Feb 172014
 

First, there’s the headline:

Study: Missouri murders spike after state repeals gun background check law

Then there’s the article itself, which claims that a study reports that after Missouri repealed a law that required that private gun sales (like, say, from neighbor to neighbor) have a state background check, the state has seen an increase in murders of 60 or so per year. The implication being that now that law abiding citizens don’t have to get a background check for guns, they are being inspired to murder more often.

But then… someone at Fark.com decided to actually check the numbers.

  2014-02-17 12:26:12 PM

Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.

I’m calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48

Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don’t seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was “need a permit”)

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it’s 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I’m not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I’d say “Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study”.  But they didn’t.  They dropped right back down to near the average, and it only took me a few minutes to figure out with publicly available data that there is something funny going on statistically.

 Posted by at 2:08 pm
Feb 152014
 

So, in the wake of the Newtown massacre, New York state rushed to pass some feel-good, do-bad anti “assault weapon” laws aimed specifically at getting rid of the AR-15. What’s the end result? Companies making money by selling bits and pieces that will make your AR-15 law-compliant, but in no way affect the operation of the weapon.

Such as:

The AR-15 Receiver Spur

The New York State SAFE Act states that a “pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon” is one characteristic that defines a rifle as an assault weapon.  If this is the sole characteristic that defines your AR-15 as an assault weapon, The AR-15 Receiver Spur remedies this issue.

spur

——————————-

If you want to go a little further, Stag Arms sells a butt stock/grip replacement that keeps full functionality yet puts you in compliance:

—————————

Or do it yourself:

[youtube 9xHsjxDqrrg]

[youtube GUich0PXxdA]

——————————

The point: these laws accomplish *nothing* in terms of “making children safer” or any such rubbish. What they *do* do:

1) Inconvenience some gun owners

2) Persuade other gun owners, previously law abiding, to become criminals.

I think #2 there bears some thinking about. As with many drug laws, what these anti-gun laws do is convince many decent folk that breaking the law is the best option. And once you have done that… you, as a legislator who wrote and passed this law, have contributed to the breakdown of respect for the legal system as a whole.

I believe a case can be made that laws that are passed that serve no purpose but to increase lawlessness are, at their heart, treasonous laws.

 Posted by at 12:17 pm
Feb 132014
 

Maybe…

Court strikes California law restricting concealed weapons

Not just any court, but the *Ninth* Circuit Court of Appeals has admitted that “The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

Neat! Now, presumably the state of California, which has so far claimed an overpowering need to keep defensive firearms out of the hands of people who are not rich celebrities or the politically connected, will take this case to the Supreme Court.

 Posted by at 6:33 pm
Feb 032014
 

Two illustrations from Fred Ordways “International Missile and Spacecraft Guide” from 1960 depict the Sidewinder missile without its iconic rollerons. The painting may simply be inaccurate or simplified, but the photo clearly depicts some other attempt at stabilizers. Unclear just what the mechanism is.

2014-02-03 sidewinder 2 2014-02-03 sidewinder

 Posted by at 6:45 pm
Jan 232014
 

A diagram of the Sidewinder air-to-air missile, taken from an F-104A weapons system manual. Note that here it is labeled the GAR 8, an earlier designation from before being relisted as the AIM-9. Dates from early 1957.

sidewinder

 Posted by at 11:16 pm
Dec 242013
 

Post-war US Army film showing US soldiers poking around with some captured German rocket vehicles: the Bachem Ba-349 (basically a manned surface-to-air missile) and the Ruhrstahl X-4, an air-to-air missile. The X-4 would have been difficult to use… wire guided like the modern TOW missile, the lone fighter pilot launching the missile would have to fly his plane while simultaneously  steering the missile, using a Mark I Eyeball to track a visible flare.

[youtube t-P8NjcMemY]

 Posted by at 12:40 am