Home

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 07 September 2014

 http://www.uniontrib.com/news/uniontrib/mon/news/news_1n3safeguns.html

 

Handgun testing law misfires

State finding many cheap models pass, continue being sold

By James P. Sweeney  (TRANSLATION BY MAD MIKE)

COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

September 3, 2001

SACRAMENTO -- A tough new handgun safety test designed to pinch the supply of cheap, disposable Saturday night specials doesn't appear to be pushing many guns to the sidelines.

 

"A bullshit, unconstitutional, bureaucratic goatfuck designed to make being in the legitimate business of selling firearms a dicey financial proposition isn't working the way we planned."

 

Through its first eight months, nearly 600 handgun models have passed the punishing firing and drop tests, according to a list compiled by the state Department of Justice.

 

"Guess what we found?  Guns are actually safe to use!"

 

The total includes an unknown but significant number of models that are only cosmetically different from each other -- a chrome rather than blue-steel finish, for example. But it also includes at least 12 guns manufactured by so-called Ring of Fire companies, a cluster of Southern California manufacturers who have been accused of flooding the nation with inexpensive handguns.

 

"These people, who we have dubbed with a moniker in a move that would get us called bigots if we applied one to any other group, are actually manufacturing guns poor minorities can afford.  As liberals, this outrages us."

 

The legislation that required the safety tests originally was aimed at the Ring of Fire, firms such as Bryco Arms of Costa Mesa, Davis Industries of Chino and Phoenix Arms of Ontario.

 

"We tried to put several small businesses out of operation, and put their employees on the street, because we care about people."

 

"They tried to make the test so tough that those guns wouldn't survive, but it obviously hasn't worked," said Bruce Cavanaugh of San Diego, a former president of the California Firearms Dealers Association.

 

"We're smarter than they are on the subject of firearms, because we're engineers and they're paranoid, hoplophobic, illiterate freaks."

 

It's unknown how many guns have failed the tests. Private laboratories that do the testing are not required to report failures to the state, although most apparently do. Manufacturers also can, and do, resubmit weapons that wash out initially.

 

"The test is fair!"

 

Attorney General Bill Lockyer publicly accused at least one manufacturer of attempting to manipulate the tests, and others are known to be carefully selecting ammunition to improve their guns' prospects.

 

"They're actually allowed to specify manufacturer's recommendations!  That's almost like a car manufacturer specifying a fuel!"

 

Gun enthusiasts, dealers and manufacturers say the new law has done little more than create another expensive, annoying paper drill that has had almost no impact on the availability of cheap handguns in the state.

 

"Change the name of the organization, and Sarah Brady is still a frothing freak."

 

As a result, just two years after the handgun measure was celebrated as another major gun-control breakthrough in California, all involved in the debate are discussing a major overhaul.

 

"We want to get rid of it because it's pointless."  "We want to change it so you can't pass it!"

 

"We are very concerned about some of the guns that are on the (approved) list and some of the loopholes that we overlooked," said Luis Tolley of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which sponsored the legislation.

 

"We are concerned that people are still selling guns.  All lies aside, that's why we're here.  No one should have guns except the Kennedys and our bodyguards. Whenever we get proven to be raving idiots, we claim someone exploited a 'loophole,' kinda like that loophole in the Constitution that allows them to say bad things about us."

 

Said Chuck Michel, a San Pedro attorney for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, "There is a fix-it bill pending because they recognize there are a lot of problems."

 

"I'm being misquoted to make it sound as if I support this idiocy."

 

But Tolley and others say the number of guns on the list also reflects design improvements inspired by the law.

 

"To save face, we'll claim that any perceived good is our doing, even on guns designed thirty years ago."

 

The Brady Campaign, formerly Handgun Control, had been pushing for at least three years for legislation to curb production and sales of inexpensive, easily concealed handguns.

 

"How dare poor people in bad neighborhoods where the cops are loathe to go, defend themselves instead!"

