{"id":65351,"date":"2021-03-01T13:22:55","date_gmt":"2021-03-01T19:22:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=65351"},"modified":"2021-03-01T13:22:55","modified_gmt":"2021-03-01T19:22:55","slug":"65351","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=65351","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Noop. Even after they learn this, they don&#8217;t get to lecture <em>anyone.<\/em><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2015\/02\/24\/14-things-everyone-should-understand-about-guns\/?fbclid=IwAR1FsS6-zUXwa9JLRu4rkRLNjKoYHp0430yiaWbcmLM7PNKK2aaxwJCZwoU\">14 Things Everyone Should Understand About Guns<\/a><br \/>\n<em>Guns aren&#8217;t that complicated. Learn a little bit about them before lecturing other people about gun safety.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands. But so are\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.salon.com\/2014\/10\/07\/my_day_at_the_gun_nuts_confab_blunt_talk_high_drama_and_mass_paranoia\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">articles<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.salon.com\/2014\/09\/16\/wretched_disgusting_commie_leftists_my_nightmare_fighting_gun_nuts_in_a_red_state\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">about guns<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.newrepublic.com\/article\/120621\/nyc-cop-killer-ismaaiyl-brinsley-shows-problem-our-gun-laws\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">written<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.newrepublic.com\/authors\/alec-macgillis\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">by people<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/life\/tv\/2014\/03\/29\/piers-morgan-last-show\/7052009\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">who don\u2019t understand<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.thedailybeast.com\/articles\/2013\/04\/03\/congresswoman-doesn-t-know-how-guns-work.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">anything about them<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>There\u2019s sadly no excuse to be ignorant about firearms. They\u2019ve been around for hundreds of years. They\u2019re owned and operated safely by tens of millions of Americans each year. Our Constitution\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2010\/06\/28\/AR2010062802134.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">guarantees our individual right to possess guns<\/a> so that we might be able to defend ourselves from those who would violently take away our freedom. Many gun controllers, however \u2014 some of whom have bylines for major media organizations \u2014 don\u2019t actually know the first thing about firearms.<\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s a good example of the kind of self-inflicted injury that can result from weaponizing an ill-informed opinion about guns and gun-related paraphernalia, courtesy of\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/ryanjreilly\/status\/500981295359741952\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Ryan J. Reilly<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0<em>Huffington Post<\/em>:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" lang=\"en\" data-twitter-extracted-i1614626354205802456=\"true\"><p>I believe these are rubber bullets, can anyone confirm?\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/hashtag\/Fergurson?src=hash\">#Fergurson<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/t.co\/iCsFi6qoIa\">pic.twitter.com\/iCsFi6qoIa<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly)\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/ryanjreilly\/status\/500981295359741952\">August 17, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Unfortunately, Reilly is hardly alone in his complete ignorance of how guns work. Our nation is facing an epidemic of gun-related misreporting. As a public service to those who have opinions about guns but don\u2019t really want to spend much time learning anything about them, I\u2019ve compiled a simple list of 14 basic things everyone should understand before writing or talking about guns.<\/p>\n<h2>1) Don\u2019t Lecture Anyone On Gun Safety Until You Understand The Basic Rules<\/h2>\n<p>These are rules literally every person should understand, because you never know when you might be in a situation that requires you to handle a firearm. To seasoned gun owners, these\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/thefiringline.com\/Misc\/safetyrules.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">basic gun safety rules<\/a>\u00a0are gospel. If faithfully followed, they will prevent the likelihood of you ever shooting someone who did not pose an immediate and mortal threat to an innocent person.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p><strong>1. Treat all guns as though they are loaded.<br \/>\n2. Never point the muzzle at anything you don\u2019t intend to destroy.<br \/>\n3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you\u2019re prepared to fire.<br \/>\n4. Always confirm your target, as well as what\u2019s in front, behind, and around it.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Each rule is effectively a backup in case you ignore a previous rule. If you always assume a gun is loaded, then you\u2019ll never have to say, \u201cYour Honor, I didn\u2019t know it was loaded.