Here comes the ban hammer...

Here we go again... calls for gun control.  And this time, since Obama isn't up for re-election, he's actually going to push for it.  Here are my thoughts on the various prongs of his plan.  I'll just start with the points that require Congressional action; I'll take a look at the executive actions another time.

- Criminal background checks for all gun sales: In theory, I think this is a good thing.  The problem is that whatever bill is used as a vehicle to set this up will undoubtedly be saddled with unnecessary grants of discretion and ambiguities.  For example, Carolyn McCarthy's H.R. 137 would require background checks for all gun sales, but also slips in language that broadens the definition of "adjudicated as mental defective" (a condition that would prohibit a person from purchasing a firearm) to include anyone who has been ordered by any "lawful authority" to receive counseling or medication.  What kind of counseling or medication are we talking about here?  What constitutes a "lawful authority"?

- "Assault weapons" ban:

This Mini-14 is not an assault weapon...

... but this Mini-14 is.  And yet, it's the same gun.

I've commented about this before here.  Banning "assault weapons" is basically premised on the fraudulent idea, perpetrated by anti-gun groups in the early 90s, that certain semi-automatic firearms magically become far more dangerous than other semi-automatic firearms simply by virtue of the fact that they look scary or "military style."  This proposition is absurd as saying that the Hummer H2 is a military style vehicle, or that a car with a spoiler is a race car.  President Obama complained that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was too easily circumvented by manufacturers making "cosmetic" changes, but this shouldn't come as a shock since the AWB categorized firearms as assault weapons based exclusively on cosmetic features such as a pistol grip, collapsible stock, bayonet lug, or flash hider.  Whether or not a firearm is an "assault weapon" has absolutely nothing to do with its effectiveness as a firearm.  What's worse, assault weapon bans don't even work.  From 1994 to 2004, the United States had an assault weapon ban in place, and yet it failed to prevent the Columbine shooting in 1999.  Furthermore, one of the Columbine shooters used an Intratec TEC-DC9, a firearm that was banned by name in the assault weapon ban.  This should boggle the minds of those who buy into the fairy tale that banning certain firearms will take them off the streets, but should come as no surprise to those who have recall the failures of the drug war (banning narcotics certainly has not taken them off our streets) or Prohibition in the 1920s (even a constitutional ban couldn't get alcohol off the streets).  Here's another mind boggler: the other of the two Columbine shooters used a firearm that was compliant with the assault weapon ban, meaning it was not an assault weapon.  Clearly, whether or not a firearm is an assault weapon has absolutely no bearing on an evil person's ability to use it to deadly effect.  The only thing that assault weapon bans do is reduce the ability of law-abiding citizens to select a firearm that suits their needs.

If President Obama and other anti-gun politicians want to step up and say that they really just want to ban all semi-automatic firearms, then while I won't necessarily agree with them, at least I'll feel like they're willing to have an intellectually honest discussion about the constitutionality, pros, cons, etc. of such actions.  But if they're going to continue to push the myth that so-called "assault weapons" are these unbelievable weapons of mass murder while other semi-automatic firearms are not, then I can only conclude that they're either willfully and purposely ignorant about firearms, or bent on perpetuating a lie.

- "High-capacity" magazine ban:

Another useless idea.  The theory behind a "high-capacity" (in quotes because many of the magazines politicians want to ban are actually the factory standard capacity for a particular firearm, i.e., the capacity at which the firearm has always been sold historically) magazine ban is that by forcing criminals to use smaller magazines, they'll have to reload more, which will slow them down and provide an opportunity for them to be stopped.  Let's see how well that worked out.  In addition to taking place during a nationwide AWB, Columbine took place during a nationwide "high-capacity" magazine ban.  One of the Columbine shooters simply showed up with thirteen (13) ten-round magazines.  Before taking his own life, he fired at least 98 rounds, which means he must have reloaded at least 9 times.  Similarly, at the Virginia Tech shooting in 2004, the shooter carried a backpack containing nineteen (19) ten- and fifteen-round magazines.  He used seventeen (17) of the magazines and fired 170 rounds before killing himself.  Even in the Newtown shooting, reports are that the shooter fired 150 rounds and reloaded multiple times.  Assuming he was using 30-round magazines, that amounts to at least four reloads.  Reports are that some magazines were recovered from the scene partially loaded, which means there may have been even more than four reloads.  In none of these cases  was the shooter stopped by the need to reload, even in Virginia Tech where the shooter reloaded sixteen times.