 

Such a law proved difficult to draft, and the gun-control movement ultimately settled for Senate Bill 15, which passed amid the post-Columbine fever of 1999. The measure decreed a series of safety tests, although supporters offered little evidence that many people were being killed or injured because handguns were poorly made.

 

"We like dead children as a political statement.  The fact that we know nothing about firearms doesn't stop us from being relevant in this case, except among engineers, shooters, weapon designers, corporate board members and other alleged 'professionals.'"

 

To pass, three versions of each model must fire 600 rounds with no more than six malfunctions. Each gun is then dropped a little over 3 feet onto a concrete pad from six directions with the hammer cocked and the safety off. All three must withstand the exercise without discharging.

 

"We set up a military spec testing lab, and the bastards beat us!"

 

Although the legislation was signed in late 1999, it did not take effect until Jan. 1 of this year. Since then, the test results have not followed any pattern, those involved say.

 

"We have no idea what we are actually doing, except pissing in these people's Wheaties."

 

"I've seen what people think is a cheaply made handgun, just because it's low-cost, and it worked quite well. And I've seen a very expensive gun that most police would be happy to carry that failed," said Mike Shanahan, who does gun testing for Truesdail Laboratories of Tustin.

 

"Beretta are crap regardless of how much you pay for them, and people who don't waste time on mirror polishes and hookers to get generals to buy their product can turn out a basic model cheaply.  Either that, or the test doesn't work.  Or both."

 

Dean Wilkerson, who operates a testing lab in Van Nuys, said "it's the luck of the draw" with a lot of handguns.

 

"I wanted to get a soundbite into this article."

 

"I have failed some high-quality guns," Wilkerson said. "You've got to shoot three handguns, 600 rounds each, and two of them passed with no malfunctions at all, and the third one failed because it has seven malfunctions."

 

"I can make an oxymoronic statement about a bad test, and admit that randomness IS a factor."

 

Wilkerson said he has tested a lot of Ring of Fire models. While some failed, more than a few passed, he said.

 

"We say 'Ring of Fire,' because if we said, 'Darktown' or 'Beanerville' people would recognize that we're racist."

 

"They passed with no problem, and there are higher quality guns that didn't pass," Wilkerson said.

 

"'Higher quality' being a paraphrase for 'only available to rich white cybergeeks in the valley who can plunk down seven bills large for two pounds of metal.'"

 

Aaron Davis of Davis Industries said the company had no trouble getting its 12 models, representing four guns, passed and placed on the state list.

 

"Investment casting and CNC milling cut production costs.  SWEEEET!"

 

The guns, derringers ranging from .22 caliber to .38 caliber, passed on the first attempt, Davis said. The guns sell for $100 to $125. The .38-caliber model was redesigned to strengthen the trigger before the tests.

 

"We're happy to sell cheap, useful defensive tools without a lot of hype, and I'm laughing up my sleeve at these fools."

 

"I don't personally like (the tests), but we will try to do whatever they want us to do," Davis said.

 

"Hey, my stuff is STILL cheaper than those imports with the fancy names."

 

In February, Attorney General Lockyer publicly berated Phoenix Arms for allegedly attempting to maneuver some of its guns through the process by halting a test and restarting it with a new set of weapons, and by submitting a specific brand of ammunition. The handgun in question, however, later passed. Company officials declined to comment.

 

"That's as bad as insisting an engine only use 10-W30 oil.  The nerve!"

 

"We have seen some models where they are trying with this ammo and then they switch," said Randy Rossi, who heads the attorney general's firearms division. "They stop the test and try with another ammo, and then they stop the test and they try with a third ammo.

 

"Can you imagine if GM were to try different brands and gauges of tires to see which worked best, depending on the track weather that day?"

 

"We want to know of those situations where a gun is maybe so frail that even the manufacturer has to be very selective as to what ammunition will work well."

