigger groups, and the forearm assembly is also different - other than that, you can buy Mossberg 500 parts and accessories with confidence.

Mossberg sells a couple of variants: mine is the "field" model (called All Purpose on the website), with a 28" vent rib, smooth bore barrel and a bead sight. The front of the barrel is threaded to accept different choke tubes. According to Mossberg's website, the 88 is also available in two additional configurations: the Slug version, with a 24" barrel and option for full rifling, and the Special Purpose version, the 18.5" home defense variant. All versions feature a synthetic stock and the All Purpose is also available in 20 gauge. Different barrel length options exist for the different versions, as well.

Field stripping is easy. The pump action is worked until the bolt is halfway between open and shut. A screw with a large, circular plastic handle at the end of the magazine tube is then unscrewed, and the barrel simply separates from the receiver. This is all I have personally done to clean it - I will then oil all exposed metal parts, make sure the pump operates smoothly, and run a boresnake through the barrel. This also makes it very easy to switch out barrels, or (in my case before I got a dedicated shotgun bag) fit the gun into a shorter case.

I bought it from a guy at work for $200. It came with the stuff he bought for it, which were a modified choke, a turkey choke and a soft, velcro shell holder for the stock. I didn't get as good a deal as others have on this gun but it was in good condition and I was satisfied.

How Does It Shoot?

My 88 is what I'd call a standard, no-frills gun for shooting flying things. It is a basic pump gun through and through. Since there isn't an extraction system to absorb some of the recoil, you feel what you're shooting, and one thing I still have to learn is that, as fun as it is, it's not my 22 rifle and I can't shoot it all day long. My shoulder was angry at me for Saturday's trap outing until yesterday.

A pump-action is not favored in the world of clay shooting sports due to the inconvenience of having to work the pump for follow-up shots. I have used the gun mostly for single-shot trap, rendering this issue moot, and it has performed very well. I chalk up any "hitting the clay" issues to user incompetence. Note that I also took it to a work outing put together by my wife's company, and I was able to hit two clay targets launched simultaneously - I suspect some of the "can't ever use a pump for clay shooting sports ever" is typical gun community hyperbole.

A real upside of a pump is not really having to worry about extraction, since it's essentially up to the operator and not the gun. "Short-stroking" is an issue with pumps apparently but I've successfully extracted every shell I've shot out of it. Low power rounds, like the kinds that come in the Federal bulk packs, shoot without issue.

I've written about my struggles in deciding on a shotgun - what I figured at the end of the day was to get a good, cheap pump to start with and see how I do, and then when I feel myself starting to outgrow it skill-wise I'll upgrade. This has worked out fine so far, and I don't feel it holding me back at all yet.

Final Thoughts

I didn't buy this gun to display it or to outfit it with tons of accessories (though I can!), I bought it to be a utilitarian workhorse that won't give me issues when I feel like going to the clay range. In this regard it has absolutely succeeded. 

"Weapons"

Sometimes I see people on r/guns or elsewhere get defensive (heh) about the use of the word "weapon." Gun communities are known for insisting on absolute semantic accuracy, as anyone who has uttered a word that sounds like "clip" knows - it's just a part of the experience. This, I believe, stems from the folks in Washington and state legislatures often being comically ill-informed on guns, and that lack of information occasionally leading to shitty laws. Precision and clarity in language is always important. But the "weapon" thing is different to me.

I see the hesitation in calling it a weapon. Weapons are for killing. You can go to jail for committing "assault with a deadly weapon." Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.  They're things for criminals, homicidal dictators, cops, and militaries, not for the average citizen. Weapons don't have to be guns (or bombs, or tanks, or etc), of course - a sledgehammer or utility knife in my garage can be a weapon if I use it in a certain way. Were I properly trained, I could even say (non-ironically) that "my fists are lethal weapons." What ties all this together is that a weapon is something that was designed for or is used purely for the purpose of hurting or killing. 

So if we go around calling our guns "weapons" we're admitting that they're for hurting or killing things. Someone who has a closet full of AR-15s that serve no purpose other than looking cool and punching holes in paper ("turning money into noise" is a particularly apt description I saw on Something Awful's gun board) takes issue with the characterization that he has a closet full of weapons, because he has no plans to kill anyone or anything with them. He may even be a pacifist, the sort to keep them under lock and key and not even use them if he's threatened during a home invasion. Are those then weapons?