The problem is that reloading when you're in a gun free zone, not taking fire, and under relatively little duress is an easy process.  It's when you're under fire and fearing for your life -- for example, in a self-defense scenario -- that your motor skills start to break down and you fumble your reloads.  A "high-capacity" magazine ban would primarily affect law-abiding firearm owners who find themselves in defensive situations -- especially those with disabilities that make reloading more difficult, but even those without disabilities all the same.  We've been hearing a lot on the news lately about the woman in Georgia who emptied her six-shot revolver into a home intruder, hitting him in the face and the torso, and yet he was well enough to get up, get in his car, and drive off.  The man had literally been shot in the face and was in decent enough condition to drive.  Had he chosen to continue his attack instead of retreating, or if he'd had accomplices, that woman and her children would have been in trouble.  Home invasions with more than one perpetrator are not uncommon -- while I was on vacation for the holidays, a story broke about a Sacramento man who had to use his firearm to fend off multiple men who broke into his home while his children were having a sleepover with friends in the next room.  And some months ago, there was a report of a man whose gun shop (which was attached to his home) was broken into by multiple burglars.  They exchanged fire with the shop/home owner, who emptied a 30-round magazine from his AR-15 to cover his retreat into his attached bedroom to retrieve additional magazines, which he then used to drive off the intruders.  If he'd been limited to a 10-round magazine, he might not have even made it to his back room.  Events like this are precisely the reason that law-abiding firearm owners need so-called "high capacity" magazines.

- Banning the possession of armor-piercing ammunition other than by military/law enforcement: This seems reasonable in theory, but again, the devil is in the details.  How is "armor-piercing" defined?  Kevlar vests are weak against rifle rounds - even your run of the mill lead core, metal jacketed rounds that are used for target practice can probably penetrate Kevlar.  If the ability to penetrate a Kevlar vest is going to be the bar, then this could well amount to a ban on all rifle ammunition.  Tangentially, the connection between this particular proposal and the Newtown shooting escapes me, since the shooter did not, as far as I know, use armor-piercing ammunition, and even if he did, the people in the school weren't wearing body armor anyway.

- Increasing penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun for someone else: Again, a reasonable proposal, but we'll have to keep an eye on the implementation details.  Since nothing concrete has been proposed yet, not much more to say about that.  I do agree that, in theory, straw purchasing is bad and should be penalized.

- Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street: I'm not sure that lack of police officers is a major contributing factor to gun violence, especially mass shootings, but in theory I have no problem with helping keep police officers employed.  $4 billion for only 15,000 officers seems a little high, but I guess all that equipment and government benefits does cost money.

- Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: All things considered, it's probably a good idea for BATFE to have a confirmed director, at long as he's not going to do something stupid like giving military firearms (actual military firearms, not "military-style" semi-automatic weapons) to Mexican drug cartels and then losing track of them, only to find out they were used to kill American officers.  I don't really know anything about Todd Jones, the guy that Obama nominated, but hopefully we'll find out a little more about him if his confirmation goes up for a vote.

- Eliminating a restriction that requires BATFE to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old:

Seriously, are curios and relics (the federal term for firearms more than 50 years old, also known as C&Rs) a major factor in gun violence?  Are there gang members out there slaughtering each other in droves with M1 Garands, M1903 Springfields, Mausers, and other 50+ year old firearms?  I highly doubt it.  Certainly there are no school shootings being perpetrated with firearms made before 1963.  The only people this affects are law-abiding collectors, who scour far and wide for that rare collectible.  Going after C&Rs makes even less sense when you consider that the vast majority of them are either bolt-action (like the M1903 and Mauser) or have fixed magazines (like the M1 Garand), which makes them even less likely to be used in gun crimes.

- Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders, and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks: More training is always good.  I just hope the money is spent effectively, and that we're teaching folks more than just telling the kids to grab pencils and try to stab the attacker.

- Provide additional $20 million to help expand the system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 state to 50 states: I suppose this is good if it helps provide better statistics on violent crime and identify trouble spots.

- Providing $30 million in grants to help schools develop emergency response plans: Again, more training is always good, as long as the plans make sense.

- Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people: This is probably the best point in this portion of the plan.  The common denominator in all of the recent mass shootings has been that they were carried out by mentally troubled young men.  Improving the country's mental health system is an important first step in understanding what motivates these individuals to commit crimes and hopefully finding ways to prevent future occurrences.

Four more years...

Is it too much to ask for a presidential (or any other position, really) candidate who:

1) Isn't ass-backward on social issues;

2) Doesn't want to tax-and-spend me (and the country) into oblivion; and

3) Doesn't stick his/her fingers in his/her ears and say "LALALALALALA" any time someone points out that the Second Amendment is, in fact, in the Bill of Rights?

America just re-elected a guy who's 1-for-3, and his opponent was probably also 1-for-3.  Not a very fantastic set of choices there.

Stop SB 249!

This post is turning out to be fairly long-winded, so here's the reader's digest version: if you live in California, please contact your state assemblyperson and encourage him or her to OPPOSE SB 249.



I don't frequently pay much attention to all things political, even on things that could potentially affect my carrer, like patent reform and last year's America Invents Act.  But I'm paying attention to California's SB 249.

SB 249 started its life in early 2011 as a bill submitted by California State Senator Leland Yee, who also happens to be the state senator from my district, which would add provisions to the state's Food and Agricultural Code relating to district agricultural associations.  *Yawn,* right?  The bill got a Senate floor vote in May 2011 and passed.

Then, over a year later in May 2012, while the bill was still pending in the Assembly, Yee used a procedure known as "gut-and-amend" (which is not all that different from "bait-and-switch") to completely revamp the bill, turning it into a penal code revision to ban so-called "conversion kits," which the bill broadly and ambiguously defined as any combination of parts that can convert a firearm with a fixed magazine into an assault weapon as defined under previously existing law.  Those relevant prior laws define an assault weapon to include any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with the capability of accepting a detachable magazine and having at least one of several prohibited features, such as a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or collapsible stock.  Notably, existing California regulations promulgated by the CA Department of Justice specifically define a "fixed magazine" to include a magazine that requires the use of a tool to remove.  In reliance upon the DoJ regulations, hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners in California have used magazine locks commonly known as "bullet buttons" to bring their firearms into compliance with state law; the bullet button prevents the magazine release of a firearm from being actuated using a fingertip, instead requiring the user to activate the mechanism through a small pinhole opening using a small screwdriver or bullet tip -- a mechanism similar to the recessed "reset" button you used to find on digital alarm clocks.

Apparently realizing that the original wording of his bill was so overly broad and vague that it could potentially make criminals out of anyone who owned a legal, magazine-locked rifle and, separately, possessed the parts comprising a standard magazine release (even if those parts were not installed in any functional firearm), Yee then amended the bill again, revising the definition of "conversion kits" to only cover parts that were designed "solely and exclusively" for converting fixed magazine firearms into assault weapons.  By this time, the gun-owning community had already picked up on Yee's latest assault on gun rights, launching a rapidly-spreading social networking campaign to oppose the bill.  Yee and his chief of staff, Adam Kiegwin, then took to Twitter to denounce concerned gun-owners as fear-mongering racists, insisting that SB 249 was only meant to ban a device known as the "Mag Magnet," a magnetized button that attaches (via said magnetism) to an existing bullet button that then allows the bullet button to operate essentially as a standard magazine release.  Given that the Mag Magnet is not designed "solely and exclusively" to convert fixed magazine firearms into assault weapons (it can be used legally to convert fixed magazine firearms into fully functional firearms when shooting out of state, or to convert fixed magazine receivers into fully functional rimfire firearms, which are not subject to the same restrictions as centerfire firearms), however, the only way for SB 249 to achieve this purported function is if it is interpreted so broadly that the words "solely and exclusively" essentially fall out of the bill.

