They may be familiar to some, but not every gunsmith knows the ins and outs of drill bits. Here are the basics.

The graceful, light, and distinctive L.C. Smith Hammerless Double sidelock is a favorite of American shotgunners. Here’s how to fix its most common problems. If you own a Smith and want to make it suitable to shoot again, or if you are presented a Smith to repair, here’s what you need to know about the shotgun.

In June 2010, Kahr Arms purchased Minnesota-based firearms manufacturer, Magnum Research, Inc., maker of the Desert Eagle Pistol and BFR Revolvers in .44 Magnum, .45 LC/.410 or .45/70. Kahr Arms offers a selection of other niche-type firearms, such as the “Tommy Gun” and Auto-Ordnance line of M1 .30 caliber carbines. In this video, Gun Tests Contributing Editor Roger Eckstine shows off two of the company’s big-hole BFR wheelguns.

Beretta USA introduced the BU-9 Nano as its entry into the pocket 9mm pistol category last September. Initial shipments of the American-made pistol left the Accokeek, Maryland factory beginning in November 2011, with a suggested retail price of $475. In this video, Gun Tests’ Contributing Editor Roger Eckstine gets a detailed explanation of how easy the Nano is to break down for maintenance. The Nano's modularity provides for simple disassembly and easy cleaning. Safely disassemble the pistol by first engaging the striker deactivator, a patent pending safety mechanism that eliminates the need to pull the trigger prior to disassembly.

Gun Reports - News

Firearms Coalition Co-Director Jeff Knox

Jeff Knox: Gun Control Doesn't Work

(GunReports.com) -- A recent editorial by Jeff Knox on www.firearmscoalition.org makes the case that gun-control laws are actually crimes.

If firearms were indeed as inherently dangerous as gun control advocates suggest, there should be millions of crimes, murders, suicides, and accidents involving firearms each year, and those numbers should be escalating since the total number of firearms and firearms owners have risen substantially over the past few years.

In reality, numbers of firearms related crime and accidents have steadily dropped while gun sales have gone through the roof and more states have liberalized laws dealing with the carry of arms in public. Independent, peer reviewed studies show that firearms are used 5 times more often to stop crime than to commit crime – and that doesn't count police use or the deterrent factor of criminals knowing their intended victims might be armed. Guns are used by private citizens to stop criminal activity some 2.5 million times each year and rarely do they even fire a shot doing it. Recreational shooters fire billions of rounds each year, but firearms injury accident numbers keep going down and are at record lows.

Gun control laws only impact those who obey them – the law-abiding. There is no logic – or evidence – to support restrictions on the good guys.

In the early 1970s, when Neal Knox was editor and publisher of Rifle and Handloadermagazines, he created a bumper sticker that posed the question, "Where Has a Gun Law Reduced Crime?" He knew that the answer to the question was "Nowhere." Every credible study has reached that conclusion and that answer was borne out yet again in 2003 and 2004 respectively when the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, and the National Academy of Science both attempted to settle the issue once and for all. The CDC and NAS each set up panels of experts who conducted comprehensive reviews of all of the available research on gun control laws with the objective of identifying which specific strategies were most effective at reducing "gun violence" in crime, suicide, and accidents.

The two groups independently concluded that available data was insufficient to prove that any gun control laws, alone or combined, are effective at reducing criminal misuse of firearms, suicides using firearms, or firearms related injury accidents.

Even though these organizations have track records of gun control advocacy, and the members of the panels were virtually unanimous in their personal support for gun control, they were still unable to locate credible evidence to demonstrate any positive effect from any gun control scheme.

The CDC and NAS panels reviewed over 250 published academic studies, almost 100 books, and nearly 50 government reports all covering some 80 different gun control schemes – from background checks and waiting periods to registration and outright bans on entire classes of firearms – some covering laws dating back 100 years or more. Had the subject of their inquiries been almost anything other than gun control, or the panels had been truly unbiased, the lack of supporting evidence would have been recognized as proof in itself and the panels would have reached the obvious conclusion that gun control laws do not work. That indeed they cannot work because they address tools not behavior or the social circumstances at the roots of that behavior.

If gun control did work there would undoubtedly be enough evidence to allow these experts to reach a conclusion other than "inconclusive." The experts' inability to reach a positive conclusion is even more astounding when it is considered that the majority of the existing data has been generated by researchers who have publicly expressed a personal bias in favor of gun control and who were funded by organizations such as the Joyce and MacArthur foundations, which have gun control as part of their organizational agenda. The CDC and NAS panels' conclusions of "inconclusive" reveal more about the researchers’ own bias than the causes and possible cures of criminal behavior.

One of the most difficult challenges of the gun rights movement is overcoming the emotional, gut reaction that people think of as "common sense." It is easy to assume that more gun control will result in less crime; it seems obvious. But the truth is counter-intuitive. In reality, more guns equal less crime while more restrictions result in higher crime. This is true because reasonable, responsible, law-abiding people remain reasonable, responsible, and law-abiding whether they have a gun or not, but when they do have a gun, they are better able to stop or prevent criminal activity. Criminals and idiots do what criminals and idiots do regardless of laws to the contrary and firearms restrictions merely guarantee them a safer working environment.

The truth is that there is no gun control law that actually works. Gun control laws are wholly ineffective at reducing crime, suicide, or accidents, and they often snare innocents in their complicated red tape. They cost hundreds of millions of dollars in direct and indirect costs to taxpayers leaving fewer resources available for truly effective prevention programs. Advocates of gun control are long on emotion, but short on results. Citizens should demand proof of efficacy before funding or allowing any governmental agency to usurp personal liberties. Not only are gun control laws ineffective, they are counterproductive – not to mention unconstitutional.

Gun control is a crime.

www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

Reader Comments

Thanks for bringing into focus truths that are so often ignored or obscured.

Comment by: buckwoods | August 5, 2010

If there are 60 deaths per 100,000 in Iraq, and 80.5 in Washington DC, You are 25% more likely to be shot in DC than Iraq. Conclusion, The U.S. should pull out of Washington, DC. Gun control simply doesn't stop violent firearm crime. Gun control is a figment of the UN and the US AG's imagination. They should stop wasting our hard earned tax dollars on bullcrap like Gun Control and the Brady bunch. Semper Fi

Comment by: Sharps | August 6, 2010

Links to, or .pdf copies of, those published studies by the CDC and NAS would have been useful. I could provide them to my acquaintances who still think gun laws will protect them from crime with any kind of weapon.

Comment by: david b | August 6, 2010

Links to, or .pdf copies of, those published studies by the CDC and NAS would have been useful. I could provide them to my acquaintances who still think gun laws will protect them from crime with any kind of weapon.

Comment by: david b | August 6, 2010

Links to or .pdf copies of the CDC and NAS published studies would have been useful. I could give them to my acquaintances who still think gun laws will protect them from crime with any kind of weapon.

Comment by: david b | August 6, 2010

Of course, delivery of findings such as those cited in the above article continue to provide a degree of comfort to those of us who espouse our Second Amendment rights. That said, however, we absolutely cannot relax our vigilance. It is incumbent on every gun owner to take membership in and support as many Second Amendment rights organizations as they can. It is also equally important that each gun owner maintain a dialogue that emphasizes their support of the Second Amendment with their elected representatives at the national, state, and local levels.

None of us can afford to sit idly by and do nothing in defense of our rights. We all have a stake in this fight, and it is wise to remember that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing in the face of that evil.

Comment by: canovack | August 6, 2010

The only gun control laws that may (and it's a big maybe) have some effect on crime are those that increase punishment for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime. Even those probably have no deterrent effect on future crimes or criminals, but it does take a single criminal out of circulation for a longer time. But an armed citizen, protecting himself and others, might take that same criminal out permanently.

Comment by: Visigoth52 | August 7, 2010

I sure wish I could get my hands on a copy of all those reports so those of us that have to put up with the STUPID gun lsws here in commieforia could go and drop it in the laps of the law makers here. God Bless America and Our Troops Past Present and Future Keeping to My Oath Locked Loaded and Keeping My Powder Dry

Comment by: bear1 | August 7, 2010

Here is the link to the original CDC study: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm Here is a link to an "official" article about the NAS study which is only available as a book so far as I have found. Do not buy the book - it supplies no extra, useful information. http://www.infocusmagazine.org/5.1/soc_gun_policy.html As I said in my article, if this were almost any other subject, the conclusion would have been clear that gun control doesn't work, but since it's about guns, their big conclusions are that there is not enough evidence. What that really means that there is not enough evidence to reach the evidence they want to reach and until there is, they are going to "reserve judgement."

Comment by: JeffKnox | August 8, 2010

Thanks Jeff. I am hoping that it will give me enough for a start with the right people at least. We have got to start some where with these morons and their idiot lawss that go against our 2 amendment rights. God Bless America and Our Troops Past Present and Future

Keeping to My Oath Locked Loaded and Keeping My Powder Dry

Comment by: bear1 | August 8, 2010

There's a snake in the grass here folks! I haven't had time to fully read the first link (CDC) Jeff kindly provided, although the second article (infocusmagazine) has a few very telling quotes: (boldface emphasis added)

If criminal-justice and crime-prevention policy is to have a sound basis, a comprehensive research program on firearms is needed, and the federal government should support such an effort, the report says.

And to conduct more rigorous and comprehensive studies, scientists need appropriate access to federal and state data on gun use, manufacturing, and sales.

Firearms violence is a serious problem in the United States. The report's call for better data and research reflects that reality.

Don't be lured into a false sense of security by agencies we know to be anti- reporting they cannot find data to back up their argument. They just want us all (at least the 53% of us who pay taxes) to kick in some more funds for their tailored studies.

Comment by: P V B | August 8, 2010

PVB is absolutely correct. As I said - and actually mis-said in my last post - the conclusion these reviews reached was that more research is needed so they can reach the conclusions they are looking for. Most of these people "know in their hearts" that guns are bad and gun control really, really works... They just need more of your money to prove it.

Comment by: JeffKnox | August 8, 2010

Jeff points out an interesting and important tactic of the anti-Second Amendment crowd. Beware of organizations who appear to be in support of our cause, or that tout themselves as scientifically neutral. They bear close scrutiny to determine the nature of their true objectives.

Along that same line of thought, we also need to be careful of they way we spend our money as consumers of products marketed by corporations that are seemingly benign. Some examples of products that I routinely shun because of their financial support of anti-Second Amendment organizations are as follows: Levi Strauss & Company, Oscar Meyer Foods, and Sarah Lee Foods. There are more, but their identities escape my aging mind right now. I do, however, recognize them when I see them being advertised and/or find them for sale in retail outlets. I employ this same principle when I am solicited for contributions to organizations. I always ask the solicitors what their organization's stand is with reference to the Second Amendment. If they do not support our rights, or if they can't answer my question, I flatly refuse to contribute. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has routinely shown itself to be an anti-Second Amendment organization, so I have joined the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) who strongly support our Second Amendment rights.

While my boycott of anti-gun businesses and organizations may be of little significance in itself, if we all did likewise.....and made certain that these businesses and organizations know why we boycott them, it may have some positive effect on their political outlook.

Comment by: canovack | August 9, 2010

Great point canovack! Of course, figuring out any organization's true position can be a challenge....

We also need to be careful that we don't succumb to "ammo panic" and buy everything from Walmart or the big-box outdoor stores, as they are a bit of a special interest unto themselves, and routinely inflict harm to the many small businesses which have enabled us to enjoy our passion over the years.

Comment by: P V B | August 9, 2010

Well stated PVB! We Texans have enjoyed a plethora of gun shows in which we can purchase firearms, ammunition, and accessories at reasonable prices since it is quite acceptable to haggle with gun show exhibitors. While many of the gun show exhibitors are proprietors of local gun shops, many exhibitors don't maintain a shop with the attendant overhead costs. That said, it is good business for us to make purchases from our local gun shops, since it is these businessmen who are helping to keep our rights at the forefront by helping us to buy what we choose. I have also found that many gun shop owners can be quite reasonable with the prices of their merchandise if they are asked for the "best price" on many of their items.

Comment by: canovack | August 9, 2010

I really like this particular issue you a framework, it does provide the way I think a lot of feed. However, from my observation, I only hope that when other feedback stacked, people today continue to point, rather than embark on a lengthy news day. Anyway, thank you for this very good point, although I can not go along with it the whole, I think your point of view.

Comment by: apergyAlere | August 17, 2011