 

"We'll flunk Colt because a 1911 won't feed hollowpoints, even though we're more rabidly against hollowpoints than some other ammo, even though the military has never had a problem with it in 80 years, just because it's an excuse to fuck with them."

 

In early talks on potential changes, the Brady Campaign and the Attorney General's Office say they want to require labs to report all failures. They also say the state should have clear authority to randomly test a sample, perhaps 10 percent to 15 percent, of handguns that pass.

 

"We'll make it ten times as expensive!  A hundred!  We'll show you!  Nyaah! Nyaah!  Nyaah!"

 

Additionally, the Brady Campaign wants to allow recalling firearms later found to have problems, and it would like to see weapons tested with a standard, or recommended, ammunition.

 

"Every autoloader has to use wadcutters so we can make them fail, and every revolver has to use overloaded +Ps so the primers unseat and jam.  THAT'S what we call a 'fair' test!"

 

"I don't really think we know, unless we have the ability to randomly test and receive reports from the laboratories, of instances where a specific model has tried and failed, tried and failed, tried and failed, tried and passed," Rossi said.

 

"If the lab isn't giving us the results we want, we'll rig the test until we do get them.  Now THAT'S science!"

 

"But this is a very tricky balancing act because we do not want to discourage manufacturers from submitting their firearms, improving their firearms and then having the public benefit from those improvements."

 

"Obligatory sop to fairness for the semiliterate masses."

 

Dealers and gun-rights groups such as the National Rifle Association want dealers to be able to resell used guns that are not on the approved list.

Such guns can be sold by private parties if dealers process the transactions.

 

"They actually want to abide by the commerce provisions of the Constitution. Those bastards!"

 

The attorney general has told dealers they can conduct consignment sales of unlisted guns, although the law is unclear on the subject.

 

"We haven't found a way to say 'no' that even OUR Supreme Court won't throw out on its ear."

 

Used handguns historically have accounted for a significant slice of dealers' sales and their profit margin is much higher than that for new guns.

 

"They keep dealers in business.  And no gun dealer actually has a family to feed."

 

"They managed to create a monster," said Louis Baldridge, owner of the El Cajon Gun Exchange. "It has not accomplished what they hoped to accomplish, unless they wanted to make life more difficult for dealers."

 

"We have to have a token piece of real reporting in here or we'll get nailed for libel."

 

Copyright 2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

 

"So extremist, even the Village Voice looks right wing."

 

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 26 August 2014

EDIT NOTE:  So far, at least 3 people have decided not to genitally mutilate their male children, based on this article.  Including at least one Jew.

I'm here to denounce the barbaric practice of male genital mutilation. I'll start with facts, then move to opinion, and destroy the myths that most people seem to have, being as ignorant of male genital landscape as they were of the female clitoris a century ago.

First, let's look at why this Semitic practice became a thing in the west: One John Harvey Kellogg.

John Harvey Kellogg (February 26, 1852 ΓÇô December 14, 1943) was an American medical doctor in Battle Creek, Michigan, who ran a sanitarium using holistic methods, with a particular focus on nutrition, enemas and exercise. Kellogg was an advocate of vegetarianism and is best known for the invention of the breakfast cereal known as corn flakes with his brother, Will Keith Kellogg.

Corn flakes and enemas. Great combination.

And why was he terrified of protein?

His dietary advice in the late 19th century, which was in part concerned with reducing sexual stimulation, discouraged meat-eating, but not emphatically so.

No, he had more emphatic ways of dealing with sexual stimulation:

Kellogg was a skilled surgeon, who often donated his services to indigent patients at his clinic.[9] Although generally against unnecessary surgery to treat diseases,[10][11] he did advocate circumcision, allegedly to prevent masturbation.

He was an especially zealous campaigner against masturbation; this was an orthodox view during his lifetime, especially the earlier part. Kellogg was able to draw upon many medical sources' claims such as "neither the plague, nor war, nor small-pox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of onanism," credited to one Dr. Adam Clarke. Kellogg strongly warned against the habit in his own words, claiming of masturbation-related deaths "such a victim literally dies by his own hand," among other condemnations. He felt that masturbation destroyed not only physical and mental health, but the moral health of individuals as well. Kellogg also believed the practice of this "solitary-vice" caused cancer of the womb, urinary diseases, nocturnal emissions, impotence, epilepsy, insanity, and mental and physical debility; "dimness of vision" was only briefly mentioned.

Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol to a young woman's clitoris. In his Plain Facts for Old and Young,[7] he wrote:

ΓÇ£ A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. ΓÇ¥

further

ΓÇ£ a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] ... and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice ΓÇ¥

and

ΓÇ£ In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid (phenol) to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. ΓÇ¥

He also recommended, to prevent children from this "solitary vice", bandaging or tying their hands, covering their genitals with patented cages and electrical shock.[7]

In his Ladies' Guide in Health and Disease, for nymphomania, he recommended

ΓÇ£ Cool sitz baths; the cool enema; a spare diet; the application of blisters and other irritants to the sensitive parts of the sexual organs, the removal of the clitoris and nymphae... ΓÇ¥

Got that? Butchering the genitals would prevent masturbation!

So, if you're taking medical advice from this child-butchering, vegetarian, god-nut, quack freak, you should probably be killed right now. Oh, he was also a huge racist and proponent of eugenics.

Obviously, this doesn't work, and the practice on females was stopped.

On males, it persists, and there are even people who promote it as improving penile and sexual function.  It's good for you!

Wrong.

It's very common for men with butchered penises to insist they really aren't missing anything, just as good or better, glad they have it.

Wrong.

The most oft-repeated lie is, "The foreskin is basically just skin."

Wrong.

Even if it was "just skin," how would slicing off the skin NOT affect sensation? If you blister your hand, you have less sensation than before, on that "just skin."

The foreskin is just skin on the OUTSIDE. Inside it's a stretchy membrane that covers about 2/3 of the penis. Feel free to measure from the scar up and around, and do the math on how many square inches that is. (And yes, you have a scar. Scars are generally not a good thing for function.)

And you can confirm with just about any intact man that the inside of that membrane is pretty much nothing but nerves. If you have it, you can achieve orgasm with very light fingertip contact just on that skin.

That's not the most important part, though.

You know how when your glans rubs against your underwear it's irritating, then painful, then crippling?

No?

Well, it would be if your penis was properly functional.

That's a mucous membrane, or is supposed to be. By slicing off that "just skin," the sensitive mucous membrane has to become epidermis.

So, first you've sliced off half the sensory nerves, then you've killed most of the other half.

It's a tribute to nature and the human nervous system and its almost cybernetic workarounds that you can orgasm at all. I have no idea how, since you're missing everything I use for the purpose. But I guess the way blind people learn to hear better, something awakens to handle the job in some half-assed fashion.

Really, it's absolute butchery and functionally equivalent to slicing the female clitoris. If you protest one and endorse the other, you're a hypocrite and have no moral standing. At least the Muslims who butcher both sexes are morally consistent, and therefore superior to you.

Now, awareness of this is becoming prevalent, but there are some guys in not only complete denial, but in protest that they're somehow better with half a dick.

~~~

"The glans is more sensitive without skin in the way."

Certainly. The foreskin rolls back. And here's the neat part: ALL THE NERVES INSIDE IT COME INTO PLAY, TOO! If you have so little grasp of anatomy, you shouldnΓÇÖt be commenting.

As noted above, slicing off the protective skin turns that mucous membrane into epidermis. Your eye will also collect more light if you slice off that silly lid thing. But that may not be a benefit.

~~~

"Oh, so I'm less of a man because I'm missing flesh. Why don't you tell that to the guys at Walter Reed recovering from burns."