Then the shooting in Aurora, CO happened.  Sensing an opportunity to spin tragedy into political expediency, Yee gutted-and-amended SB 249 yet again, this time to override the DOJ's definition of "fixed magazine"; if passed, the current version of SB 249 would rewrite California assault weapons law to include any centerfire rifle equipped with a magazine lock.  Thus, in yet another act of bait-and-switch, Yee reneged on all of the assurances offered by his staff just one week earlier that they were only interested in the Mag Magnet.  Worse yet, Yee was unabashed about the fact that he was trying to leverage the tragedy in Colorado for his own political gain; in statements made to the press, Yee crowed that the events in Colorado provided "an opportunity" to go after magazine-locked rifles, and he wanted "to take advantage of that."

The potential ramifications of SB 249 are widespread and devastating.  Law-abiding Californians own hundreds of thousands of magazine locked firearms; SB 249 would turn all of these law-abiding gun owners into felons.  Moreover, the current draft of SB 249 provides no registration period for existing firearms; thus, gun owners would have to either turn in their firearms, have a gunsmith weld their magazines permanently into their firearms (a task that is highly unsafe, as removing the magazine is one of the first and most important steps in troubleshooting a jammed weapon), or convert their firearms into "featureless" configurations (configurations that do not include any "prohibited" features, such as pistol grips, forward grips, flash hiders, or collapsible stocks).  The state would potentially face millions of dollars in liability for takings of these firearms under the 5th Amendment, not to mention liabilities for deprivation of 2nd Amendment rights.

To close, I'll just encourage everyone reading this in California to contact their state legislators and express your opposition to SB 249.  For more information, check out the Stop SB 249 fact sheet here.  And for those who like firearms videos, here's a video showing the absurdity and arbitrariness of California's assault weapons laws.

Misinformation about Scary Looking Black Rifles

As a result of the tragedy in Aurora, CO, it seems that the public has once again directed its outrage at the AR-15.  The morning after the shooting, "AR-15" was trending on Twitter, and one of the questions that kept getting posed was, "What legitimate reason is there for a civilian to own an AR-15?"

I'd like to answer that question with another question: what legitimate reason is there for a civilian to own this rifle:

If you answered target or competition shooting, hunting, home defense, for use as a ranch gun (i.e., a rifle that one keeps around a ranch to ward off critters such as coyotes), or really any other reason that you deem legitimate, then congratulations!  You also just named a legitimate reason for a civilian to own this:

Why?  The Ruger Mini-14, the wood-stocked rifle in the first picture, shoots exactly the same round as the AR-15 in the second picture and, like the AR-15, is semi-automatic (meaning that you need to pull the trigger each time you fire a round; not to be confused with fully automatic, where rounds are continuously fired as long as you hold down the trigger).  There are, of course, mechanical and design differences in how the internals of the two rifles actually work, but ultimately, they both spit the same ammunition out of the business end in the same manner.  The AR-15 is just blacker and, to some, scarier looking.

As expected, the media, politicians, and the internet are busy spouting off all sorts of misinformation about the AR-15.  Among the things I've heard or read so far, with reasons why the assertions are bogus in parentheses:

• The AR-15 is an "assault rifle" (it's not; although there is no hard and fast definition of an assault rifle, the concept generally requires a rifle capable of fully automatic fire.  Also note that the "AR" in the name comes from the phrase "ArmaLite Rifle," which is what ArmaLite - the company that first built the rifle - uses to designate its products; it does not stand for "assault rifle."  Alternately, an "assault rifle" is simply a rifle used to assault someone, in which case even a 200 year old muzzle loader can be an assault rifle)
• The AR-15 is an "assault weapon" (an "assault weapon" is a legal fiction that has no meaning outside of a specific law defining the term.  In CA, some AR-15 variations are in fact "assault weapons" by law, but the distinction is arbitrarily based on the appearance of the rifle, not the way it functions as compared to other firearms)
• The AR-15 carries a more lethal payload than a hunting rifle (the AR-15 fires a .223 caliber round, whereas most big game hunting rifles utilize larger caliber and more deadly ammunition, such as the .243 Winchester, .270 Winchester, .308 Winchester, and 30-06 Springfield.  In the below, for example, .223 Remington is #8, whereas .243 Winchester, .270 Winchester, .308 Winchester, and 30-06 Springfield are #10, 13, 14, and 15, respectively) 

