Carnival of Cordite #7

It's here!  It's here!  Let the trumpets blare!

First off, apologies to anyone taken in by the post below.  It is April 1st, afterall.  But now, no foolin', this is the best Carnival of Cordite yet!  On with the show...

*     *     *

We'll start off with a follow up: in an earlier Carnival, contributor Green Lantern wrote in with concerns and asked the hunting crowd to explain support for a law allowing the culling of feral cats.  Surprised by the response, she is asking for more explanation, and wonders if people would support a similar law regarding dogs.

Now, before people poke fun at her or send her nasty comments, please remember that this is a caring person who means well.  The best way to change minds is to use logical arguments while seeking a common point of view.  With this in mind, I'll offer a brief opinion and invite other readers to take their comments over to the Green Lantern:

This law isn't about hunting pet cats.  It's about culling feral cats, and there is a HUGE difference.  You need to remember that, even though cats appear to be domesticated, they are still genetically almost the exact same wild beasts that roam free in Africa, living on small game.  When pet cats are released into the wild, many die because they are too conditioned to depend on humans for food and care.  But many more survive because they are, in essence, one of nature's best killers and survivors.  And those that survive and reproduce pass on their traits to their offspring.  There are millions of wild feral cats in this country that are basically just mountain lions scaled down.  They will feed on domesticated animals like chickens and rabbits.  They will fight and often kill pet cats and small dogs.  They haven't had any immunizations so they carry and transmit diseases.  And if you catch them and try to raise them, even as kittens, they will remain wild because domesticated cats get most of their domestication from imprinting with humans in their first few days of life.

Now on to your hypothetical about dogs: it's very similar, and yes, I would support the culling of wild dogs.  Like cats, dogs have a lot of their ancient wild genes still in them.  The difference is that dogs have been selectively bred for a few thousand years more than cats, and into a wider variety of shapes and sizes.  But the natural pack instinct and hunt instinct is still in most breeds.  Most domesticated dogs, turned loose in the wild, will form packs of wild beasts that, after only a few generations of reproduction, come to resemble packs of dingos or coyotes.  They kill livestock and can be a danger to humans.  They aren't Fido anymore.  Taking in and raising a dog that comes from a wild pack--and we have many in the U.S. by the way--is very much like trying to domesticate a wild wolf.

I hope that sheds some new light on the issue for you, Green Lantern.  And I do sincerely hope we continue to hear from you.  I'm glad you found us, and considered us a valid source for information.

Speaking of hunting, Kevin the Techno Gypsy has some tales to tell.  He's worried about the trend towards leasing hunting lands to adult-only parties: how will we get kids interested in carrying on the tradition?  At least he had good luck on the squirrel hunt.

Gratuitous gun pic:

I haven't jumped on the .17 bandwagon yet, but only because of limited funds.  Thanks, Kevin, for once again reminding me how much it sucks to be a poor college student!

Maybe what I need to do is raise some cash.  How about shameless capitalism?  It works for regular contributor mASS BACKWARDS.  I think I need this pink shirt:

Speaking of shirts, Kim du Toit has announced the arrival of the Nation of Rifleman shirt!

Kim also has given the Carnival of Cordite his blessing to link any of his posts.  This week, I think I'll highlight his endorsement of the single-shot .22 LR.  Kim's offer is a standing offer, so any future guest hosts please remember to check his blog for material.  Thank you, Kim!

Moving up from the .17 and .22, Libercontrarian would like to share with you his latest rifle purchase: a classic .303 Lee Enfield.  He has a lot of quality photographs for you to see: too big for fair treatment in my narrow center column, so be sure to click on his blog.  While there, read this news about turning the M1 battle tank into a giant scatter gun.

Speaking of military hardware, we can always count on Chris the AnarchAngel for great posts.  This week, he's graced us with three: battle rifles, featuring an in-depth discussion of the M-14, along with great pictures of incredible custom guns; bull-pups, and why they suck; and owning an arsenal.  As usual, Chris dispels some myths and raises some eyebrows.  One thing is for sure, when I am out of school and in the workforce again, with money to spend on some quality arms, I'll be asking Chris for guidance on selection and modification!