\u201d If you screw up the first rule, the rule #2 will prevent you from shooting someone unintentionally, because your muzzle will always be pointed in a safe direction. If you screw up the first and second rules, rule #3 will ensure that the weapon is never actually discharged. And in the event that you believe your life is in mortal danger, rule #4 will prevent you from firing on an individual who\u2019s a non-threat, or prevent you from firing through a threat into an innocent person.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/PrKlf046M2Q\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" data-mce-fragment=\"1\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>These gun safety rules are to be practiced all the time, without exception. At the range. In your home. When you are carrying. When you\u2019re not carrying. When a gun is loaded. When a gun is empty (remember: it\u2019s never empty). The rules exist to protect you and everyone around you from harm. Memorize them. Practice them. And don\u2019t lecture anyone on \u201cgun control\u201d or \u201cgun safety,\u201d the new\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/national\/archive\/2012\/12\/gun-safety-not-gun-control\/266318\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">gun-controller-approved euphemism for gun control<\/a>, until you can effortlessly recite them and explain why they are so important.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s a simple test: if a gun controller wants to tell you what is or isn\u2019t safe, ask them to tell you the four basic rules of gun safety. If they can\u2019t or won\u2019t, then you\u2019ll know they\u2019re more interested in demagoguery than they are in promoting safe gun handling.<\/p>\n<h2>2) Guns Are Inanimate Objects<\/h2>\n<p>\u201cGuns don\u2019t kill people, people kill people,\u201d may be widely mocked by ignorant gun controllers, but it\u2019s true (also true is the fact that guns don\u2019t kill people, bullets do, if we want to be really pedantic). A gun cannot load a magazine by itself. A gun cannot secure a loaded magazine by itself. An empty gun cannot chamber a round or rack the slide by itself. A gun cannot pull a trigger by itself. Each of these actions requires agency by a human being.<\/p>\n<p>These are all reasons why I personally dislike the term \u201caccidental\u201d shooting, because it suggests a lack of accountability and responsibility. A more appropriate term is \u201cnegligent\u201d shooting, since human action is required to load a magazine, secure the loaded magazine, chamber a round, and pull the trigger. It\u2019s why the basic gun safety rules are so important: if followed religiously, they reduce the probability of negligent shootings to 0%.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Guns-Dont-Kill-People.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-35752\" src=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Guns-Dont-Kill-People.jpg\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\" srcset=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Guns-Dont-Kill-People.jpg 640w, https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Guns-Dont-Kill-People-300x121.jpg 300w, https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Guns-Dont-Kill-People-470x190.jpg 470w, https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Guns-Dont-Kill-People-200x80.jpg 200w\" alt=\"Guns Don't Kill People\" width=\"640\" height=\"259\" data-lazy-loaded=\"true\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<div>\n<div class=\"perma-ad-wrapper\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1463670073398-3\" data-google-query-id=\"CIyb7PTnj-8CFejA9gId6woPKw\">\n<div id=\"google_ads_iframe_\/1011927\/TFC_300_by_600_0__container__\">But what about intentional shootings where innocent people are targeted? Those don\u2019t just require human agency, they require criminal intent. That\u2019s why we try and punish criminals, rather than their weapons. It\u2019s why gun criminals are sent to prison, while the criminals\u2019 guns are often sent to the auction block. Criminal will is a far more dangerous and eternal thing than a simple firearm. It explains why so many criminals use illegally obtained weapons in their crimes. Why, it\u2019s almost as though they don\u2019t care about laws at all!<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>The mind that wishes to snuff out an innocent human life is far more terrifying than whatever inanimate object he or she decides to use. Don\u2019t blame the tool; blame the individual who wishes to use it for evil.<\/p>\n<h2>3) Modern Guns Do Not Accidentally \u201cGo Off\u201d<\/h2>\n<p>As noted in the previous example, in order for a gun to go \u201cBANG!\u201d a specific sequence of events must occur, and each event requires human intervention. Modern handguns do not accidentally go \u201cBANG!\u201d That\u2019s just not how guns work. Even a loaded gun, with a chambered round, with the safety off and the hammer\/striker cocked will not just \u201cgo off\u201d by itself. The trigger must still be pressed to release the firing pin or striker.<\/p>\n<p>One thing that drives me nuts when I read it in the news is how a gun \u201cwent off.\u201d Note the passive voice.