• The AR-15 fires farther and more accurately than a hunting rifle (accuracy over long distances is largely tied to the size of the round fired, because the extra weight of a larger round stabilizes the trajectory for a longer distance; because the AR-15 fires a smaller round than many hunting rifles, as noted above, it loses its accuracy more quickly over distance)
• The AR-15 is unsuitable for hunting (given the previous two misconceptions about lethality and accuracy, I'd have expected the AR-15 to be touted as the hunting rifle of all hunting rifles - after all, if you're hunting, wouldn't you want a rifle that is more lethal and more accurate over long distances?  In truth, the AR-15 is unsuited for taking big game, because its ammunition does not reliably kill and bring down larger animals such as deer.  The AR-15 and its .223 caliber round, however, are gaining popularity for hunting smaller game, such as wild pigs or, as mentioned above in the context of the Mini-14, "varmints" like coyotes) 
• The AR-15 fires more rounds without reload (while it may be true that after-market large capacity magazines are more prevalent for AR pattern firearms, any firearm capable of accepting a magazine - including magazine-fed hunting rifles and magazine-fed handguns - can fire as many rounds without reload as the magazine permits; there is nothing special about the AR-15 in this regard)
• The AR-15 is not suited for home defense (on what basis is this assertion made?  Someone please tell that to this young man:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE&feature=player_embedded#! )
• The AR-15 is a military weapon that should not be in civilian hands (Putting aside the minor nitpick that the military does not use the AR-15, because all of its rifles are selective fire and the AR is semi-automatic only, I'm sure this is also what King George III and his generals felt about the flintlock muskets owned by civilians at the time of the American Revolution; like the AR pattern rifles today, flintlock muskets were the standard infantry weapon issued to military servicemen at the time)
• Anyone buying an AR-15 intends to use it on people (the AR-15 is one of the most commonly owned firearms in the country; I highly doubt that all of those folks, or even anything larger than an infinitesimally small fraction of them, have diabolical intentions of turning them on their fellow human beings.)

At this point, you're probably wondering, if the AR-15 is nothing special, then why is it one of the most commonly owned firearm platforms in the country?  The AR-15 does have advantages that make it a hot seller, but by and large, those advantages have nothing to do with whether or not it's more useful to an aspiring mass murderer.  For example: 

• The platform is highly modular, allowing individual owners to customize and adjust their AR-15s to suit their particular needs.  Need a better barrel for competition shooting?  Swap out the barrel for an aftermarket part, or swap out the entire upper receiver assembly (which includes the barrel).  Need a shorter stock for a shooter with shorter arms?  Swap out the stock for a smaller one, or if you've got an AR-15 with an adjustable stock, adjust it.
• After-market parts are abundant, largely because of the aforementioned modularity; it's easy for accessory-makers to design and manufacture replacement parts.
• Relative to many other rifle designs, the AR-15 is easy to disassemble and maintain.  In fact, many AR-15 owners assemble their ARs from scratch using a stripped lower receiver and parts kits.
• A KISS (keep it simple, stupid) AR-15 build can be had on a relatively low budget.

So what is the answer to avoiding future tragedies like the one in Colorado?  I don't know; if I did, I could probably convince the public to appoint me ruler for life of the country on the basis of my policy-making prowess.  What's clear to me, though, is that attacking the weapon used is just knocking down a straw man.

And sometimes it feels like this too...

You tell 'em, Fry.

Don't Stop Believing

I picked up the Rock of Ages movie soundtrack on Amazon.com today, which inevitably has led me to a battle of "Don't Stop Believing" renditions.  This is not a problem for me, because I like remakes of the song; it intrigues me to hear the spins that different artists put on it.