Who needs military hardware?  Well, um, the military, for one.  Do gun laws make it harder for our soldiers to obtain needed supplies?  And what about civilians working in a dangerous combat zone?  I linked this article earlier this week, and wanted to bring it up again here at the Carnival.  Maybe stories like this will help some of the doubters see the need for military weaponry in civilian hands.

While we are still on the topic of military hardware, how threatening is a picture of one?  If you've been following gun rights blogs, military blogs, or other "right" news sources, you've probably heard that a picture of a U.S. Marine with his service-rifle, a Marine who is the bg brother of a school student, violates the zero-tolerance policy for weapons in schools.  Freedom Sight gets into this topic here.

Shifting the topic slightly, we move from military rifles to long guns for home and personal defense.  Bad Example guest host Peter offers great advice.  I'd like to point out this passage in particular:

The biggest single advantage to a shotgun as a defense weapon is the intimidation factor.  The hole in the barrel is HUGE and very scary to look down.  Since the very best possible outcome in a defense situation is the bad guy fainting at the sight of the homeowner licking his or her lips in happy anticipation of the carnage to come, and coming-to only when the police have him hooked up, this is no small advantage.  If we survive a defense situation, we've won.  If we survive without a shot being fired, we've WON BIG!

That's something often overlooked by shooters, who tend to focus more on things like stopping power, magazine capacity, etc.  Of course, a shotgun has a lot of stopping power, and with a magazine extension can have a pretty good capacity, too.  Nonetheless, the vast majority of self-defense uses for firearms end without a single shot being fired.  We'd like them all to end that way.  But since they don't...

When choosing a firearm for defense, even though we hope we never have to fire it, the day may come when flying lead is all that stands between us and KILLER ZOMBIES!

OK, I admit it, that was just for fun.  Or was it?  If killer zombies really did attack, would you be a survivor?

What kinds of guns do action heroes prefer when battling zombies on the silver screen?

For the answer to this and more, see Guns in the Movies from Les Jones.

"Good.  Bad.  I'm the guy with the gun."

Did you know you can buy a special Boomstick Edition of Army of Darkness?

OK, back to reality...

While he may not be talking zombies, Publicola is nonetheless talking about some serious moments in history when armed civilians had to band together and fight.  American Revolution ring a bell, anyone?  But he doesn't just stick with the obvious choices.  This post brought to my attention some other, less well-known moments in history, including fighting for fair elections: not in Iraq or Afghanistan, not in the early days of our history, but in modern-day Tennessee!

Also from Publicola, an excellent article on the Minute Man Project to protect our borders.  While the notion of waves of zombies and mutants swarming over the village is the stuff of fantasy, the notion of waves of illegal aliens, including potential terrorists, swarming across the border isn't a notion at all.  It's happening now, and it's a concern for all of us.  It might not seem like an article that relates to our Carnival of Cordite, but really it is.  The Minute Men are people putting their lives at risk to protect themselves, their families, their country, and their way of life.  It's no different from one concerned citizen wanting to protect his house from burglary.  The grumblings among conservatives that Bush is wrong (he may have good intentions, but good intentions alone don't make a bad idea good) is growing.  I hope he gets his act together regarding this very important national defense issue: if the Republican party loses just a small chunk of the base, then democRats can retake power.  You know what that means...

In case you don't, Yosemite Sam of The Ten Ring would like to tell you; but more than telling us yet again that democRats want to steal your guns, he instead explains why the democRat party of today has so little in common with the party of Jefferson, FDR, Truman, and (the first) Kennedy.

Sam's better half, Denise, has some thoughts of her own.  In "We're Running Amok," she talks about liberal reaction to school shootings and the gun culture.  Apparently, she is "dialogued out" on the issue.  Maybe she would enjoy my take on dialogue...

Completing one circle, we return to the topic of guns in schools.  Are "gun free" schools really safer schools?  Gun Watch doesn't think so:

These "victim disarmament zones" are actually worse than doing nothing as they take the attention off the real problems.  They further a sense of complacency with respect to security.  Ignorantly we assume a sign stating "No Guns Allowed" will protect us.

*   *   *

Once again our adversaries would seek to legislate, put up signs and enact "rules against firearms."  These rules are only effective against that segment of the population that is inclined to follow them and do not influence compliance by someone bent on violence.  We know by sad experience that signs and rules do nothing to ensure safety.  Rather they ensure that that person's bent on violence will not be inhibited by "return fire" from someone acting in lawful self-defense.

Indeed we cannot state for a certainty what would have happened had an employee at Red Lake High School been allowed to carry a concealed firearm.  However, we can state with absolute certainty what did happen when lawful concealed carry was disallowed.  We encourage legislators in the states that disallow guns in schools to allow more lawful self-defense rather than subject their constituents to increasingly unsafe environments.

It is certainly a controversial standpoint, but I see merit to it.  Why shouldn't teachers be allowed to arm themselves?  If we don't trust teachers with guns, then why the hell are we letting them have complete and total custody of our kids for eight hours a day, half the days of the year?

But then again, do we gun owners have the right to carry our guns anywhere?  Even in states like Oregon, where we are blessed with "liberal" right-to-carry laws (notice the "proper" use of the term "liberal!"), there are rules.  You can't carry a gun into a courthouse, for example.  And I agree that some places should be gun-free.  What about the workplace?  Some people in the 2nd Amendment crowd want their permits to allow them to bring guns onto private-property work locations.  But others disagree.  Last week, Freedom Sight talked about it.  This week, we have similar reading from No Quarters:

My house is my castle and because of this I have many rights here.  I can tell you not to smoke, I can tell you not to put your feet on the coffee table, and I can tell you to just get the hell out of my house if I want.  Why?  To put it bluntly because it is mine and not yours.  The old "I am the king of my castle" rule applies.  I make the rules.

Now a business should have the same rights. They should have the same right to tell you not to smoke, or even not to have a firearm.  You may not like it, but it's their land, building, and place of employment.  I agree it is your vehicle, but it is your vehicle on their land.  They win.

Now you have the right to walk out and get a job elsewhere, you have the right to take your business to another company, you even have the right to say they are total asses.  But for me, you do not have the right in their castle to believe that your rights trump their rights of property.

As a Mormon I would never go into a persons house and demand that they not have coffee for breakfast because I am against it, or even to take the opposite extreme and demand they have fish for dinner Friday if I were Catholic. The simple fact is that they make the rules for their house, their business, and their life.

But some people have a different outlook.  For instance, Boxing Alcibiades has his own take on the issue.

I think the important thing to remember about this divided issue is: when it comes to the bigger picture, we are on the same side.  Let's not allow ourselves to be divided up, giving the anti-gun lobby the plurality needed to beat us election time.  It is better to have two politicians who support gun rights but disagree over certain facets of them than two politicians who agree you should be disarmed.  With the former, we get debate over substantive issues.  With the latter, there is no debate: we just lose our guns!  Which scenario looks better to you?  As Boxing Alcibiades says:

We're on their side.  It's nice to know that they're on ours.

It works in his context, and in mine.

Since carrying usually means handguns, what makes for a good carry weapon?  Jay from North Georgia Dogma wants your opinions on a compact 9mm.  I'll offer mine: pick the one you'll shoot.  That means, hold them all in your hand.  How do they feel?  Which one has a trigger, grip, safety, etc., that fit your hand and fingers?  They are all good guns.  The right gun is the gun that you like holding, shooting, and practicing with.  If you readers have more advice, be sure to stop by and comment.

Another regular is looking for advice, this time for a parapalegic who wants a carry gun.  If you'd like to offer your opinions, drop by SayUncle.