On the other hand (and this is the side I lean toward) yes - the AR15s, my shotgun and 9mm, the long-range shooter's .308 bolt-action rifle - they're weapons. They exist because someone a long time ago learned that projectiles can hurt and kill, and projectiles that are a certain shape and propelled with a certain velocity can hurt and kill very well, and then a few millennia of science and engineering got us to the firearms we have today. Their existence and continued enhancement and refinement can be credited to the desire to kill other humans in the most efficient way possible. I hesitate to include my .22 rifle, or a .22 target pistol, but they're the beneficiaries of the same science and engineering - they exist because hurting, killing, and war exist. Furthermore I don't ever really see someone calling a 10/22 a "weapon."

I think getting touchy about calling a gun a weapon is going too far. It's too much in the direction of trying to make guns seem like something they're not. Yes an AR-15 can be used for sporting purposes (putting holes in paper, or feral hogs), so it's a "modern sporting rifle" but it's terrific for home defense as well - the bullets are less likely to overpenetrate through walls, the collapsible stock means more people in your house can use it comfortably, and a 30-round mag is surely a greater capacity than the cheap Hi-Point being wielded by the guy breaking into your home. Refusing to call a gun a weapon is using language to neuter the object.

It's equally dumb when people say well, if my AR-15 is a weapon then so's my baseball bat or my kitchen knife. This is a stupid position to take. A bat can be used to bash someone's head in, but it exists because of a leisure activity. A knife can stab, but it exists because we like to cut our food before cooking. An AR-15 can be a safe queen or it can never be used to shoot at anything other than paper, but it exists because it works pretty well at killing people.

The 18.5" barrel shotgun loaded with 00 buck that you keep under your bed is there for one reason - to use against someone who breaks in. The Glock 19 loaded with hollow points that you concealed carry when you're in a bad neighborhood is there for one reason - to defend yourself or others in the event of an attack. You want to say that they're not weapons because you don't want to use them as weapons (neither do I), but that's what you have them for. Stop allowing the uneasiness of others to control the conversation- they won't stop their efforts to ban it just because you call it a modern sporting rifle. If that's what you like to call it then knock yourself out, but don't dogpile on someone just because they called it a weapon.

Background check defeat

I don't need to spend a lot of time summarizing what happened in the Senate the other week. Gun bills were brought to the Senate floor and were defeated, by not achieving the filibuster-proof 60 votes. Not only did extreme outlier bills like Feinstein's AWB fail to garner the necessary votes, but stuff like the Manchin-Toomey "compromise" bill which would have expanded background checks failed too. The Manchin-Toomey bill would have mandated background checks (the same NICS check that you go through when you buy a gun from a store or the internet) for essentially every firearm transfer - intra-state private sales included, but notably transfers between immediate family members excluded. 

I've written about FFLs and transfers before, but since a lot of dialogue surrounding this bill and its defeat seems to get things wrong or exaggerated, let's review. Under current law, the laws that are on the books right now, the following transactions require a background check (they must be done through an FFL):

-Interstate transfers. Last week I bought a shotgun from a co-worker, but we had to do it through an FFL to avoid breaking federal law because we live on either side of the state line.
-Internet purchases. This is usually an interstate transfer - when I bought my P-07 from Bud's, it shipped from Kentucky so it had to go to an FFL who did the check and transferred it to me. Had I bought it from an individual in a different state instead of a retail outlet, same deal. I think that even if I lived in Kentucky, I'd have to use a FFL if I bought from Bud's, since they're a retail outlet.
-Stores. If you buy a gun in a store, you're going through a background check. No two ways about it.
-Dealers at gun shows. Yes, gun shows - if you're buying a gun from a licensed dealer who sets up a table at a show, you're going through a check just as though you bought it in a store, because it's a licensed FFL dealer and that's what they have to do.

So what about this "gun show loophole?" What about the internet sales this bill was supposed to prevent? Now we're talking about variants of a private, person-to-person transaction.

