"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.

CZ P-07 Duty 9mm review

I am very, very happy with this gun.

I picked it up from the FFL on election day and since then I have shot it several times in three different states. I have put a few different types of ammo through it, field stripped and cleaned it twice, and painted the engraved parts of the magazines with white nail polish. I feel like I can now discuss the firearm in some detail.

Specs

The CZ P-07 is a hammer-fired DA/SA pistol with a polymer frame and metal slide. It is chambered in 9mm and has a capacity of 16+1 (16 in the magazine, 1 in the chamber; however, the springs in the mags are strong and I have yet to get more than 15 in there). It comes with Glock-style sights - the rear looks like |__| and the front is a single dot - and it has an accessory rail under the barrel for mounting lights or a laser. Size-wise it is similar to a Glock 19 and other "compact" pistols. One unique feature is the decocker, which comes installed, can be easily converted to a thumb safety. The parts to do this are included, which is very nice of CZ.

Field stripping is somewhat more complex than, say, a Glock. One side of the slide has a visible notch, as does the corresponding side of the frame. One hand is used to pull the slide back slightly to line these notches up; the other hand (and a punch, in my case) is used to pop out the slide lock. The slide can then be easily pushed forward. The firearm then disassembles into the slide, recoil spring and rod, barrel, and frame for cleaning.

The box comes with: the firearm, two 16-round magazines, cleaning brush and patch rod, lock, parts for installing the safety, and various pieces of paper (instruction manuals, test-fire reports, warranty card, etc).

How Does It Shoot?

Not like a compact, or like a polymer frame, that's for sure. Owing to the structure of the firearm, particularly the slide, shooting this gun is easy and has the feel of a heavier and larger piece. The slide, uniquely, rides inside of the frame - I am not a gun physicist but I believe this is the reason that it shoots so nicely (something to do with "bore axis"). Recoil is minimal and I have found it very easy to ride the recoil and re-position my shot quickly and accurately. You really have to try it to feel how minimal the recoil is - from the way it handled I thought it was a metal frame when I first shot it at the range as a rental.

Ergonomics are extremely important and the P-07 does not disappoint in this area. My hand can get really close into the beaver tail and I find it easy to have a strong grip on the gun. There is good stippling on the sides of the handle and ridges on the rear, all of which contribute to a strong grip. The magazine release is easy to reach and can be shifted over to the other side for leftie shooters. On the polymer frame, just below the slide and next to the slide lock, there is a stippled strip - this seems intended for the thumb of the non-trigger hand, and helps with a "thumbs forward" grip - a very clever feature. These strips are on both sides and are visible in the photos.

I am admittedly not a trigger connoisseur, but the trigger feels nice. There is an audible and tactile "click" when it resets, and the single-action feels right, between a hair trigger and requiring too much force, perhaps leaning toward easy. I rarely fire the gun double action so I will not comment on that.

I have run Federal range, Federal red box stuff from Wal-Mart, Winchester white box, CCI brass and aluminum case, PMC, and Federal Hydra-Shok hollow points in 115 and 124 grain, and the gun has shot them all. My first trip out to the range with it I had a few strange failures, but none since.

What's Not to Love?

Some issues - the spring is heavy and as a result it can be somewhat difficult to pull the slide back. I realized this for sure last week when I shot my P-07 alongside my brother-in-law's M&P9 - the M&P's slide is far easier to rack. There is heavy serration on the rear of the slide, but every once in a while I'll hold it wrong and it will slip out of my fingers, a rather uncomfortable feeling. The size of the gun and the heft of the slide no doubt require such a heavy spring, but it's absolutely worth your time to hold it and manipulate the slide before you buy. The slide lock is also somewhat stiff and weird. It is usable, and in my time with it I haven't found a lot of need to lock back the slide regularly, so this isn't much of an issue, but be aware. Field stripping the gun is difficult and awkward to me, but I suspect this will improve with practice.

This is not CZ's fault but market penetration is not nearly as high as Glock, S&W, or the other larger manufacturers. You won't find holsters that fit the P-07 at Walmart, for example, and I have found approximately one set of aftermarket sights. Be aware of this if aftermarket parts and customization is important for you. A Ruger 10/22 this ain't.

At the End of the Day

I went looking for an affordable gun from a reliable manufacturer that felt good in the hand and was easy to shoot. I did enough research and test fires that I didn't feel like I was flying blind or taking a chance with this one, but it was still my first handgun and I think I would have been bummed out if I got something that didn't feel extremely right for me. This gun feels extremely right for me. Do your research and shoot everything you can if you're in the market for a gun, but the CZ P-07 Duty has fully lived up to my expectations.

Glamour Shots

Slide open, magazine inserted. Thumb stippling visible in front of slide lock, decocker is behind slide lock. Lanyard loop at bottom of handle visible.

Slide closed, with magazine. Hammer back in single action position. "CZ-USA, Kansas City, KS" visible.