<\/p>\n<div class=\"twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered\"><iframe id=\"twitter-widget-1\" class=\"\" title=\"Twitter Tweet\" src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/embed\/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=seanmdav&amp;dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-1&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=568539844940574720&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2015%2F02%2F24%2F14-things-everyone-should-understand-about-guns%2F&amp;siteScreenName=FDRLST&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=889aa01%3A1612811843556&amp;width=550px\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" data-tweet-id=\"568539844940574720\" data-mce-fragment=\"1\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Whether intentional or not, this type of phrasing implies that the gun itself is the hazard, rather than the person handling it. Guns don\u2019t \u201cgo off.\u201d They\u2019re fired by people. This is why the term \u201caccidental shooting\u201d is a misnomer. Unintentional, perhaps. Inadvertent, maybe. But guns don\u2019t accidentally end up in a state that allows them to be fired, and they certainly don\u2019t fire themselves.<\/p>\n<p>A better term is \u201cnegligent shooting.\u201d Negligence is the proper characterization because it accurately reflects the fact that an individual neglected to follow each of the basic gun safety rules. And for gun owners, the term negligence helps foster the proper mindset for gun handling: if this weapon is discharged, it is because of something you did. Therefore, don\u2019t ever allow your weapon to be discharged unless it is to neutralize a mortal threat to you or another innocent individual.<\/p>\n<h2>4) \u201cSemi-Automatic\u201d And \u201cAutomatic\u201d Are Not Synonyms<\/h2>\n<p>If you want people to understand that you have no clue what you\u2019re talking about, by all means conflate \u201cautomatic\u201d and \u201csemi-automatic.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>An automatic firearm is one in which a single trigger pull can discharge multiple rounds. In the U.S., civilians are virtually banned from owning automatic weapons. If a truly automatic weapon is used in a crime, you can almost guarantee that it was obtained illegally.<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to an automatic weapon, a semi-automatic weapon will at most discharge one round with a single trigger pull. What makes it semi-automatic rather than fully automatic is that the recoil generated from firing one round results in the weapon chambering another round, assuming the magazine is not empty, but without firing the second round (as opposed to a fully automatic, which both chambers and fires multiple rounds with one trigger pull). If we\u2019re being really technical, a semi-automatic weapon is one in which a single trigger pull 1) discharges at most one round, 2) cocks the hammer or striker after the round is fired, and 3) chambers an additional round after the weapon discharges a round and extracts\/ejects the shell casing, all without requiring any additional mechanical energy from the gun\u2019s operator.<\/p>\n<p>The second part of that definition is important because it is what differentiates a typical revolver from a semi-automatic pistol. Although a revolver is capable of chambering a round after a previous one is fired, the hammer must still be cocked by the user before another round can be fired (either via a double-action trigger or a manual cocking of the hammer).<\/p>\n<h2>5) \u201cClip\u201d And \u201cMagazine\u201d Are Not Synonyms<\/h2>\n<p>If you watch the news or movies in which firearms are used, you\u2019ll often hear the terms \u201cclip\u201d and \u201cmagazine\u201d used interchangeably. They\u2019re not synonyms, though. Here\u2019s a helpful illustration of the difference:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Clip-vs.-Magazine.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-35755\" src=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Clip-vs.-Magazine.jpg\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px\" srcset=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Clip-vs.-Magazine.jpg 500w, https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Clip-vs.-Magazine-300x264.jpg 300w, https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Clip-vs.-Magazine-306x270.jpg 306w, https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Clip-vs.-Magazine-200x176.jpg 200w, https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/Clip-vs.-Magazine-243x214.jpg 243w\" alt=\"Clip vs. Magazine\" width=\"500\" height=\"440\" data-lazy-loaded=\"true\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>A clip is exactly that: it clips rounds together so that they can more easily be fed into a magazine or directly into a weapon\u2019s chamber. A clip has zero moving parts. All it does is clip ammunition together.<\/p>\n<p>Magazines contain moving parts, most often springs. They are inserted directly into and remain in a firearm, unlike clips. The springs move another round into position so it can be chambered when necessary. In a traditional semi-automatic pistol, when a round is stripped from the top of a magazine and chambered by the rack sliding forward, the spring-powered magazine automatically pushes the next round into position to be chambered. When the round in the chamber is fired, the recoil propels the slide backwards and ejects the spent shell casing. Then, as the slide moves forward into battery, it strips the top round from the magazine and inserts it into the chamber.