Yeah, I'm sure they're all there insisting, "No, I'm glad the skin is burned off. It makes the flesh underneath so much more sensitive!"

~~~

"You're dick obsessed."

Right. You tie baby boys into restraints and slice bits off their genitalia, without anesthetic, while they scream, and even suck the baby dick clean with your mouth (if you're certain sects of Jewish), but I'm the one who's dick obsessed. Cool story, bro. Are you convincing yourself?

By the way, can you name any other surgical procedure you'd perform on an infant, without anesthetic? That you wouldn't expect to get you arrested for child abuse and torture and jailed?

~~~

"It hasn't affected my sexual pleasure at all."

How would you know? Since all that flesh was butchered before you were aware of it, you're like a person blind from birth insisting eyes aren't really important.

Please name any other process where removing healthy tissue doesn't affect function or increases it.

~~~

"Some day, some chick is going to look at your junk and be grossed out."

In 47 years and about 50 lovers this has never been an issue for me. I guess I have better self-esteem and never dated shallow whores. But hey, appeasing a woman's visual senses totally justifies destroying your sexual pleasure, right?

~~~

"It reduces the odds of penile cancer!"

No, actually not at all.

From Wikipedia again:

Penile cancer is a rare cancer in developed nations with annual incidence varying from 0.3 to 1 per 100,000 per year accounting for around 0.4ΓÇô0.6% of all malignancies.[1] The annual incidence is approximately 1 in 100,000 men in the United States,[2] 1 in 250,000 in Australia, (where there are less circumcisions) and 0.82 per 100,000 in Denmark. (even less) In the United Kingdom, fewer than 500 men are diagnosed with penile cancer every year. (Also a lower rate than the US.)

Circumcision during infancy or in childhood may provide partial protection against penile cancer. Several authors have proposed circumcision as a possible strategy for penile cancer prevention;[1][19][24] however, the American Cancer Society points to the rarity of the disease and notes that neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

"Partial protection," because the only part of the penis that can't get cancer is the part you cut off…which, if it becomes necessary, can be cut off IF you get cancer. So, your proposal is to butcher the genitals of 999,999 baby boys because it MIGHT help with the one remaining one. This is sort of the inverse of not getting immunized because there MIGHT be a reaction to the serum.

And of course, if I suddenly develop cancer of the foreskin tomorrow, it can be removed easily enough, and I've had 35 years of greater sexual pleasure than you. But, as noted above, this not only isn't an issue, it's less of an issue in nations where they don't butcher their babies.

You may as well insist, "We have formula, so let's slice the tits off baby girls so they can't get breast cancer later in life!" "Oh, nipples aren't very sensitive. You don't need them for sexual pleasure."

By the way, the mortality rate for botched circumcisions (Botched butchery, dear God how horrifying is THAT concept?) exceeds the mortality rate from penile cancer. Great job.

~~~

"It reduces the odds of getting AIDS."

Bullshit.

This comes from studies that certain African tribes who practice genital butchery have lower rates of AIDs. They also almost all have either/or, or both, Islam (better sanitation than the animistic savages around them) or better food and cleaner water, so lower incidence of ANY disease.

And even if so, you're again butchering 100K babies against the odds 375 of them (per the CIA World Factbook) will reduce their odds of getting AIDS via that one small part of the anatomy, rather than open sores in the mouth, or the most common method, by receiving anal sex from a carrier. Through the foreskin would require insertion into a carrier, and damage to the membrane both.

And we have these things called "condoms" and "blood tests."

Again, you're taking the short end of the bet, and apparently assuming your boy is going to grow up to be a gay ass-pounder with no self control.

My gay friends resent that characterization, with good reason.

~~~

A new one, from a person who admits there's no valid medical reason for doing so:

"My baby, my choice."

Wow.  Now that's special.

Except that's not really what you're doing. is it? What you are doing is denying your future adult child a choice.