How about .32 ACP?  This  little round is used in many ultra-compact "back up" guns.  But how is this smaller round suited for self-defense?  Anemic, but useful enough if you stay away from ball ammo.  At least, according to John of Thirty Second Thoughts.  I tend to agree.  I wouldn't own a .32 ACP unless I had to carry a gun and it had to be ultra-well hidden.  I can't imagine such a scenario for me.  Besides, for those who do need such compactness, there are other options.

Having the right gun and the right ammo doesn't do you any good if you can't hit the target.  Owen offers up some great advice for improving your marksmanship; the major emphasis of his post is trigger control.

Speaking of triggers, Firehand is talking trigger jobs over at Irons in the Fire.  And he wants to make it clear that trigger work isn't something to experiment with willy-nilly:

I'm going to say this up front, and hit the point again later.  If you don't have the knowledge to mess with the trigger mechanism on a firearm, DON'T!  I'm not telling you to work on one, and I take no responsibility for what you may do to any firearm.

*   *   *

Trigger work is probably the most sensitive thing you can do with a firearm.  If you mess up a magazine, it can be replaced, same for the stock.  If you're crowning a barrel & mess up, you can generally trim a bit off the length and do it over.  But if you mess up with a trigger, it may not show up until sometime later; say, when it fires the piece because it was jarred.  VERY bad juju, guys.  So if you don't know what you are going to do, and how to do it properly, then DON'T DO IT.

He's serious, guys!  But he also wants to share with you his latest purchase:

Once again, thank you for reminding me that I am poor.  Maybe I should beg all my readers for cash to buy guns.  You know... if each of you would just pledge one dollar...

And just to make things worse, new contributor Counter Top writes in to taunt me with his plans to spend his big tax refund on something equally big and boomy.  Stop it!  You're killing me!  At least his post-title made me laugh.  Plus, he also would like to share his takes on yet another moonbat schools-and-guns issue and pending legislation that would be good news for gun owners, sellers, and manufacturers.

And finally...

American RealPolitik offers up two posts.  First, a column about news reporter ignorance.  Don't you just want to explode when you read such ignorance?  And that leads us to our final post of the week... Stupid B Gone!  Follow the directions and let off some stress!

*     *     *

Well everybody, that wraps up this week's Carnival of Cordite!  Thank you to all who participated.  We'll be back next week at this location for another round of gunny goodness.  Send your entries to our official e-mail address:

c a r n i v a l o f c o r d i t e A T h o t m a i l D O T c o m

And in the meantime, keep your powder dry!

Comments

[Gretchen Ross]

Thank you for the kind words about my viewpoints and for expressing yourself clearly and kindly. I will just say though that its not about feral, its about any domesticated cat that wanders away from its own property, which could very well be someone's pet cat. The hypothetical on dogs is the same: your pet dog runs out your door, someone can hunt it down as "feral."

Thanks also for posting an alternative un no doubt unpopular view in your carnival. Ive actually gotton a couple hunters to say they are against the pet-feral cat hunt but most are for it among hunters that read my blog.

Peace.

[Kevin]

Great set of reads, man.

Come to Texas sometime and you can play with my .17. We're taking the .50 BMG out tommorrow along with my dad's old 45-70. Got some feral hogs to shot over in Ben Wheeler as well as an 55 gallon drum gone bad...and yeah, we'll shot feral cats or dogs if they are on the property. I am just one of those damned fundementalism animal killers...

[Wade Jensen]

Another great Carnival. I have it linked on by blogspot over at Lord Balderdash. I agree that Green Lantern means well, but I went to her web-site. Trying to untangle the philososphy (???)that allows such thought...well, as an old fart I just don't have the time. Suffice it to say that Wisconsin wouldn't have proposed such a law if they didn't think they had a problem with feral cats specifically. However, I do know that Alley Cat Allies has what they believe to be a better solution. They recommend catching and spay/neuter the animals, then return them to the wild. They claim if you remove them, more will just take their place. Maybe. Personally, I see Wisconsin's solution as a way to provide some live target practice, thus advancing Kim's goal of returning us to a nation of riflemen-but that's just me. Also, sooner or later you are bound to run out of cats.
Take care,
Wade

[Mark]

Sorry 'bout that, guy. But I actually got a refund on my taxes this year, and it was calling to me...