<\/p>\n<p>This animation of the firing cycle of a 1911-style pistol clearly illustrates how a semi-automatic pistol generally works:<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/1H3IFJXxyEs\" width=\"420\" height=\"315\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" data-mce-fragment=\"1\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<h2>6) Gun Safeties Can And Will Fail<\/h2>\n<p>Although it\u2019s become something of a cliche in firearm handling courses, it is absolutely true that \u201cthe only safety that matters is the one between your ears.\u201d Like any inanimate object, no gun is foolproof. Mechanical devices can and will fail. If you rely on your gun\u2019s external safety as a substitute for following the four basic gun safety rules, you\u2019re going to get yourself into trouble. This doesn\u2019t mean gun safeties are bad. They\u2019re not at all. They\u2019re incredibly valuable. But a mechanical safety in and of itself is not a guaranteed way to prevent a negligent discharge. Some manufacturers such as Glock do not even install external mechanical safeties on their firearms. The only way to prevent a negligent discharge from a firearm is to follow the four basic gun safety rules 100 percent of the time.<\/p>\n<h2>7) So-Called \u201cSmart Gun\u201d Technology Is Not Reliable<\/h2>\n<p>So-called \u201csmart guns\u201d are all the rage among gun controllers these days. What are \u201csmart guns\u201d? In theory, they\u2019re guns outfitted with technology that renders the weapon inoperable if it is wielded by anyone other than its lawful owner. In theory, \u201csmart gun\u201d technology sounds like an interesting concept. But some\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2014\/5\/5\/5683504\/gun-control-the-nra-wants-to-take-smart-guns-away\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">gun controllers want to make it mandatory<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>There has been renewed interest in smart guns since the Newtown school shooting, which reinvigorated the gun-control debate. However, there is immense pressure not to be the first to sell them. That\u2019s because of a New Jersey law passed in 2002 known as the Childproof Handgun Law, which says that all guns sold in New Jersey must be state-approved smart guns within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. The goal was to make smart guns mandatory as soon as the technology existed. Officially, no smart gun has been sold in the US yet \u2014 meaning if Raymond had sold one, it would have triggered the clause in New Jersey.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered\"><iframe id=\"twitter-widget-2\" class=\"\" title=\"Twitter Tweet\" src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/embed\/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=seanmdav&amp;dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-2&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=530145903974162433&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2015%2F02%2F24%2F14-things-everyone-should-understand-about-guns%2F&amp;siteScreenName=FDRLST&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=889aa01%3A1612811843556&amp;width=550px\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" data-tweet-id=\"530145903974162433\" data-mce-fragment=\"1\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>In practice, the unproven and unreliable technology demanded by gun controllers is a\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/josephsteinberg\/2014\/05\/04\/smartguns\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">disaster waiting to happen<\/a>. As noted in a previous example, mechanical safeties fail. So do electronic devices. Now imagine putting an electronic device subject to radio interference in charge of whether a gun can be fired. Heck, simple biometric gun safes are not even 100% reliable. Batteries fail. Software fails. Circuits short out. Fingerprint readers can quickly become unreliable. And what happens if your smart-gun triggering wristband is shot or otherwise damaged by a home invader? You and your family are completely out of luck.<\/p>\n<p>There\u2019s a reason there\u2019s absolutely zero market for \u201csmart guns\u201d among people who actually understand how guns work: the technology is completely unreliable. The basic gun safety rules, though, are airtight. It shouldn\u2019t surprise us that people who don\u2019t even understand basic gun mechanics or safety rules want to mandate completely unreliable technology.<\/p>\n<p>This isn\u2019t to say the underlying technology isn\u2019t useful. It can be. One police force is considering using the technology to alert the department\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cbsnews.com\/news\/gun-tracking-technology-could-help-officers-in-tight-situations\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">whenever an officer\u2019s gun is unholstered or discharged<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>If individuals or organizations decide on their own to implement a new, untested technology, they\u2019re free to do so. But mandating unreliable \u201csmart gun\u201d technology is a very dumb thing to do.<\/p>\n<h2>8) Handing Someone A Badge Doesn\u2019t Make Him A Good Shooter<\/h2>\n<p>Accurately shooting a gun is not like using a camera. It\u2019s not a simple \u201cpoint and click.