Stupid gun-grabber crap

| October 2, 2014

James sends us a link to a Fiscal Times article by Maureen Mackey from a few months ago. She’s worried that the Army’s hunt for a new handgun to replace the M9 will result in more powerful handguns on the market;

At issue, though, is that “the last time the military challenged the industry to make a better handgun, all the innovations intended for the battlefield also ended up in the consumer market, and the severity of civilian shootings soared,” writes Matt Valentine in The Atlantic. He explains:

Studying gunshot injuries in the D.C. area in the 1980s, Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University noticed an alarming trend – as time went on, more and more patients were arriving at the emergency room with multiple bullet wounds. In 1983, at the beginning of the study period, only about a quarter of gunshot patients had multiple injuries, but in the last two years of the study, that proportion had risen to 43 percent.

Over the same period, semiautomatic pistols with a capacity of 15-rounds (or more) were replacing six-shot revolvers as the most popular firearms in the country. It’s not difficult to see the correlation – more bullets in the guns, more bullets in the victims.

So, because the Army bought the larger capacity M9 and scrapped the venerable M1911, criminals went out and bought larger capacity 9mm handguns. The Marine Corps just bought a 1911 from Colt for their special operations troops. That Colt 1911 sells for about $3000 to civilians – any of you want to spend 3 bills on a 1911? Yes, I’d like to own one, even though I have six other 1911s in my gun safe, but I don’t want it so much that I’ll lay out what most people make in a month for one.

The M9 had been around for years, there were always higher capacity 9mm handguns before the Army made one of their biggest mistakes and bought it. How many criminals were even aware that the Army bought the M9? Besides, 9mm is only good for killing Europeans – that’s probably why there more victims with multiple wounds. Are the criminals keeping up on the progress of the Army’s testing of handguns by reading Army Times? Their subscription numbers indicate otherwise.

If the Army buys a new handgun, it will probably be a 1911 which has been around since, well 1911. Like I said, I own six because I like it and the Army likes it, too. It will probably fire basically the same 230-grain full metal jacket bullet that it fired in 1911, it will probably be the eight-round magazine version instead of the 7-round model. But there won’t be any trend that will effect the types of guns found on the street at crime scenes.

Apparently, Ms. Mackey thinks that gun owners are sheep who can’t think for ourselves. Even if the Army buys a gun that is not a .45 caliber 1911, I’m not going to sell off my 1911s to buy the newer, sexier, Army-approved handgun at $3000/pop. The Army’s cchoice of handgun will probably be a political decision more than a performance issue. After all, they’re replacing the M9 which they thought was a good idea 30 years ago.

And, I’ve owned the shotgun I got when I was 14 for 45 years and never once have I been accused or convicted of a gun crime. So take a breath Ms. Mackey. Even if the Army’s choice was an influence on gun owners, what, exactly does she suggest? That the Army stop shopping for guns?

Category: Guns

38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rb325th

What is also ignored (conveniently) is the explosion of violence in D.C. due to the increased gang/drug activity. It wasn’t a gun that caused people to be shot more than once, it was the individuals holding he guns and doing the shooting. The majority of which are not legal gun owners…
Let’s not forget the overall decline in gun violence nationally either, but that doesn’t fit her agenda.

2/17 Air Cav

Says Mzzzz. Mackey about the increasing number of multiple hits to gunshot victims, “It’s not difficult to see the correlation – more bullets in the guns, more bullets in the victims.” Well, it’s not difficult if that’s all one looks at. It could be that the shooters’ aims are improving or that the shooters are nastier–that is, after dropping a target with, say, one round of three fired, they are finishing the victims off up close and personal with concommitant additional holes. I’m sure that there are other alternative explanations too.

David

Considering the far poorer one-stop record of 9mm HPs compared to ‘real” calibers, it probably reflects that thugs are as cognizant that at minimum, at least a double tap is warranted as the rest of us. Alternatively – untrained folks tend to pull the trigger till the gun goes “click” (which in many cases is not a bad thing) and if they are firing 15 and hitting with 3, that is the same shot to hit ratio as emptying a revolver and hitting with one.

David

I wonder how she explains the 50 year time gap between when higher-capacity 9mms came out (1935) and when the Army finally adopted the M9? (To be fair, criminals are typically slow learners… but two generations?)

Old Trooper

Here’s some numbers for the ignorant bitch:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/01/CDC-FBI-Bicycle-And-Falling-Deaths-Far-Exceed-Deaths-From-Mass-Shootings

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/29/FBI-More-People-Murdered-With-Fire-Than-In-Mass-Shootings

I’m really getting intolerant of stupid people. Fucking emotion driven pussies, the lot of them. No facts, just hyperbole, because they wet themselves when they see a gun.