Interstate (across state lines) transactions require an FFL, but consistent with our system of government it's a different deal when you're operating fully within a state. In the state of Kansas, a private citizen (who is a KS resident) is allowed to sell a gun with no background check to another private citizen (also a KS resident). The federal government, with its NICS check and ATF requirements, need not be involved. Of course I could elect to do it through an FFL, who would run the check, but I don't have to. States are free to mandate bills of sale or even full-on checks for private transactions, but that's up to the state. So this means, in the following transactions in the state of Kansas, I would not go through a background check:

-Buying at a gun show from an individual seller (not an FFL - just a regular guy with some guns he wants to sell).
-Meeting a friend or a guy from Armslist at the Wal-mart parking lot to buy a gun from him.
-Sending money via paypal or a check to a resident of the same state, who then mails me the gun

Note that the only "internet sales" that don't require background checks are private, person-to-person sales involving paypal and shipping in states where p2p sales don't require background checks. This represents a very small fraction of gun sales, and so very different than the mental image that is conjured up when one hears about "buying a gun over the internet." 

I suppose there's 2 reasons I'm glad the expanded background checks didn't pass - let's call them substantive and procedural reasons. The first - "substantive," what the law would have done - is the fact that it wouldn't have done anything to criminals, who have a nasty habit of ignoring laws and buy guns on the black market anyway, and it would have only added an inconvenience to a subset of legal purchasers. Admittedly this is a slight inconvenience, but it's throwing another few minutes, another fee to do the check, on top of what legal gun owners have to abide by, which can be pretty onerous in some states. The way to get rid of guns, what I presume is the ultimate goal of Feinstein et al, is via this method - the death by a thousand cuts. Every so often you make buying and owning a gun just a little more difficult or annoying - an extra background check fee, a need to buy a new kind of trigger lock, an affirmative duty to report a stolen gun lest you become a felon (who wouldn't report a stolen gun?). They do this to the stores as well - more record-keeping, expanded legal liability, having to perform background checks on ammo as well as guns. Maybe throw in some restrictions on transfers to make sure that those scary black rifles that you can buy now can't be transferred to your kids or grandkids. In a few decades we're England or Australia, where the inability to own a gun is presumed and must be disproved, and the overwhelming majority of people don't own guns, have never handled guns, and can't understand the desire for them (some U.S. cities are like this already). It's called attrition, and it starts by a seemingly innocuous piece of legislation like expanding background checks. It's sneaky in a way that a full-on AWB is not.

The second - "procedural" - relates to how this was attempted to be passed, and the political climate since December. Obama flying the Newtown families to Washington to lobby senators, the demonization of the NRA and gun owners all over the news media, people proposing laws about things they obviously knew nothing about, Obama talking about "assault clips" and Biden - with that fucking grin on his face - telling people to fire a shotgun out of their front door...the whole political scene was absolutely disgusting to me. Add to this the repeated use of words like "common sense" and "compromise," ("you give on this point and we'll allow you to keep your constitutional right" - that is extortion, not compromise) and the belittling or mocking of the pro-gun side as "rednecks" or people who want kids to die. Don't lie, you've seen it. It is outright demagoguery and a favoring of emotion over facts. The President said so himself when he called on the nation to remember how they felt right after Newtown, back when emotions were high and New York rammed the SAFE act through at 2:15 in the morning. If Congress and the President had made an effort to look at things logically, not pass bills out of emotion, back up their contentions with facts and statistics, and actually involve people who knew what they were talking about, that would be one thing. What we had, however, was just a shitshow from day one as people jumped on the opportunity to mess with gun owners even a little bit. Even though it feels a little smug, I'm glad that, federally at least, they couldn't even get this little thing out of it. 

We can only hope that Colorado, New York, and the handful of other states that didn't escape the insanity will fix things up, whether by lawsuit or by mass layoffs via ballot in 2014.

Shotguns and Analogies

My next purchase will be a shotgun. I'm not sure what kind - that's part of what I'm going to talk about. The journey to a shotgun has been long and confusing.

Basically as entry level pump shotguns (I'll be buying a pump gun) go you have the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500/Maverick 88. Throw in some other entry-level pump guns like the Benelli Nova, and entries by Winchester, Browning, etc. These are similarly priced, they work the same way, and they all have great reputations. So how the hell do you choose? It's tougher picking a shotgun, I've found, because while there are plenty of ranges where you can fire every pistol under the sun, there's no equivalent for shotguns - either you have a buddy who owns one or you're out of luck. So I've been looking at Cabela's and Bass Pro, shouldering various models to at least see if they match up with my natural aim point reasonably well. You know what? THEY ALL DO.