\u201d Like any skill \u2014 yes, shooting is a skill \u2014 shooting a gun accurately requires constant practice and discipline. Firearm presentation, sight acquisition and alignment, trigger discipline, and follow-through are each skills that must be painstakingly developed before one can consider himself an accurate and reliable shooter. Shooters who can go from the holster to breaking multiple shots on target in\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=O8QrWm3Acc0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">less than a second<\/a>\u00a0didn\u2019t get there by accident. It likely took hundreds of hours and thousands of rounds of practice.<\/p>\n<p>The same is true for police. The badge does not confer magical shooting abilities. And contrary to much public opinion, the level of training received by most everyday patrolmen is not close to being enough to make an individual a highly reliable and accurate shooter. Moreover, the annual or semi-annual firearms qualifications required in most departments are hardly stringent. Here are the qualification standards for\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/wilenet.org\/html\/leosa\/wis-course-approved.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Wisconsin law enforcement officials<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/WI-LE-Gun-Qualification.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-35762\" src=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/WI-LE-Gun-Qualification.jpg\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 998px) 100vw, 998px\" srcset=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/WI-LE-Gun-Qualification.jpg 998w, https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/WI-LE-Gun-Qualification-300x149.jpg 300w, https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/WI-LE-Gun-Qualification-470x234.jpg 470w, https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/WI-LE-Gun-Qualification-200x99.jpg 200w\" alt=\"WI LE Gun Qualification\" width=\"998\" height=\"497\" data-lazy-loaded=\"true\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Over 40 percent of rounds are fired within 3 yards. Over 85 percent are within 7 yards. Officers are required to fire only 12 shots at a distance of 15 yards or greater, and only ten of those must hit a target. Quite simply, you do not need to be a proficient shooter to pass a test like that.<\/p>\n<p>In 2007, the New York Times wrote about systemic problems with\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/12\/09\/weekinreview\/09baker.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">police shooting accuracy<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department\u2019s Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.<\/p>\n<p>In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.<\/p>\n<p>In all shootings \u2014 including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations \u2014 New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Does this mean that all cops are terrible shots? Absolutely not. Cops who want to be good shooters, rather than cops who wear a gun only because they have to, are generally terrific shooters. The police officers that I\u2019ve competed with in defensive pistol shooting competitions are incredible. Many enjoyed shooting to begin with and became cops because the job gave them the ability to practice and develop their skills as shooters more than any other line of work. But they didn\u2019t become highly proficient shooters just because they chose to wear a uniform and a badge. It\u2019s because they put in the time necessary to develop and maintain their shooting skills.<\/p>\n<p>Unfortunately, police budget constraints make this type of training unfeasible for most departments.<\/p>\n<h2>9) The \u201cAR\u201d In \u201cAR-15\u201d Doesn\u2019t Stand For \u201cAssault Rifle\u201d<\/h2>\n<p>That\u2019s right. The \u201cAR\u201d in the name of the popular AR-15 doesn\u2019t stand for \u201cassault rifle.\u201d It stands for\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.nssf.org\/msr\/facts.cfm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ArmaLite<\/a>, the company that developed the rifle platform back in the 1950\u2019s. Today, the \u201cAR-15\u201d trademark is owned by Colt, which bought the rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 from ArmaLite\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.ar15goa.com\/about\/the-ar-15-rifle\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">in 1959<\/a>. However, the term AR-15 has come to represent just about any type of conventional M4- or M16-variant rifle.<\/p>\n<h2>10) High Capacity Magazine Bans Are Completely Counterproductive<\/h2>\n<p>In the wake of the Aurora movie theater shooting in Colorado, lawmakers in the state swiftly enacted\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/02\/07\/us\/politics\/gun-debate-reignites-in-colorado-2-years-after-aurora-theater-shooting.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">bans on high capacity ammunition magazines<\/a>. Just as that state\u2019s rush to close the inaccurately named \u201cgunshow loophole\u201d following the Columbine massacre failed to prevent the Aurora shooting, so to will the magazine ban fail to prevent future mass shootings.<\/p>\n<div class=\"twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered\"><iframe id=\"twitter-widget-3\" class=\"\" title=\"Twitter Tweet\" src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/embed\/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=seanmdav&amp;dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-3&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=319609802173063168&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2015%2F02%2F24%2F14-things-everyone-should-understand-about-guns%2F&amp;siteScreenName=FDRLST&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=889aa01%3A1612811843556&amp;width=550px\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" data-tweet-id=\"319609802173063168\" data-mce-fragment=\"1\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Why? For the same reason that gun bans don\u2019t prevent criminals from possessing and using guns: they don\u2019t care about gun laws. A psychopath intent on murdering a roomful of innocent people is not going to care if it\u2019s illegal to possess a 16-round magazine. And there\u2019s a good chance he\u2019s going to bring with him an armory of high capacity magazines loaded to capacity.<\/p>\n<p>That\u2019s not the case for people who obey laws, though. The woman who lawfully carries a concealed weapon to protect herself from would-be rapists is going to follow the law, because she doesn\u2019t want to put herself in jeopardy. Furthermore, the desire to legally carry a concealed weapon already puts a law-abiding citizen at a disadvantage against a murderer who\u2019s armed to the teeth. How? Because the requirement of concealment almost by definition limits the amount of ammunition you can carry. In most cases, that means one magazine in the gun along with one spare magazine.<\/p>\n<p>As the police statistics above showed, a few rounds may not be enough to neutralize multiple attackers. In some cases, you could empty a magazine against an assailant without neutralizing the threat (this is especially true against attackers who may be hopped up on drugs or wearing body armor). Contrary to the movies, merely shooting someone in the chest may not immediately incapacitate the threat. Only a direct shot to the central nervous system can instantly incapacitate an attacker (generally a shot inside the triangle formed by the eyes and nose), and those shots are incredibly difficult, especially against a target that may be moving.<\/p>\n<p>Just like gun bans serve only to prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, high capacity magazine bans put lawful gun carriers at a distinct disadvantage against well-armed assailants. As a result, it\u2019s really not all surprising that Colorado, which twice voted for Barack Obama, voted to\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.denverpost.com\/breakingnews\/ci_24064007\/colorado-recall-morse-says-turnout-lower-than-he\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">oust the Democratic state Senate president<\/a>\u00a0who pushed through that state\u2019s mag ban.<\/p>\n<h2>11) \u201cShoot To Wound\u201d Is Absurd And Dangerous<\/h2>\n<p>Whenever you hear about a fatal police shooting, you\u2019re almost guaranteed to see a commentator wonder aloud why police aren\u2019t trained to \u201cshoot to wound.\u201d The simple answer is that it\u2019s because the police aren\u2019t idiots. \u201cShoot to wound\u201d is a terrible idea that also happens to be incredibly unsafe.<\/p>\n<div class=\"twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered\"><iframe id=\"twitter-widget-4\" class=\"\" title=\"Twitter Tweet\" src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/embed\/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=seanmdav&amp;dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-4&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=537812581256527873&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2015%2F02%2F24%2F14-things-everyone-should-understand-about-guns%2F&amp;siteScreenName=FDRLST&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=889aa01%3A1612811843556&amp;width=550px\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" data-tweet-id=\"537812581256527873\" data-mce-fragment=\"1\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>To begin with, a gun is considered a deadly weapon for a reason. Merely firing a gun constitutes the discharge of deadly force, and the discharge of deadly force is only legal if the person discharging it reasonably believes that his or her life (or that of an another innocent individual) is in mortal danger.<\/p>\n<p>Now, if you believe yourself to be in mortal danger, would you fire at someone\u2019s foot, or hand, or knee? Of course not. Why? Because shots to those areas do not prevent an assailant from shooting back at you. Instead, you would shoot at center mass, and in the event that those shots failed to neutralize the threat, you would aim for the head and the individual\u2019s central nervous system. The notion of \u201cshooting to wound\u201d flies in the face of only shooting to neutralize a mortal threat. If you believe a threat can be neutralized without the use of deadly force, then you just lost your legal justification for discharging deadly force \u2014 in this case, firing a gun.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, shooting at a moving appendage like an arm or leg is incredibly difficult, thereby increasing the likelihood of a stray round that could injure an innocent bystander. Bullets that hit those body parts are also more likely to overpenetrate, rather than stopping inside the intended target\u2019s body. This doesn\u2019t mean that you should necessarily shoot to kill. You are not justified in killing a person who has been clearly neutralized and no longer poses a threat. Your goal in discharging a deadly weapon is not to end a life. Your goal is to neutralize a mortal threat.