NavyCWORet

Does this pre-suppose that industry makes no improvements to weapons capabilities unless the military requests it ? Are weapons producers just sitting around, waiting on the military to solicit a new weapon before they start working on upgrades to existing models (or new models altogether, for that matter) ?

streetsweeper

Dear Ms. Mackey;

Its okay for you to come up now, the midnight submarine race is over and you won! Oh, here have a paper towel and please wipe that lil bit of drool from the corner of your mouth, dear. It makes you look tacky…mm mmmm mm.

Veritas Omnia Vincit

The ignored fact in all of these opinion pieces by so called educated people is a simple fact that most of us in the US are far safer now than we were when criminals were using revolvers in crimes committed. For all the talk of how all of these criminals are detached from emotion violent crime and murder is down significantly. The actual facts of most gun crime in urban areas parallels what’s happening in LA and NYC. In NYC the dirty secret about gun crime is quite simple, 95% of victims and perpetrators are black or latino gang members fighting over drug turf in an easily identifiable geographical area. 3.5% of victims were white and 1.5% of victims were asian in NYC. Drug crime is the root cause of most murder and shootings in urban areas and is statistically significant in those geographical areas where gangs run the drug trade, to the overall population at large your staircase is twice as likely to kill you as your firearms collection. What is needed in this country is an honest discussion about the abject failure of the war on drugs. The drug war is an abomination of cost and reduction of civil liberties pursuing criminals where the majority of the crime is actually possession for personal use. We have given our personal liberties to the government in this drug war and we have conceded 4th amendment protections to the government for this idiotic, grotesque failure known as the drug war. Until such time as we are willing to actually discuss what it means to live in a free society and allow adults to choose what to do with their own bodies free from government interference there will be violent crime associated with drugs because of the high profit margin in black market goods. The violence surrounding the alcohol trade disappeared almost instantly, in spite of all the LEOs claims to the contrary the instant that prohibition was repealed. Let’s stop being a nation that pretends to value personal liberties and go back to being a nation that not only values those… Read more »

Sparks

VOV…More and more sir I am considering your position seriously. As I educate myself more on the true effect of the “war on drugs” as it relates to the actual presence of illegal drugs in America, the resulting crimes, deaths and gang prevalence in urban areas, more and more I see this war as a costly failure of epic proportions. I can see the other side of a taxed, controlled substance like alcohol. I am still trying to rectify in my studying the costs to the taxpayers, for those who do choose to abuse the harder drugs and end up in taxpayer funded, revolving door rehab facilities. I think though, even in that worse case scenario, this cost would be far less than what is being spent on the current war on drugs, from local to national budget levels. Also, I can deal with a neighbor who is a drunk. I am not so sure about the neighbor on crack, meth, PCP or heroin. Just my thoughts. But I agree it is a discussion needed in this country and soon.

Sparks

VOV…Additionally, the criminal addicts who rob, steal and even kill for the money for illegal drugs will probably do the same for money for a legally controlled substance. It’s either taking their stolen money and going back to their dealer or walking into a state controlled, “drug” store for what they use. Just my thought.

Veritas Omnia Vincit

If opiates are available recreationally those people are far less dangerous, heroin addicts are not PCP addicts….stimulants and depressants are indeed far different in outcomes, but alcohol makes some folks happy, long winded buffoons or violent mean spirited dangerous people. We have laws that affect your inability to control your intake of these substances when that lack of control spills over into the general populace in terms of driving or other criminal behavior. Some drugs may never be legal due to the inherent danger to the body from the consumption of those substances, my point is that without any conversation lumping opiates and marijuana into the same categories as crystal meth or PCP doesn’t necessarily make anyone safer and the cost/benefit ratio against loss of civil liberties is a valid topic for consideration.

Your drunk neighbor could come flying into the driveway and kill you…personal destructive behavior is difficult to address as some people are inherently broken, behavior that is destructive towards society has always been illegal and should always be illegal.

I am far more offended by the police having probable cause to search my home if the heat output appears to exceed the norms for my neighborhood than I am by the guy next door getting high and minding his own business. But others appear to have a different take.