Would you "choose" to bind your child's feet, Chinese style? Oh, wait--that's illegal in this country (and there, too, as far as I'm aware).

Would you "choose" to have them tattooed?  That would be illegal.

Would you "choose" to have them branded, with a scar they'd carry forever?  That also would be illegal.

But you want to "choose" to butcher their genitals? Well, that's AOK in America! Never mind what they might want in a couple of decades. You've taken that choice away. It's not like dietary or clothing choices they can decide to change later if they wish, or even religious indoctrination they can consider for their own interpretation. You've chopped them up, it's a done deal.

But if you can't articulate a reason for this choice, then here's where we stop being friends. Because I literally cannot trust you not to "choose" to molest your chlidren. They're just a thing you play with, like that doll you mutilated in 2nd grade.

~~~

"It's biblical."

Actually, no. It's Semitic. If you actually read your New Testament, this is much discussed. Jews did it. Greeks did not. One example quote:

Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. I Corinthians 7:18-19

But unless you're not wearing mixed fibers, not eating pork or shellfish, etc, why would you suddenly escalate to genital butchery?

And if some invisible friend in your head is telling you to slice up bits of your baby, perhaps you should be in some other institution.

If you butcher your kids, you are a vile human being and should have your skull clubbed in like a baby seal.

If you were butchered through ignorance, you have my sympathy and pity, but please don't pretend you're morally superior and it was a good thing that happened.

It's butchery, it's superstitious barbarism, and it needs to be outlawed.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 23 August 2014

Title: OMG, Did He Actually Say That?
Time: Fri 02:30 pm Location: Chastain 1-2 - Westin (Length: 1)
Description: Tedd Roberts interviews author Michael Z. Williamson about writing, shooting, sharp pointy things, and more.

Title: The Cause of the Apocalypse
Time: Fri 10:00 pm Location: Chastain 1-2 - Westin (Length: 1)
Description: A discussion some of the different ways a mad scientist or disgruntled grad student (or medic) could bring about TEOTWAWKI.
(Tentative Panelists: Michael Z. Williamson, Cathe Smith, Philip Wohlrab, Tedd Roberts)

Title:  Autograph session
Time: Sat 12:00 noon Location: The Missing Volume, Exhibit Hall booths 328-330, America's Mart (Length: 1)

Title: Politics in Sci-fi
Time: Sat 05:30 pm Location: Regency V - Hyatt (Length: 1)
Description: How politics of today inform the writers of science fiction.(Tentative Panelists: Michael Z. Williamson, Lee Martindale, S. M. Stirling, John D. Ringo, Dr. Charles E. Gannon, Elizabeth Moon)

Title: Trigger Warning
Time: Sat 10:00 pm Location: Embassy A-B - Hyatt (Length: 1)
Description: Recent events have made some subjects taboo. This panel is not afraid to tackle those subjects.
Panelists: Tedd Roberts and Michael Z. Williamson

Title: The Real History of Science Fiction: Aliens
Time: Sun 10:00 am Location: Embassy A-B - Hyatt (Length: 1)
Description: The history of sci-fi includes robots, spaceships, and aliens. This discussion looks at aliens from a literary standpoint.
(Tentative Panelists: Michael Z. Williamson, Jaym Gates, Diane Hughes)

Title: Apocalyptic Fun: Inventive & Messy Ways of Killing
Time: Sun 07:00 pm Location: Chastain 1-2 - Westin (Length: 1)
Description: Explore the silly side of bringing about the Apocalypse and killing the undead.
(Tentative Panelists: Tedd Roberts, Michael Z. Williamson, David Harmer)

This doesn't include private events I'll be hosting or attending.  I'll have lots of cards with me with my contact info and booth location (45G is the revised and correct one).  Email or Twitter will be the best way to reach me--monitored by my senior assistant.  If it's time sensitive and I don't respond, ping me again.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 21 August 2014