<\/p>\n<p>Never discharge your weapon unless you believe your life or that of another innocent person is in imminent mortal danger. And then, if you choose to shoot, shoot to neutralize the threat.<\/p>\n<h2>12) Hollow Point Bullets Are Actually Safer Than Standard Full Metal Jacket Ammunition<\/h2>\n<p>Whenever a reporter, gun controller, screenwriter, or general ignoramus wants to make ammunition sound super dangerous and sketchy, they\u2019ll talk about \u201chollow point bullets.\u201d What these people don\u2019t understand is that hollow points are actually far safer than standard full metal jacket (FMJ), or ball, ammunition. Why? Because they\u2019re less likely to overpenetrate.<\/p>\n<p>Because of their shape and the speed at which they\u2019re traveling, standard bullets have a tendency to go through things like walls, cars, people, etc. The result is that while you might hit your intended target, that bullet could continue to travel through the target and into someone or something you didn\u2019t intend to hit. This is why rule #4 of the basic safety gun rules exists.<\/p>\n<div class=\"twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered\"><iframe id=\"twitter-widget-5\" class=\"\" title=\"Twitter Tweet\" src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/embed\/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=seanmdav&amp;dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-5&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=448533730358218753&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2015%2F02%2F24%2F14-things-everyone-should-understand-about-guns%2F&amp;siteScreenName=FDRLST&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=889aa01%3A1612811843556&amp;width=550px\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" data-tweet-id=\"448533730358218753\" data-mce-fragment=\"1\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p>So what does this have to do with hollow points? Because of how they\u2019re designed \u2014 the hollow point opens upon impact, similar to how a flower blooms, thereby increasing drag and greatly reducing projectile speed \u2014 they greatly reduce the chance of overpenetration (for the same reason, hollow points are also not even close to being \u201carmor-piercing\u201d). How does that make them safer? The reduced bullet penetration reduces the likelihood of the bullet you fired on target hitting someone or something it wasn\u2019t supposed to hit. Now, hollow points are definitely not safer for the person who\u2019s hit by them. The opening of the bullet upon impact increases the effective diameter of the bullet, which leads to greater damage to the target.<\/p>\n<p>That also makes it safer for all innocent bystanders, though. Why? Because you likely will not need to put as many shots on target in order to neutralize the threat. Fewer shots needed on target means fewer shots that need to be fired, which means a lower likelihood of an innocent person being hit. If you keep a gun in your home or on your body for personal protection, you absolutely should be using some type of hollow point ammunition, not FMJ ammunition, because FMJ ammunition is more likely to penetrate through walls and endanger whoever happens to be on the other side of them. FMJ ammunition should be reserved almost exclusively for the gun range.<\/p>\n<h2>13) Most Gun Owners Understand Gun Laws A Lot Better Than Gun Controllers Do<\/h2>\n<p>While I don\u2019t doubt the desire of many gun controllers to reduce gun violence in the country, I do doubt their understanding of federal, state, and local gun laws in the U.S. A person who carries a weapon every day is far more likely to know the particulars of his or her state\u2019s gun laws, because that person is in legal jeopardy in the event that he or she gets the law wrong. People who get paid to talk on TV for a living will not pay any real penalty if they completely screw up a state\u2019s gun laws. An individual with a gun, however, can pay a very severe price if they don\u2019t follow every gun law to the letter. Just ask this man, who\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/dailycaller.com\/2015\/02\/21\/new-jersey-man-faces-10-years-for-1760s-flintlock-pistol\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">faces a decade in prison<\/a>\u00a0for possessing an antique 18th-century flintlock pistol.<\/p>\n<p>The controversy around the so-called \u201cgun show loophole\u201d is a perfect example of basic ignorance about the nation\u2019s gun laws and their effects.