We have far too many who think they are sheep dogs in this country, they are not sheep dogs but just mongrel dogs being used by their masters to abuse the sheep. Time for that to change.

nonsubhomine

“I am far more offended by the police having probable cause to search my home if the heat output appears to exceed the norms for my neighborhood…”

They can’t. Probable cause requires more. While excess heat/electrical use can be included as indicia for the “totality of circumstances”, by themselves they are indicative of nothing criminal. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fsupct%2Fcert%2F11-564&ei=OsouVLvfM_besATI4YCgAw&usg=AFQjCNGNODUBcCHW1H6P_fJsZWsvFHDwdg&bvm=bv.76802529,d.aWw)

Not saying I agree or disagree with your position. I’m just saying that straw-man arguments aren’t likely to lead to anything useful during a “national conversation”.

Old Trooper

“It’s not difficult to see the correlation – more bullets in the guns, more bullets in the victims.”

There she is; inserting intent into her statement. What if more bullets in the guns, more bullets in the bad guys??? She doesn’t see that correlation, because it doesn’t fit her narrative. Anyone shot is a “victim”, in her narrative.

You know who bought the most high capacity pistols? Police departments.

ohio

According to the CDC, 27 times more likely to die from bicycle crash or fall than mass shooting.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/01/CDC-FBI-Bicycle-And-Falling-Deaths-Far-Exceed-Deaths-From-Mass-Shootings

The Other Whitey

So she’s worried about “battlefield innovations” in civilian hands? Like, oh, let me take a stab at this one…seatbelts? Paramedics (both firefighter- and single-role)? Airplanes? Cell phones? GPS navigation? Working dogs? Soft armor for police officers? The custom that requires women (like her) and children be rescued first? About thirty different life-saving procedures that you might someday call 911 BEGGING for? My god! The horror, THE HORROR!!

Okay, let’s talk about the ones specific to firearms. The 1911 that spends the night on my nightstand was originally designed as a military sidearm. Because of that pedigree, it has FOUR safety systems (tupperware Glocks only have two) built into its hundred-plus-year-old design: engageable thumb safety, grip safety, half-cock notch, and spring-retained firing pin that doesn’t rest on the primer. I could drop it, toss it, beat it with a hammer, throw it off a cliff, or run it over with my truck, and it still won’t fire unless it’s fully cocked and I grip it properly and press the trigger. Why does it have these features? Because soldiers in combat, whether on foot, horseback, or in a vehicle will get jarred, thrown, trip, fall, tumble, run, dive, crawl, etc. They need a weapon that doesn’t go BANG when it’s not supposed to. Sounds like that military feature is a very good idea for any shooter!

It also has a lanyard loop. What’s that for? So the user can have his sidearm literally tethered to himself so that he doesn’t lose it in a vehicle, sliding down a slope, or wrestling with a bad guy. If you paid attention, you’d notice that this system is very popular with police officers for the same obvious reason. Oh, I forgot. You wouldn’t notice that because guns are icky and scary, which of course makes you an expert on the subject, right, Missy Mackey?

This broad is nearly as retarded as that dumb bitch who wrote that one really retarded Rolling Stone article (I know, that doesn’t exactly narrow it down).

A Proud Infidel®™

They will never cease to showcase their stupidity and ignorance…

NHSparky

Another quote from Maureen Mackey:

“Guns are bad, mkay?”

Medic09

I think we just wants to see a kinder, gentler army. NO guns, and women in line units. (Where’s the little sarcasm face?)

Medic09

That was meant to say SHE (NOT ‘we’).

Farflung Wanderer

$3000 for a ‘1911?

Jeez, that’s *way* out of my price range. Not like I could have one in the dorm where I’m at.

Anyone know of a good starting pistol, though? Cheap, reliable, accurate?

JBS

If you are just going to go with the one (not start a collection), I would choose the 40 S&W. The ammo is a little more expensive but you use less 😉 If you are wanting a make, I think that is a matter of choice / opinion. I think you can go cheap and still have something reliable. People will laugh but yes I own a High Point (as just one of my collections). And to me, it isn’t a bad weapon.

The Other Whitey

The Hi-Point carbine is a cheap, ugly piece of crap that always works, never breaks, shoots straight, and is made in America. I bought one for my wife a while back, and it’s a fun little gun to take to the range. Well worth the small amount of money you’ll pay for it.

Thunderstixx

A lot of people talk trash about Hi-Point guns. I have never owned one but people that do like them a lot.
A Makarov is also a nice little gun and well worth the hundred or so bucks you will pay for one of them.
I have had one for years and love it.
I paid a hundred for it and ammo has always been easy to get.

JBS

Yep, forgot about the Makarov. I bought a Mosin Nagant for $99 bucks too. And I agree with Whitey, the Hi-Point is ugly, the mag hangs down a little, but it was well worth the $120. And just a heads up, if you don’t buy from a dealer, the Rod and Gun club on post can act as a FFL or CNR, for a nominal fee–usually $25.

