Scientia est potentia

Comment policy: your first comment will be held for moderation, all non-spam comments will be approved.

In response to this little bit of madness:

A recent U.S. TV show revealed what actually happens in a variety of scenarios in which a gunman bursts into a classroom and begins shooting and one of the students shoots back.

The self-described expertise of the students in the scenario ranged from novice to expert.

In every scenario, the armed student was ineffective. They either couldn’t get to their firearm in time, couldn’t shoot accurately or didn’t take into account the movements of innocent participants. In one case the student shooter didn’t recall that a potentially innocent victim was in the line of fire.

Police train frequently and for a variety of scenarios to counteract the effects of adrenaline, flight or fight responses, fear, surprise, etc. All these factors added to inexperience lead to a situation where the person caught off guard is at a disadvantage and, when a weapon is added, becomes the danger not the saviour.

The Robson Street jeweller who fired could have killed a customer or an innocent person on the street. Guns have no place in anyone’s hands, except the police.

Christine Schattenkirk, Burnaby

What I sent to the editor (I doubt they’ll publish it):

In her letter dated April 23, Christine Schattenkirk condemns the Robson Street jeweler who fired at robbers, claiming that he “could have” injured or killed an innocent person. What gives her the right to judge the actions of someone who’s life was in danger from the safety of her own home, based on elaborate “what if” scenarios? I question the judgment of someone who would judge a real-world life-and-death scenario based on information from a prime-time TV show, which makes no claims to accuracy or scientific rigour. I remind Ms. Schattenkirk that television dramas are not real, and what occurred in this fictional TV show is not what “actually happens” in these situations. Rather than relying on TV, we have a perfect example of what “actually happens” when the victim shoots back right here with the true events which occurred in the Robson Street robbery.

The jeweler did not hurt anyone, and successfully stopped a robbery from occurring. Rather than returning fire, the robbers, who were armed with a handgun, fled the scene. Obviously they were used to unarmed, submissive victims. Regardless of the owner’s actions, the criminals in this situation had a gun. The only variable is whether the would-be victim had the means to defend himself rather than be at the mercy of the lawless.

To whom do we give the benefit of the doubt? To the criminals, and hope they’ll choose to leave us alive out of the goodness of their hearts; or to the innocent, and let us possess the means to defend ourselves?

If we are going to talk about “what if” scenarios, I ask Ms. Schattenkirk: what if the jeweler hadn’t been armed? We might be discussing his funeral today.

Regarding this RCMP news release (exerpt):

Agassiz BC: On Tuesday April 7th, 2009 at approximately 12:20 p.m. the Agassiz RCMP Serious Crime Unit, assisted by the Upper Fraser Valley RCMP First Nations Policing Unit attended to an address in the 52200 block of Alexis Crescent on the Cheam Reserve on an unrelated investigation. A search of the residence resulted in three insecure firearms being located in a bedroom of the residence and seized by police.

Recovered from the residence was a loaded .22 calibre pistol with magazine, a loaded .22 calibre assault rifle with magazine, and an SKS 7mm assault rifle.

Sounds like a pretty serious bust. After all, an assault rifle is a pretty powerful weapon. Unfortunately, not all is as it seems. The picture says it all (click for full size):

From top to bottom:

• Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic .22LR rifle
• SKS semi-automatic 7.62x39mm rifle
• What appears to be a Browning Buckmark .22LR pistol

So what’s the problem?

1. The SKS, described as a “7mm assault rifle”, is chambered in 7.62x39mm, a cut-down version of the 7.62x54R cartridge used in World War II. There are several calibers which are designated 7mm, and many that are approximately 7mm in diameter. If you are going to mention the caliber, do it properly.
2. The SKS is not an assault rifle. It is not capable of selective fire.
3. The 10/22 is not an assault rifle. It is not capable of selective fire and is not chambered in an intermediate rifle caliber. The .22LR round is relatively low-power (about 1/10th the muzzle energy as 5.56x45mm NATO, for example) and is used for small game hunting and plinking. Unless we have declared war on gophers, the military won’t be stockpiling .22LR anytime soon.
4. The SKS magazine has been placed backwards relative to the rifle. Since the 10/22 magazine is oriented correctly, I assume this was done on purpose. Why? Probably to hide the fact that it is pinned to 5 rounds as per the Firearms Act. Suddenly that “banana”-style magazine seems a whole lot less dangerous.

But these errors are tame compared to what was printed in a local newspaper (which has since removed the comments):

Police investigators were not immediately available for comment on the earlier story, but Const. Lea-Anne Dunlop later said that all three firearms were considered prohibited, a .22-calibre handgun because of its barrel length, an SKS 7-mm “assault” rifle because of the size of its magazine, and a .22-calibre “assault” rifle because of its silencer and a “high-capacity” magazine holding 25 rounds.

“It does come down to semantics, it seems,” [Const. Dunlop] said. “The firearms we seized are technically considered ‘semi-automatic civilian patterns of military issue assault rifles.’”

“The term ‘assault rife’ seems to be based on the hands who hold them,” she added. “IE, the military hold assault rifles, and the public in this case held a civilian pattern of the same.”

But Dunlop said the main point of the story is that “high-powered, dangerous firearms were taken off the street.”

“This is a good thing for our community, no matter what you want to call them,” she said.

Here’s the laundry list of errors:

1. The pistol’s barrel length is over the legal requirement of 105mm. This is immediately apparent to anyone who has actually seen any of the weapons in question and has an idea of their scale.
2. Regardless of whether the SKS magazine was pinned or not (see above as to why I believe it was), a magazine does not make a firearm prohibited. Magazines and firearms are classified independently in Canada, as they rightly should be. A greater-than-legal capacity magazine would be a prohibited device all on its own, but that has nothing to do with the rifle.
3. The situation with silencers is similar to that with magazines. The presence of a prohibited device does not make the rifle a prohibited firearm unless it is permanently attached. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that it is just a barrel shroud (which is perfectly legal) and not an actual sound suppressor. A silencer will run you anywhere from $200 to over $1000 in jurisdictions where they are legal. The 10/22 is a $250 rifle. Does not compute.
4. There is no magazine capacity limit for rimfire cartridges (which .22LR is) in Canada.
5. The SKS is not a “semi-automatic civilian pattern” of anything. It is a military-issue rifle, but was never an assault rifle.
6. Same goes for the 10/22. Not only is a not a “civilian pattern” (there has never been a select fire iteration of it, nor was it developed or produced for anyone other than civilians), I find that the idea that there is a “military-issue” 10/22 in existence laughable. When last I looked, the military wasn’t very big on non-lethal weapons.

Funny that the only people most are willing to trust with firearms either (i) don’t actually know anything about them or (ii) are liars. See how that works?

Got some more Blu-rays today. The latest additions: