Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

Sturm and Ruger

By GhostOfTiber in Culture
Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 12:00:00 PM EST
Tags: Guns, Sturm, Ruger, Mini 14, Shooting (all tags)

The first thing you need to know about the Mini-14 is that you don't know anything if you trust the wikipedia entry. To understand the Mini-14, it is important to also understand the history of the Ruger company. Sit down, grab your Ruger, and get ready for the history of the weapon, the men and the company.

Personal Notes
The Ruger Mini-14 has had a huge following everywhere from the halls of law enforcement to the survivalist. It has been a popular gun and part of the mystique is the fact that Ruger made nothing short of a ton of accessories for it. This led to books about utter nonsense to some surprising efforts to turn it into a well tuned machine. If you read those links and you think about the Virginia Tech shootings, realize that things could have been worse. While the VT shooter didn't use a Mini-14, they have been popular among other mass murderers. The problem is mostly in the manufacture. Having owned the plinker version, I can say it is built cheaply. Most of the Mini-14 is stamped steel, and it likes to fall apart when warming up or cooling down. The plinker handled recoil well enough, but a 22 Long Rifle doesn't have to take much recoil in the first place. Drop it, and the rifle quickly became a mad rush to pull all the screws out of the grass before they were stomped underfoot or started to rust. Trying to find screws under a pile of those 22 casings wasn't fun. After the stamped steel and poor fitment, the wood itself wasn't laminated. I had complained about this before with my Ruger 96/17. Neither weapon was built to be the Real Ultimate Sniper System out of box. Neither one had a free floated barrel, the trigger was coarse and heavy, and the wood wasn't laminated. The stock was prone to swelling and absorb water, and this oftentimes translated to jamming. What might have been a good buy turned sour quickly, but with a little work, the 96/17 turned out OK. The Mini-14, however, was a complete wash and eventually passed off to family looking for "something to survive the end of the world".

We don't like them much anyway.

Sturm and Ruger: The People
Both men are celebrated for starting the Ruger Firearms Company but Ruger was the brain behind the operation. Ruger and His Guns recounts the story:

Bill Ruger was born in Brooklyn, New York on 21 June 1916. He developed his passion for guns when his father presented him with his own rifle. As a college student in North Carolina he converted an empty room into a machine shop and came up with preliminary designs for what evolved into a light machine gun for the Army. ... In 1949, a 33-year-old Bill Ruger partnered with Alexander Sturm to establish Sturm, Ruger & Company "with a meager $50,000 investment" to produce a .22 caliber target pistol in a little red barn near the Southport, Connecticut train station. GunZone

Alexander Sturm died in 1951. Bill Ruger would live until July 6th, 2002. There isn't much to know about Alexander Sturm:

Ruger fortuitously met the eccentric Alexander Sturm, a Yale grad, artist, published writer and gun collector living in Westport. Sturm was willing to finance Ruger's Mark I design for $50,000 (about $350,000 today). They joined forces and names, and the Mark I was a hit. A reviewer in American Rifleman said, "We like this new gun a lot and at the very moderate price of $37.50 it represents real value."

In 1951 Sturm died from hepatitis at age 28, and Ruger took over the business (the red eagle emblem Sturm designed was forever turned black when embossed on the company's guns). New York Press

Sturm kept himself out of the lime-light. He was the son of sculptor Justin Sturm, and the grandson of World War I hero Alexander McCormick. Sturm wrote The Problem Fox and From Ambush to Zig-Zag (also about foxes) before he graduated Yale. What we do know about Sturm is that he met Ruger purely by chance and was impressed with Rugers Mark I design. The Mark I was a hack, Ruger had copied it from World War I machine guns, but it was enough to convince Sturm to invest in the company. In the five years after 1940, Ruger had tried to sell the Mark I to the Army and eventually founded the Ruger Corporation. However it wasn't until Ruger met Sturm and fully separated from Auto-Ordnance Company that Sturm and Ruger finally took off.