The Other Whitey

My starting pistol was a Springfield Armory 1911A1 GI Model for $450. Nothing fancy, just a bare-bones 1911 with crappy GI-style sights, but it works perfectly and shoots straight. I still have that pistol today. You can get a comparable Armscor or Rock Island 1911 for a little cheaper. 1911s can be very cheap in their basic form (which will function just fine, but wont win any beauty contests), to $1500 for a good Kimber, to $3000 or more for the highest-end custom models that are basically Excalibur reborn as a pistol. Plus, even the low-end ones can be modded and upgraded with ease.

That is of course if you want a 1911. I’m a 1911 guy myself, but there are other guns on the market that also work fine. Revolvers tend to be cheaper than automatics, and wheelguns always work! It comes down to what you want vs what you can afford.

NHSparky

I love my S&W Model 1911. Bought it at Kittery for about $600, and had never been fired. They had to sell it as used because they didn’t have the original packaging/box for it, lucky me. Should have sold for $1000-1200 new at the time.

Well, I did enjoy it, until the horrible boating accident.

David

I’ll play devil’s advocate – get a decent .22 and bunches of ammo and learn to shoot it well before stepping up to something larger. Something along the lines of a Browning Buckmark or Ruger Mk II. You will NEVER outgrow it, you will learn to shoot far better with that than you will with a bottom-end higher caliber gun, and you can always get a carry/defensive gun later. Actually, as a home defense gun, it will have plenty of killing power – it just won’t have much stopping power.

Old Trooper

Yeah, good luck getting bunches of ammo in .22LR. You would have a better chance of finding a virgin in a maternity ward.

ArmyATC

Ha!! Very true. For some reason .22lr is still flying if the shelves.

Sapper3307

Ask your dealer that’s a firearm dealer if they have or can get any police trade ins.
If its already got a scratch or two you don’t have to worry about it. And the price Is usually nice. More money for ammo.

ArmyATC

Can’t go wrong with a wheelgun in .38spl/.357mag. I own a little Taurus M85 in .38spl. My wife keeps it in her nightstand. You can also get a bare bones Rock Island 1911 for about the same price, $300-$350. Either one would serve you well as a self defense gun.

Old Trooper

I paid less than $700 for each of my pistols. If you screen armslist, you can probably find a decent one for a lot less than that. My 1911 (Commander size) cost me just a smidge over $600 new and I absolutely love it. You can find Citadel, Rock Island Armory, etc. for around $400-$500 for a 1911 copy that will work fine. As for the Hi Point carbine, I have heard nothing but good about them, however I haven’t heard very favorable things about their pistols. Wheel guns (revolvers) are relatively cheap, depending on what you get, and they work all the time.

Just my 2 pennies worth.

ArmyATC

I own two Rock Island 1911s. Both run like champs.

Old Trooper

I believe it. I almost bought one, before I bought my Para USA, but when I got there, it was already gone.

Fen

“Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University”

Bullshit flag. The article should have stated:

Bloomberg Center for Gun Policy at Johns Hopkins University

Which is alot like saying you work for the Yale McDonalds (ie the one across the street from Yale)

A Proud Infidel®™

I see it as fat that gun Control Laws and the politicians that pass them do little more than aid, abet, and embolden violent criminals by assuring them via legislation that law-abiding people will be conveniently unarmed VICTIMS.
If Gun Control Laws were the panacea for Gun Grime that liberals try to say they are, then places like Chicago, DC, Camden NJ, and Mexico would be crime-free utopias!
Every time I use the latter argument on some hare-brained liberal, they either try to change the subject or call me something like a “Neo-Con Racist” before they slither away. Any time one of them calls me “racist”, I wear the title with pride because I accept it as a sign that I won the debate or discussion with the use of facts, logic, and common sense!

19D1OR4 - Smitty

I saw this back when it was first published. It got linked to the Yahoo Answers Military page where I am a regular.

I was and am confused as to why the Yahoo Fiscal Times published an (obviously anti-gun) article that has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything related to anything “fiscal”.

That being said, most of the pistols I saw in the competition for the next pistol were still 9mm and were basically all the same concept as the current M9/M9A1. The SIG P226 and S&W M&P for instance were/are in the running. I don’t believe any version of the M1911 was being considered.

ArmyATC

Would this be a good place to post this? It’s an old essay by Jeff Snyder that is perhaps more relevant today than when it was originally written in 1993.

http://www.lasc.us/NationofCowardsSnyder.htm