4/18/2007

16 Responses to “I Think the More Important Question Is Any Other One Than the One You’re Asking”

1. Tucker seemed to know what they are. If so, he might be the only one.

   J. Peden (589ecf) — 4/18/2007 @ 8:36 pm

   
   

2. I have prosecuted an assault weapon charge where the gun had a barrel shroud, among other characteristics. As the term implies, it’s a shroud around a barrel, designed for a weapon that fires multiple rounds in a short period of time, causing the barrel to become hot. I have heard it described as a “cooling shroud.”

   Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/18/2007 @ 8:48 pm

   
   

3. Thanks, I was going to guess that it was that ventilator-looking sleeve, and just finished looking it up. That’s it.

   J. Peden (589ecf) — 4/18/2007 @ 9:08 pm

   
   

4. I think a competent politician could have BS’d her way through that and not left Tucker Carlson holding her bloody scalp.

   See Dubya (a82fc7) — 4/18/2007 @ 9:32 pm

   
   

5. Ruger Mini-14 has a “barrel shroud”. Best dang squirrel rifle out there.

   Bite me.

   Steve B (7060ba) — 4/18/2007 @ 10:21 pm

   
   

6. I can’t exactly remember how the rules read, but I think the fact that she has personally been affected by gun violence means that she doesn’t have to be knowledgable about how guns work or what her own legislation entails. Rosa Brooks will probably explain it to us sometime soon.

   JVW (bcc29b) — 4/18/2007 @ 10:39 pm

   
   

7. Firing quickly, semi- or full-auto or even just manually, that barrel gets hot. So almost all military-styled rifles have a barrel shroud, going clear back to the venerable old Springfield 1903 that my grandfather had in the trenches of World War I. If you don’t have one, you risk being in the position of the late lamented Zarqawi, who burnt his fingers in that video of him shooting and raving in the desert.

   Simon Kenton (b72aee) — 4/19/2007 @ 1:26 am

   
   

8. I knew these liberal wussietards would be calling for more stupid gun control laws knowing how emotional they act when it comes to such incedents like that at VT and this silly old hen is no different

   krazy kagu (6c9901) — 4/19/2007 @ 6:23 am

   
   

9. as a manual firearms enthusiast who still doesn’t shoot very often, no barrel shrouds here. back in law school i inherited a shotgun from my grandfather. it had something at the end of the barrel called a “cutts compensator”, designed to diffuse barrel gases in different directions to cut down on, but not totally eliminate recoil. i didn’t like the gun, so i put up an ad on the bulletin board of the local police station. several days later, here i am in an open area behind the station with the sergeant, who test-fires the gun. then he turns to me and says…
   “you say this gun doesn’t kick, huh?”
   with great effort, because i wanted the deal to go through (it did), i avoided giving him my “you’re a stone idiot” look. he said he was getting it for a kid just starting out hunting, and i felt bad for this kid, starting out with such an inappropriate gun. i was fortunate enough to start out with a winchester manual single-barrel 20 gauge; lightweight, simple, effective

   assistant devil's advocate (f7a98b) — 4/19/2007 @ 7:32 am

   
   

10. ADA, you’re lucky…

    I started shooting on a .38 police special (Grandpa’s from when he was a letter carrier in KS), and .44 Magnum (ow… Forehead dents are not fun) and a 12 gauge pump.

    Grandpa figured that to learn how to handle a gun (he was also ex-military, and was a VERY good teacher), I might as well learn with real guns…

    He’s not doing too well these days, and soon those guns will be mine… I intend to teach kids of my own how to handle firearms using them.

    Though the .44 Magnum might wait a year or two… Seriously, ow…

    Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/19/2007 @ 7:51 am

    
    

11. Uh, the compensator isn’t designed to reduce recoil, it’s designed to reduce the tendency of the muzzle to climb after a shot. i.e., squirt some of the gasses upward to push the muzzle back down. Helps you get back on target quicker for a follow-up shot.

    dubya (753723) — 4/19/2007 @ 9:40 am

    
    

12. That hag was PWN3D!!!!1!!1 by…

    Tucker Carlson? Ha!

    CTD (7054d2) — 4/19/2007 @ 2:09 pm

    
    

13. Geez Pat. You know we’ll be in the serious doo-doo when and if the gun-grabbers actually know what they’re talking about. Their stupidity is our greatest ally. The good Congresswoman is only marginally worse than the Senior Senator from CA.

    Another Drew (8018ee) — 4/19/2007 @ 4:03 pm

    
    

14. AD: which Cali Senator is the “senior” one? If memory serves, Thelma and Louise were both elected the same day.

    Xrlq (f52b4f) — 4/20/2007 @ 5:01 am

    
    

15. If they were not already parts of firearms where they were appropriate, the gun-banners would be calling for them as a safety device.

    htom (412a17) — 4/20/2007 @ 5:12 am

    
    

16. The deeper point, beyond McCarthy’s lack of knowledge, is perhaps being missed here. The presence or absence of a “barrel shroud” makes a firearm no more nor less lethal, and the attempt to legislate this safety device out of existence is not a step towards less gun misuse or gun crime.

    Apparently the new gun ban, like the previous gun ban, is an attempt to divide and conquer. By piecemeal criminalization of classes of weapons based not upon lethality or function but upon appearance, soon all firearms can be made illegal. First it is barrel shrouds (or hand grips or magazine capacity, etc., ad nauseum). Next it will be caliber (California already outlaws .50 caliber weapons). Oleg Volk has some amusing posters about this: some firearms are too big, some too small, some too powerful, some too quiet – the gun banners want them all.

    Austin mike (not the Mike above) (e2b7e5) — 4/22/2007 @ 12:54 pm