At this point I'm willing to just get the cheapest one. I have a work friend who will sell me his Maverick 88 (a budget Mossberg 500 with some Made-in-Mexico parts) for $200, and I'm sure I could get him to go lower, so that's tempting. I could hit the pawn shops and try to find a similar deal (it's apparently better to get an older Rem 870, with the Wingmaster variants having particularly good reputations - new Remingtons have a bad rep for quality and build). Since I'll just be using it for shooting clays at a recreational level and maybe hunting I don't think it makes sense to spend a ton of money at this point. If it turns out my wife or I have incredible clay shooting skills, then we'll diversify and get the $2000 Browning Citori, but not just yet.

An analogy from a Maverick 88 owner with whom I fixed my truck the other week: appropriately, he compared them to trucks - Mossberg/Remington/Winchester guys are like Ford/Chevy/Dodge guys. All three makes of truck would be a good choice. My F-150 has done a great job, and the guy who helped me pick it out hates Chevys, but if he wasn't in my life and I bought a SIlverado instead of an F-150 I'd probably be just as happy. Dodge does great work too. The differences are exceedingly minor and someone trashing one and exalting another is, most likely, doing so out of brand loyalty rather than pointing out legitimate issues (I see a difference between pointing out recent manufacturing defects in Remingtons and saying "Remington blows, get a Mossberg"). Whatever I end up with, I'm sure it will be fine. Expect pictures when I do acquire something. The guy who gave me this truck analogy also apparently has some kind of rig in the back of his pickup, a really high-end automatic clay thrower, so expect pictures of that too.

Another analogy. My wife brought up the prospect of getting into clay shooting in the first place, hence the push to get a shotgun. Soon after she proposed it (after hearing work friends' stories about hunts and clay shooting), we looked at guns at Academy in Houston when we were down there, and almost bought a Rem 870 Express (glad we didn't!). We also looked at a Yildiz over/under which was about $900. She liked the engraving and style of the o/u, and her work friends shoot o/us, so we were set on that for a while. Then I suggested a pump-action, like a Mossberg 500. Then it was the Benelli Nova. Then she learned about semi-autos and their easier recoil. Then for a while it was 20 gauge over 12 gauge. Etc.

The other night we were talking specific models. I continued to push for a pump, but I showed her a picture of an affordable CZ semi-auto. She looked at it and said "You know what? We should just get the one you think is the best value, the pump-action. It's like an All-Clad." 

All-Clad is an American company that makes cookware. Their cookware has an incredible reputation due to the high-quality metals used in construction that impart no taste in the food. All-Clad's products, notably, do not have a lot of the ergonomic or "comfort" features that you see in other cooking implements. The handles are solid steel with no rubber coatings or other things to reduce heat. They are also somewhat uncomfortable to hold. They usually don't have any kind of non-stick coating on the cooking surface, either. But they're built to last and do a brilliant job of actually cooking food, hence the reputation. A solid tool, built to last, that may not have "comfort" features but does what it is meant to do and will never falter; this is what you want in a sautee pan AND a gun.

Guns are tools. To me, having a whole safe of guns that do different things is no stranger than having a cupboard of different-sized pots and pans, or a workbench of different tools. Imagine a dedicated bird hunter. This is merely a slice of the things you can do with guns, but it is not inconceivable for this person to have a shotgun for turkeys (rifled barrel with scope), shotgun for small birds (20 gauge with a long barrel), and a shotgun for larger birds (12 gauge with a long barrel and the capacity for 3.5" shells). That's already three guns! Say he hunts deer as well, so there's a bolt-action rifle or two in different deer calibers, like 270 and 308, for different distance engagements or differently sized game. That brings it up to five. Maybe this guy lives out in the country and wants a gun for home defense, since the closest police station is 10 miles away via a dirt road, so he has a shorter barrel 12 gauge, or a handgun. Now we're up to six! There are plenty of people in Washington, on the news, and in our lives who cannot comprehend what someone would need with SIX WHOLE GUNS, but to me that's like asking why someone has so many differently-sized screwdrivers, or what anyone could possibly need with a cast-iron skillet AND a saucepan.

A Visual Aid

My wife is pretty great when it comes to firearms. I wouldn't call her an enthusiast quite yet, but she respects the hobby, doesn't take much of an issue with where I'd like my collection to go, and has gone shooting with me several times (and she was enthusiastic about it at least once). 