Ruger's early life is a bit more public. He lived in New York city with his mother and her father. Ruger spent his childhood in the library studying mechanics, cars and engineering. Fairly typical for a youngster, but what really inspired him at the young age of 13 was the 30 Krag he purchased for $15 out of the back of Popular Mechanics. According to Ruger and His Guns, Bill Ruger and William Lett took the train to Forest Park and spent the afternoon in front of a campfire and target shooting. It was a different time, and this was considered a social norm. The Krag young Ruger had purchased must have been quite a kit or come with considerable ammunition, perhaps the new smokeless powders which so interested Ruger, because surplus Krags were sold stateside for $1.50 at their introduction. Ruger's first commercial gun from Sturm and Ruger - the Mark I pistol - would sell for $37.50. A target version would sell for $57. Sturm did not have any connection to Hitler or Ernst Hanfstaengl, to the best of my research the Ruger Mark I's design is purely original.

Things went along swimmingly for the fledgling company. Ruger produced new gun designs: The Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum revolver in 1959 (updated to the Redhawk in 1973), and the Model 77 hunting rifle in 1968. The Hawks would become a police staple due to their excellent design and affordability. Modern versions are popular in hunting and Taurus now produces a line of Ruger hunting pistols. The Ruger M77 is still produced today in over 20 calibers with only minor changes in the design. New plants were opened in New Hampshire and Arizona in 1980. But, times were changing for the man who had won "best marksman" in his New York highschool.

The Lawsuit Era
Hamilton vs AccuTek was the landmark case for anti-gun legislation. Filed in 1996 and judged in 1999, appeals continued through 2001. The case currently sits in a somewhat strange state:

On April 26, 2001, the New York Court of Appeals issued a decision that declined to subscribe to a radically expanded view of tort law liability, the "market share" theory of liability, in run-of-the-mill tort cases. The decision was a victory for WLF, which filed a brief urging the court not to expand tort liability in that manner. Under a "market share" theory of liability, a plaintiff seeks to impose liability on a manufacturer based on its share of the market for the product that injured the plaintiff; it is pursued in cases in which there is no evidence regarding which manufacturer's product caused the injury. The court agreed with WLF that market share liability undermines a bedrock principle of tort law that a manufacturer can be held liable in product liability actions only when the plaintiff can demonstrate that the manufacturer actually made the product that caused the injury. WLF

The current state of gun liability for manufacturers then is held to the same standard as appliances. If someone can prove injury through a defective product, the manufacturer is liable. However, misuse of the product is not something the manufacturer can be held accountable for, much in the same way Ford is not held accountable for traffic accidents between two vehicles in good mechanical condition. The appeal cited settled the case and overturned the lower courts decision, thus vindicating Ruger. While the case was being conducted, Ruger started to have second thoughts. He had grown up shooting as a sport, seen two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, the A-Team and countless uses and unintended misuses of his company's products. On March 30, 1989, Ruger penned a letter to the house which would go on to be called The Ruger Letter.

The Ruger Letter
My opinion of the Ruger Letter has always been that Ruger was looking to end the endless stream of lawsuits in some way which would not compromise the design of his guns. Being a mechanic at heart, this was the fun part for him and changing the design of a weapon for a legal requirement wasn't something which Ruger was interested in. In an interview with Tom Brocklaw, Ruger made the statements: "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun", "I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 or 30 round mags or my folding stock" and "I see nothing wrong with waiting periods". This incensed gun owners but reveals that Ruger, rather than compromise the design of a weapon, would rather offer up accessories divided between the civilian and law enforcement markets. To this day, Sturm and Ruger does not directly sell magazines over 10 rounds to the public and marks such items as folding stocks and magazines "Law Enforcement Only". Critics are quick to point out that the intent of this policy may simply be to stoke the ego of gun owners since accessories can be purchased easily through resellers and there is no legal requirement for this, but most likely this is simply a result of overseas competition making parts for a rifle they saw used by foreign militaries and in a caliber they could find ammo for aplenty. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Ruger found it aplenty once the Mini-14 was chambered in Soviet calibers, and cheap knockoffs from the Asian market soon flooded the US market where Ruger had left the gap.

Foreign Knockoffs and Ruger: The KAC-556
The KAC-556 deserves a mention here. It is the Asian market knockoff of the AC-556. Despite poor assembly and metallurgy, the KAC-556 with Russian or Chinese stamps actually commands more than a Ruger Mini-14 or AC-556. Most of the imported KAC-556s were sold for under $100 and considered unreliable crap, but for unreliable crap, the rifle was treated as a grab bag of Mini-14, Mini-30, and AC-556 parts. The K, to the best of my recollection, is a slur for Kalashnikov. Somewhere along the line, this copy of the AC-556 (Rugers "law enforcement" carbine) lost whatever name it was originally assigned and gained legendary status. An honest, original KAC-556 with Chinese, Korean or Soviet stamps commands upwards of $10,000. However most AC-556s on the market and KAC-556s on the market today are a horrible agglomeration of each others parts and the names have become synonymous.

...but back to The Ruger Letter

The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives.

People with a forgiving attitude see this as Ruger trying to compromise between owning sporting arms and military arms. They have a point: Because we can't put inanimate objects on trial for murder unless we assign them human characteristics through magical thinking, we can only limit these objects by limiting their configuration. The Ruger Letter directly led to the Assault Weapons Ban. Opponents to this view are quick to point out that the Mini-14 and the Mini-30 had already been released. Rather than say that Ruger saw beauty in the design, the opposing camp simply points out that Ruger as a company would have been in serious trouble had the legislature divided up weapon classes beyond what we have today. Instead of what became the Assault Weapons Ban which limited accessories in exactly this way, this camp would have divided up weapons based on their reloading mechanism. Bolt weapons would have been one class, followed by lever action, followed by semiautomatic, followed ultimately by fully automatic. Today the law is written to simply distinguish weapons between fully automatic versus everything else. Either way, Ruger's Mini-14 and Mini-30 design carried on as weapons produced before the Assault Weapons Ban were grandfathered in. Since the Assault Weapons Ban couldn't actually deprive people of arms they owned before it went into effect and could not grab these arms as estate when their current owners died, the ban proved ineffective and was allowed to expire.

The Chapter Ends
Sturm and Ruger still produce designs Ruger had come up with looking at World War 1 weapons and older even through today. Nothing much has changed in arms from the bow and arrow. The arrows became smaller and made out of better metal. The string has been replaced with fire, and eventually better and quicker powders. The shaft has been made hollow. Instead of a curve or wood, we use a long tube of inflexible steel. While some gun owners will never forgive Ruger for his letter and it's offer of compromise, Ruger still believed in the second amendment:

"The people who are demanding more laws to control guns should instead be demanding more laws to control thugs. Americans, especially in suburban and rural areas, have a right to defend themselves; a concept lost on urbanites trained to dial 911. The Constitution says what it says. 'The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.' If you can't live with that, then you shouldn't be trying to be an American citizen.


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


The Ruger Letter
o Ruger profiteering at the expense of engineering 0%
o Ruger trying to save the gun industry through compromise 100%

Votes: 5
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o wikipedia entry
o Ruger company
o utter nonsense
o a well tuned machine
o things could have been worse
o other mass murderers
o 22 Long Rifle
o Ruger 96/17
o Ruger and His Guns
o GunZone
o New York Press
o The Problem Fox
o From Ambush to Zig-Zag
o 30 Krag
o Ruger and His Guns [2]
o Forest Park
o Redhawk
o Model 77 hunting rifle
o Taurus
o minor changes
o Hamilton vs AccuTek
o appeals continued through 2001
o A-Team
o incensed gun owners
o Soviet calibers
o offer of compromise
o Also by GhostOfTiber

Display: Sort:
Sturm and Ruger | 87 comments (49 topical, 38 editorial, 2 hidden)
Excellent this is what I have been waiting (none / 0) (#2)
by mybostinks on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 11:20:38 PM EST



Excellent article, even tho I hate guns. Well done (none / 0) (#5)
by dakini on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 12:51:37 AM EST

" May your vision be clear, your heart strong, and may you always follow your dreams."
Um (none / 1) (#37)
by trhurler on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:03:25 AM EST

You "hate" guns? You hate inanimate objects? Wow. You must be insane.

Do you know anything about what you "hate"?

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Hey... (1.50 / 1) (#41)
by BJH on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:43:31 AM EST

...we are talking about dakini here.

Not insane, just certifiably stupid.
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

Does hating (none / 0) (#43)
by brain in a jar on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 07:10:29 AM EST

overcooked cabbage make me insane?

It is inanimate, but I sure as hell ain't eatin' it.

Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.
[ Parent ]

Oh, (none / 0) (#47)
by trhurler on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 12:54:46 PM EST

I won't eat it either, but I don't HATE it. I mean, it has uses. You can hide it in your disliked coworker's computer case (carefully - don't short anything,) and watch him hate life for MONTHS! :)

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
it's like a sexual fetish or something nt (none / 1) (#6)
by circletimessquare on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 01:02:59 AM EST

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

gun porn /nt (none / 1) (#16)
by Liar on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 01:31:58 PM EST

I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
gun porn! (3.00 / 7) (#20)
by j1mmy on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 04:18:07 PM EST

gun porn

[ Parent ]
+3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 (3.00 / 4) (#23)
by GhostOfTiber on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 05:04:28 PM EST


[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

HOW DID YOU KNOW? (1.50 / 2) (#24)
by GhostOfTiber on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 05:05:32 PM EST

Don't you turn to plastic when you just can't find any good wood for your butt stock?

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

well done (none / 1) (#8)
by sye on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 03:43:55 AM EST

"The people who are demanding more laws to control guns should instead be demanding more laws to control thugs. Americans, especially in suburban and rural areas, have a right to defend themselves; a concept lost on urbanites trained to dial 911. The Constitution says what it says. 'The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.' If you can't live with that, then you shouldn't be trying to be an American citizen."

If you can't live with cocks, then you shouldn't be building henhouses.... sounds right.

commentary - For a better sye@K5
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in

We Lack Not Law ... (2.40 / 5) (#17)
by Peahippo on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 01:53:55 PM EST

... but enforcement of those laws. Murderous thugs in inner cities -- the largest source of the violent crime that so consumes the attention of the average citizen -- are left to their own devices. If anything, they are encircled with cops, whose primary objective is to "keep the niggers out of White America".

In that light, guns are not a problem. The real problem lies in our lack of political will to act on clear authority to stop clear actions of violent crime and supporting social crime. Simply put, if the cops would put down their papers and donuts, and go out and engage the violent criminal directly, we'd have less crime in the most violent areas ... eventually. In the short term, there'd be a bit of a shooting war, granted, but that's the price to pay for letting the inner cities (and now decaying suburbs) fester with a nigger culture that eats, farts and breathes VIOLENT CRIME.

To be fair, it would also be a BIG help to stop criminalizing other aspects of nigger culture, particularly drugs. Drug "criminals" fill our jails. They were made criminals by our Whitebread pet peeve against putting mind-altering substances into our bodies. What people do with their OWN bodies is none of the concern of the rest of the populace. Nigger culture is appalling, but it's largely free to offend others; it's also free to enjoy liberty, as when I grab my cock and look at pr0n, or when CTS fondles himself when he reads about more dead Iraqis, or when Rusty rolls in Crisco{tm} when he reads our endless trolls. The activities causing social offense are the ones most in need of the protections and permissions afforded by the concept of individual liberty.

I wouldn't call cops lazy (none / 1) (#22)
by GhostOfTiber on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 04:53:21 PM EST

Being a cop is always walking a fine line between being the moral authority and being the law.  The cops are supposed to be the law, they are not supposed to be a moral authority.  The idea seems strange, but the point is to avoid selective enforcement and let the judge be the moral authority.  In this sense, the cops aren't lazy, but they are victims of the political inaction you cite.

On the other hand, I think America is losing it's sense of personal responsibility.  I loathe to advocate the government fixing anything, I think it's wholly up to the individual.  If I had my way, life would be an episode of The 300, which was essentially colonial America.  Colonial America was made of citizen-soldiers simply because it couldn't be any other way.  When we decided that we didn't have to take personal responsibility, we lost mandatory ROTC training in college and shooting sports in highschool and started to think foolish things like food was just something that came in little wrappers.  Instead of understanding the universality of the evil in our hearts and making an effort to ensure our fellow human won the same struggle we fought in ourselves, we ask ourselves such absolutely idiot questions like "Gee, if only we didn't ever invent guns, we wouldn't have as many murders, right?"

My favorite quote on the morality of violence is from Marilyn Manson: "All Cain had when he killed Abel was the rock in his hand and the evil which dwelled in his heart".