And now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go do something about my sunburn and blisters.

[Russ]

Great commentary this week... continues to remind me about just how much I don't know...

[BLAINE]

Nothing bugs you more than staying in the freezing cold for hours only to have deer on the edge of the clearing chased off by a pack of dogs, by the third time this happened I started the culling of the canines.

[video editor]

Re your comments about feral dogs: we have a feral dog pack in extreme northern Fairfield Cty, CT and eastern Dutchess Cty, NY that began with abandoned pet dogs who survived and assimilatd with local coyotes. This pack has a range of about 30 miles back & forth across the state line. Neither state DEP wants to take responsibility for exterminating this pack but the DEPs also demand that local hunters get special permits to do the night hunting necessary to eliminate this pack. The pack is responsible for attacking sheep flocks, cattle herds as well as the local deer herds. In my opinion, the bureaucrats ought to get out of the way and allow local hunters get together to take care of this problem.

[Mark]

Feral dogs have been a problem on & off for years in many areas, and the solution has always been the same; the local citazens shoot them. Because if you don't, not only do they kill and injure livestock, they will not uncommonly harass or attack people.

And Gretchen? We're not talking about Fido getting out of the fence and sniffing around, we're talking about WILD dogs. Same as a feral cat is not Tabby out in the yard.

Same as the situation Video mentions, there are packs in parts of eastern OK that have, in some cases, interbred with coyotes. It's been bad enough in some areas that the state has had what amounts to bounty hunters shooting & trapping them.

[Gullyborg]

One more thing I'd like to add to the ongoing discussion, since the feral dog/cat topic seems to be getting everyone's attention:

If you live in the city or suburbs and your pet gets outside (either accidentally or because you let it out for exercise), then it WON'T be hunted; hunters aren't allowed to shoot within city limits. In the city, you are thousands of times more likely to lose a pet through a traffic accident than to someone with a gun.

If you live in the coutry, however, the situation is different. But it doesn't absolve you, the pet owner, of responsibility. If your pets roam free, they probably don't roam too far from home. Houses are well spread out, so if your pet "claims" some other yards as his turf, the odds of Fido or Fluffy going more than a few addresses away are slim. So get to know your neighbors, and let them get to know your pets.

Maybe your neighbors have livestock, and maybe your pets are a danger. You should know this. And they should know you and recognize your dog or cat. If your pet continues to be a problem, work it out between yourselves.

Maybe your neighbors don't have livestock, but have a lot of acreage and allow hunters to use their land. Then talk to your neighbors about your pets. If I was allowing guest hunters, I'd also be laying down ground rules: no shooting on this side of the property, for instance; or stay out a certain private patch. Well, how about telling the hunters "the neighbors have cats that roam through here, so watch out for them"?

And how about keeping a collar on your pet? The hunters who support culling feral animals, for the most part, still respect pet owners. We aren't there aiming to gun down Fluffy. If we run across a dog or cat that is obviously someone's pet, we aren't going to shoot. If we are far from anyone's home and find an animal with a collar, we'll probably try to catch it and return it home.

Bottom line here is: if you live out in the boonies are afraid for the safety of your pets, take some responsibility for them. You wouldn't let your children roam free without knowing where they are or what they are doing, and children can be taught to look both ways before crossing the street, don't talk to strangers, and tell the policeman your name and address. Animals can't. And children are (usually) less likely to use their teeth and claws on other people's livestock! So whatever precautions you would employ with a small child, use them and more with a pet.

[Aaron's cc:]

As founder of Buy A Gun Day in 2003, how do I join Carnival of Cordite or ensure proper timely coverage?

http://aarons.cc/2005/04/07/2344/