We were watching the A-Team movie on FX this weekend and there was a scene where one of the film's villains was pursuing the Mr. T character with some kind of automatic weapon. As Baracus was being peppered with gunfire my wife remarked "whoa, that definitely looks like a semi-automatic."

Not one to waste a "teachable moment" I asked her to define a semi-auto. She was under the impression that semi-auto meant that a pull of the trigger fired several rounds (what in actuality is a "burst fire"). I told her so, and what a semi-auto was, but she kept asking questions, and I could feel the confusion piling up. Well, a semi-auto means that one pull of the trigger is one shot. Like an over/under? No, that's different, that's like a revolver, it's one pull of the trigger but it's not using the power of the round to eject the spent cartridge and load a new one. How does a revolver work? Etc., etc. I was just making things worse, so I ducked out, grabbed a pen and pad, and drew this:

ORIGINAL CONTENT DO NOT STEAL

My thinking in the moment was to divide up handguns, shotguns, and rifles into categories. Handguns are semi-auto and revolver. Shotguns are pump, semi-auto, and over/under. Rifles are semi-auto and bolt-action. That thing at the bottom is a clip, because I am a masochist and decided to seize the opportunity to correct her on the clip/magazine distinction.

What I did after telling her what the drawings represented (I'm particularly proud of the precision rendering of the semi-auto shotgun) was draw lines to connect the things that had similar actions. A solid line connects the semi-auto handgun, shotgun, and rifle, since they all work pretty much the same way - trigger pull, shot fired, action works to eject spent shell and chamber a new one. The handgun and rifle take detachable magazines, so I drew those, but didn't dwell on that distinction.

Another solid line connects the pump-action shotgun with the bolt-action rifle. Both of these guns require the user to manually manipulate the action, either the pump of the shotgun or the bolt of the rifle. Bolt rifles can store their ammunition in an internal or external/detachable magazine, but I had the sense to realize this didn't matter so I didn't dwell on it.

The dotted line connects the revolver and the o/u because they work similarly - the operator manually places the rounds in the chamber, closes up the weapon, and then fires. By virtue of the mechanism - the clockwork in the o/u that alternates which barrel fires, and the mechanical linkage between the trigger, hammer, and revolving barrel in the revolver - one trigger pull equals one shot, but neither would be considered a "semi-auto."

Why post this? Besides the fact that I never miss an opportunity to show off my gun drawing skills, honed through years of middle school practice? Well, teaching new people about guns (despite me being a fairly new person myself) is one of the things I really love about the hobby, and I'm always trying to better my technique. This was a situation where I was talking a mile a minute about things that made perfect sense to me, but only served to confuse my wife, so I had a flash of inspiration to reduce it to a much simpler series of drawings. The ease of making these solid and dotted line connections surprised me as I was doing it - the act of teaching allowed me to see the taxonomy in a new way. 

Firearms are a dense hobby with a lot to learn. A lot of people in the world don't take the time to learn things which seem second nature to us - look at Washington for countless examples of people who don't understand what an AR-15 is, don't know the clip/magazine distinction, or the difference between semi-auto and full-auto. As with any hobby we're passionate about, it's easy to rope in bystanders and get everyone bogged down in minutiae, but that's not the best path to take with newbies.

Another lesson: pick your battles. Yes it's always tempting to seize the moment to educate someone on what's a clip and what's a magazine, but my drawing - and the conversation - would have been far more elegant had I just left that alone for the time being.

It Is a Car Analogy

Arguments between pro- and anti-gun folks often end up at the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" chestnut. Once the argument gets to this, the car analogy is usually close to follow (warning: radically simplified argument):

Pro: Car accidents kill more people than guns every year. If it's all about saving lives, should we ban cars?

Anti: No, but maybe guns should take a cue from cars. To drive a car you need a license which must be periodically updated, and insurance; when you buy a car, even a used one, you have to register the car with the government in some form. Why not have these safeguards for guns?