<\/p>\n<div class=\"twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered\"><iframe id=\"twitter-widget-6\" class=\"\" title=\"Twitter Tweet\" src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/embed\/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=seanmdav&amp;dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-6&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=true&amp;id=548651093178474497&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2015%2F02%2F24%2F14-things-everyone-should-understand-about-guns%2F&amp;siteScreenName=FDRLST&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=889aa01%3A1612811843556&amp;width=550px\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" data-tweet-id=\"548651093178474497\" data-mce-fragment=\"1\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>There is no gun show loophole, period. The vast majority of gun show sales are conducted by federal firearms licensees, or FFLs, and FFL sales are strictly regulated by the federal government. Every FFL sale\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/2013\/10\/robert-farago\/universal-background-checks-for-dummies\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">must be accompanied by a background check<\/a>. No ifs, ands, or buts. Every sale of a firearm across state lines \u2014 for example, a resident of State A buying a gun in State B \u2014 must be processed by an FFL in the purchaser\u2019s state. And what did we just learn about FFL sales? You can\u2019t buy a gun from an FFL without undergoing a background check.<\/p>\n<p>At the federal level (this is a key distinction), the only type of purchase that doesn\u2019t require a background check is a private transaction between two individuals who reside in the same state. Gun shows have absolutely nothing to do with it. And if you think a federal universal background check is going to keep criminals from buying guns from each other, then I\u2019d like to know why it hasn\u2019t prevented them from buying drugs from each other.<\/p>\n<h2>14) \u201cUniversal Background Checks\u201d Are Already The Law In Many States<\/h2>\n<p>What gun controllers won\u2019t tell you is that \u201cuniversal background checks\u201d are the norm in a large number of states, notwithstanding the lack of a federal law requiring universal background checks. The gun controllers know this, but they\u2019d rather force a one-size-fits-all federal policy one time than take the time and effort required to convince each state that it\u2019s a good policy for that state.<\/p>\n<p>Take\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.chicagobusiness.com\/article\/20150130\/OPINION\/150129787?template=printart\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Illinois<\/a>, for example. Illinois requires universal background checks on all firearms purchases. Until recently, the city of Chicago virtually banned gun possession. Did those laws do anything to curb violent crime in the state? Of course not. Other states that require universal background checks on all firearms purchases include\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.mercurynews.com\/ci_22483537\/californias-gun-background-check-system-could-be-national\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/2014\/11\/06\/us-usa-elections-washington-guncontrol-idUSKBN0IQ02P20141106\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">New York<\/a>. How\u2019s violent crime in those states, other than really high?<\/p>\n<p>Some states require universal background checks only on handguns.\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.ncsheriffs.org\/documents\/2013%20NC%20Firearms%20Laws.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">North Carolina<\/a>\u00a0is one of those states. It requires either a concealed carry permit or a government-issued purchase permit, both of which require background checks, before an individual can purchase a handgun. In this case, two background checks are completed if you purchase a handgun from an FFL in North Carolina: once by the county that issues your purchase permit, and once by the FFL that sells you your handgun. Why do I single out North Carolina? Because it was in North Carolina that\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/news\/2015\/02\/16\/chapel-hill-killings-muslims-parking\/23514293\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a crazed leftist armed with a handgun allegedly murdered three young Muslims<\/a>\u00a0over what appears to be a parking dispute. He passed his background check with flying colors.<\/p>\n<p>The takeaway? No amount of gun laws or do-goodery is going to keep guns out of the hands of evil people. But those laws can keep guns out of the hands of careful, safe, law-abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves and their families. And that should be a crime.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Noop. Even after they learn this, they don&#8217;t get to lecture anyone. 14 Things Everyone Should Understand About Guns Guns aren&#8217;t that complicated. Learn a little bit about them before lecturing other people about gun safety. Guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands. But so are\u00a0articles\u00a0about guns\u00a0written\u00a0by people\u00a0who don\u2019t understand\u00a0anything about them. There\u2019s sadly &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=65351\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[75,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media","category-safety"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65351","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=65351"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65351\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":65352,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65351\/revisions\/65352"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=65351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=65351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=65351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}