Of course, it all begins with the original.  Classic, it's awesome, and people keep re-making it.  'Nuff said.

Next up chronologically is the Rock of Ages musical version, which I annoyingly cannot find a full version of on YouTube at the moment, so this will have to do.  The backing instrumentals stay pretty true to guitar and piano of the original, though being a Broadway show, the cast of course takes liberties with their performances.  Not a big fan of the unnecessary reminder that south Detroit is in "Michigan!"  Overall, though, it seems like the main goal was to stick close to the original but convert it into an ensemble performance.  Also, the album version of the recording includes this awesome instrumental cover as an "after-credits" type bonus:

Then Glee came along, and all hell broke loose.  Some fans of the original (myself included) loved the Glee remake.  I thought the way they arranged the song for show choir was clever, and while it shared some similarities with the Rock of Ages arrangement, overall it was a completely separate and different piece from both the Rock of Ages version and the original Journey version.  From what I've been able to gather, that's also what a lot of people hated about it.  Peruse some of the YouTube comments on either the Glee track or the Journey original and you'll see people bemoaning that Glee took what was originally a rock anthem and turned it into something else, notwithstanding the fact that the instrumental backing still features a healthy dose of electric guitar.  The Glee version also dramatically changed the key of the song, probably to make it a bit more manageable for Cory Monteith, but is that really a huge crime?  I think some people just feel that Journey shouldn't be touched, period, which I find to be mildly ridiculous.

The Glee version also spawned a pretty cool cover by Sam Tsui.  Musically not super different from the Glee version, though of course it has Sam's own imprint on it.

After owning the pop charts and introducing a whole generation of tweens to Journey, Glee took a second bite at the apple with a refreshed version of Don't Stop Believing (one of three tracks in an epic Journey medley) in its Season One finale episode, appropriately titled "Journey."  This version is clearly a close sibling of the version that aired in the Season One premiere, but the cast had expanded over the course of the season so the arrangement features even more backing vocals, as well as a few new solos.  It also sounds like they added more strings to the instrumental, which I'm sure enraged the Journey die-hards even more because it shifts even further from the song's rock origins.  Personally, I think this is one of the best arrangements to come out of Glee over its three seasons and counting.  From Season Two onward the show seemed to drift away from creative show choir arrangements, and a lot of the later songs have much more  of a "karaoke" feel, which I find unfortunate.

And that brings me to the version that spawned this post in the first place, the new Rock of Ages movie soundtrack version.  My impression so far is that it seems like a total mish-mash of the Glee versions, the Rock of Ages Broadway version, and the original Journey version... and somehow, it works.  It opens with a Glee-Regionals-esque string and piano rendition of the now well-known intro.  The electric guitar fades in after awhile and becomes more prominent throughout the rest of the track, which sounds much more rock by the end.  The vocals have more of a rock feel than the Glee versions, although they still seem much more pop in comparison to Steve Perry.  Interestingly, there are already comments on YouTube for this version opining that this version is superior to the Glee version -- tacitly admitting that the Glee version is the standard to beat, which I don't think is what the Glee haters had in mind at all.

While I think my favorite remake is still the Glee Regionals version, this is definitely a close second.  If it had included the badass instrumental riff that was at the end of the Broadway version, it might have even topped Glee in my book.

I couldn't figure out a good way to close out this post, so I'll just tack in this clip, which is awesome because it combines one of my favorite TV shows, Scrubs, with Journey.

http://www.androidcentral.com/asus-transformer-aio-gets-official-dual-booting-dual-function-windows-8-and-ics-device

Holy overkill, Batman!  Runs Windows 8, and the 18.4" screen undocks to become a way-too-big Android 4.0 tablet?  That's a little too much.  What does one do with an 18.4" tablet that's not exactly portable?  Still, props to Asus for trying crazy stuff.

Tangentially, just saw on Engadget that the stylus input for the Asus Taichi is provided by N-Trig, which is unfortunate.  More tablet makers need to partner with Wacom; N-Trig DuoSense isn't terrible, but Wacom input just seems to be better.

And speaking of Wacom stylus input... Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1!