I want to explore this so let's ignore the fact that there's no constitutional right to have a car. If there was such a right, though, it would probably be expressed as the right to a horse, or carriage, because even though the founders could not have possibly imagined the internal combustion engine, lithium-ion batteries, or hydrogen fuel cells, they'd have recognized the right to personal autonomy through private transportation. That's neither here nor there, however. The failure of the car analogy ("let's regulate guns like cars"), in my mind, is the fact that all of these safeguards in the car realm are due to the fact that the motorist wishes to operate his vehicle on public roads. The license, the tests, the mandatory insurance, the registration - it can easily be argued that this whole framework is in place because when I operate my motor vehicle - a multi-ton assemblage of metal and plastic capable of great speed - I am doing so alongside thousands of others. I am also doing so at, statistically, a significant risk of at least damaging my vehicle, or someone else's. The government has an interest in making sure I'm capable of doing this safely and that there is recourse (money for the injured party, taking my car away) if I do something stupid.

Imagine an auto racing hobbyist. His cars are fast, able to go from 0-60 in under 7 seconds and capable of an incredible top speed that you couldn't even hope to reach on a public highway with a production car. Most of the time his cars sit in his garage where he works on and tunes them. Every so often he'll get them trailered and take them to a private raceway where he drives them around the track, testing out the things he's done in the garage and making more adjustments. Maybe sometimes he'll compete against fellow racing hobbyists. His cars never touch a public road. Can you articulate a reason that these cars should be subject to the same regulatory framework as the car I drive to work? Indeed, if he limits all the driving he does in his life to taking his race cars around the track, should he even be required by law to obtain a driver's license? Given the time he puts into his cars, it would probably be prudent for him to insure them, but should he be legally obligated to insure them? Should he have to enter into the entire public road regulatory framework on the off chance that someone breaks into his garage, steals his car, and commits vehicular homicide with it, or crashes it into an occupied building?

Let's take the analogy in the opposite direction. Imagine that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated some new automobile regulations. The first is a mandatory speed governor on all automobiles that makes no changes to the engine but causes the car to top out at 75 mph - after all, does anyone really "need" to go faster than that? There is also a new category of automobiles for regulatory purposes: let's call them "muscle cars." Any car with an engine displacement over 3 liters is a muscle car. A car is also a muscle car if it has at least two of the following features (one in New York): a spoiler, a hood or roof scoop, a large-diameter exhaust pipe, wheels over a certain diameter, or tinted windows. Owners of muscle cars are required to take certain steps to secure their muscle cars, such as disengaging the battery when the car is not in use. High-octane fuel is limited to 20 gallons per month and you need to show an ID when you buy it, so the transaction can be recorded. Depending on your locality you may need to obtain special permission from your regional NHTSA office to purchase a muscle car.

How do you feel about this?

The car analogy, while not perfect, fits better when you limit the discussion to CCW. A person who carries concealed is walking around in public with a loaded firearm on their person. He is not the racing hobbyist, he is the person driving his car to work every day - of course that driver should have to prove his ability to safely operate the vehicle in public. I realize that this can be viewed as an argument for 1.) more stringent CCW testing and other requirements and 2.) ending the "constitutional carry" policies in places like Vermont (where, essentially, the 2nd amendment is all the justification one needs for carrying concealed). If we're going to use car analogies, though, CCW at any rate seems a marginally better place for them than guns as a whole. 

Or perhaps we should quit with the analogies altogether - guns are unique things and you're always going to find something about them that doesn't fit into a framework established for something else.

Gun Control Ideas

We all know that something is going to happen soon to the gun laws in this country. I don't know what it is, but here are a few ideas I've had of things that a.) most gun owners would likely be ok with and b.) may actually help.

The first and probably best option is expanding NICS in several ways. I've written about NICS before - the National Instant Criminal background check System, operated by the FBI and staffed by three contracted call centers' worth of phone answerers. There is a fascinating video here showing how it all works. This system is robust and it does the trick - I believe I read that since its inception its been responsible for turning down 700,000 gun purchases - but it could be better. A surprisingly even-handed CNN article indicates that Seung-Hui Cho of the VTech shooting had been previously diagnosed as mentally ill, which is exactly the kind of thing that should be showing up on a NICS check and should be leading to a denial - but a lack of funding has largely prevented states from reporting these sorts of things. Not only should the funding be increased, but some kind of standard should be developed for precisely what should be reported - I think all states should have to report the same things to the system.

This will raise HIPPA-type issues but I think mental health should be a stronger consideration when one purchases a firearm. It remains to be seen what the threshold is - I, for example, saw a clinical psych for a couple of months for help with some nervous habits, and plenty of people seek therapy for what amounts to just having someone to unload personal issues on and talk things out. Should this throw up a flag? Should psychiatric/therapeutic help be divided up into different "classes" that lead to different red flags? What about drug rehab? What about prescription of psychoactive drugs? There's a spectrum, of course - mild sedatives for the occasional panic attack all the way up to heavy antipsychotics. Maybe if someone in treatment wants to buy a gun they should have to talk it out with their care provider first, and if the psych agrees they're no risk then it can be formally reported and change the "flag" in NICS. Of course the issue here is since we're talking about a constitutional right, someone deprived of that right would need notice, a hearing, an appeal procedure, and other procedural due process necessities. I'm beginning to think that this would require an entirely new or at least heavily altered mental health care infrastructure, but we're changing health care radically in this country anyway so this actually might be a fine time to implement this kind of sweeping change.

I also think that I, as a private citizen, should be able to access NICS if I am privately selling my firearms. If NICS is receiving more funding than this should be free or perhaps a small ($5 at most) fee for access. I am almost inclined to think this should be mandatory (if it's mandatory it should be free). If I sold my gun to someone and it ended up being used to kill kids or theatergoers, even if I was able to show that the sale was lawful and thus escape legal liability, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. At present there's nothing stopping a resident of most states from disposing of his guns to a fellow resident, with no FFL and thus no background check necessary. Personally, if I did sell to someone, I'd ask to see the person's CCW, or do it through an FFL, just to make sure I wasn't selling it to someone who shouldn't have it, but access to NICS would make this easier. An option for private civilians (not just FFLs) to access the NICS and run a background check on private buyers would essentially close this "gun show loophole" that politicians talk about (that doesn't really happen at gun shows anymore) and would help prevent the horrible possibility I described above. 

Something I read indicated that Wal-Mart is apparently pushing for (or at least ok with) a new code of conduct for gun retailers. This code includes not selling the gun when NICS doesn't come back with a report - apparently now, if it's the 3rd day of a NICS check and nothing comes back, it's assumed that the buyer is legit and the retailer has the discretion to sell it. This is something that could stand to be fixed. If it also takes an improved/expedited procedure for people who are victims of identity theft or have common names to identify themselves to NICS, then so be it, but this 3-day thing strikes me as a bad idea. Maybe someone with a NICS horror story can tell me why this is ok, but I don't understand it.

I have a friend whose main problem with the way things currently work is that he, someone who's never owned a gun, hardly ever fired one, and doesn't quite know how they work would could walk into a store today and walk out with something very powerful. I don't quite know the solution to this, but he brings up a strong point. Not everyone grew up hunting or shooting, and not everyone is motivated enough to watch youtube videos, internalize the four rules, and otherwise do their individual part to become an educated firearm owner. Classes make sense, but you shouldn't condition the exercise of a constitutional right on what amounts to paying money (see poll taxes and the recent debate on voter ID laws - though it is true that many states condition even the ability to buy a gun on licenses, fees, and sometimes even classes). I think what would work better is incentivizing classes with something more than "it'll make you a better shooter." What if the major firearm manufacturers offered a discount on their products for taking an NRA (or state, or any other provider) safety course? To expand on this idea, if it was required to be done before the gun is purchased (rather than a mail-in rebate type of thing), it would provide one more point of contact between the prospective buyer and someone who could evaluate that person. Say someone takes an NRA class and acts strangely, constantly interrupting with weird questions about how to take down a moving target or what kind of bullets best penetrate body armor. There could be a way for the instructor to report this - of course, asking a few odd questions shouldn't disqualify someone outright, but it might be the kind of thing that would serve as a "tipping point" to a denial finding on the NICS when taken together with other red flags.

These ideas all have in common the emphasis on refining and toughening the background check system - an existing infrastructure that's proven and works - and making it work better. They also have in common that they in no way restrict the types of firearm one may own, and have nothing to do with magazine size. They also, admittedly, assume that someone of the type to shoot up a school or theater will buy their firearms legitimately. Cho would have been stopped by a more robust NICS, but Lanza stole his guns from his mother, who may well have passed an improved NICS with flying colors. There's no way to get guns out of the hands of criminals who intend to use them, even by a radical civilian disarmament - what criminal would give up his guns? To truly eradicate gun crime we must eradicate the criminal (not literally), a topic far beyond the scope of this blog.