Thankfully we live in an age where life doesn't have to be an episode of the 300.  We owe our luxury of not living up to personal responsibility to men much greater than ourselves.  Every time some jackass posts something like "blame the guns", they spit on the efforts of those people who simply couldn't live any other way.  Life is better now then in Sparta or Colonial America, but it's not different for us as people.

If you want to take a step back from the politically charged topic of guns, there's Collapse and Guns, Germs, and Steel.  (OK I lied we're back on guns, but they might as well have called it "Very Fast Rocks, Germs, and Steel").  If you were to go back in time and tell the founding fathers that we let just about anyone do anything they want with their own deadly weapon (cars) but had to fine people for littering, they might have seriously considered striking the second amendment.  Unfortunately, Drivers Education is essentially state funded parenting.  Bring back the videos of the corpses flying through the windshields!

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Oops! Sorry, GoT. My Mistake. (none / 1) (#25)
by Peahippo on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 05:37:38 PM EST

When I said "papers", I really meant their huge sheafs of bullshit reports that they "have to" file when doing full police work. Cops can choose to go easy on that crap instead of just packing the system full of paper, which only makes their administrators blissfully happy and the taxpayers fervently angry. I mean, how would you feel, if you are standing on your porch having reported a crime, only to wait for hours because the cops in the area are busy filing and refiling reports back at HQ?

To illustrate the difference between effective police work and just clogging the system with paper, one of the cops in my city loves to file paperwork. For example, when she responds to a citizen complaint about some rube parking across a driveway (and remember, that's true even if you're only a couple of inches in), she does the entire deal: ticket car, wait for tow truck, watch the tow, then a return downtown to file her report. Other cops have noted that all she should be doing is at least finding who parked the car illegally and telling the rube to move the fucking thing or that she WILL tow it. However, the latter action takes 15 minutes instead of the full 2 hours of the first action. Remember, when waiting on a tow and filing her report, she is not "in service" and doesn't respond to 911 calls. Heavens! Good thing, since those 911 calls might be a little dangerous sometimes!

Another way cops can pad their shifts is to pick up abandoned bicycles that they see laying around. Each bicycle can take a good hour and a few forms to process.

Yet another way to pad is to look for suspected drunks. The public does like that kind of thing, but I've noticed that the public DOESN'T KNOW that full processing of each DUI takes 9 different forms, 2 cops, and about 4 hours each (and honesty, one of the two tends to just sit there while the other one writes). A DUI consumes half of a shift for a full patrol crew.

The police waste so much time on their shifts it's just fucking unbelievable. The good cops who do their jobs and sincerely want to help the public are generally worn out by running all the calls that the slackers avoid (since as I've already said, the slackers take their crew out of service during their driving around and filling out tons of bullshit paperwork). Shit! It's a crime!

[ Parent ]
I LOLed (none / 0) (#27)
by GhostOfTiber on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 05:54:25 PM EST

Yeah yeah, the cops are fallible also.  Again, that's why I'm none too keen on entrusting someone else with the responsibility of order.

I've had the opposite in Philadelphia:  One day I witnessed an accident where a college age girl driving an acura SUV ploughed a Ford Tarus with an elderly couple in it coming home from church (it was sunday morning and they were dressed too nicely to be going to the diner). I jumped into the Acura to pull the keys since the girl didn't even have the sense to kill the engine - billowing smoke quickly going from white to black - and ask if these guys were OK.  I did the housekeeping on the old folks and made sure neither one was injured and got them some water as it was warm out that day.

The police who showed up, well, if they didn't step out of a cruiser I wouldn't have known that they were police.  They were disheveled, barely in uniform, out of breath.  I asked what took them so long since I hadn't managed to flag down a cop before despite a few driving by, and they said that "Some guy is shooting up 42nd st with an AK".
"Bad day then, huh?"
"Naw, we like this stuff.  It's better than getting shot at."

Ah, police humor.

Although a few times as an EMT, there were some real horrorshows of bureaucracy.  Domestics were always the worst for this, especially when both people are violent but one of them in injured.  Omitting the details, we needed the cops to arrest someone one late summer night, but like you pointed out about the paperwork, the guy wasn't willing to slap anyone with cuffs because it would have meant taking sides and making an arrest.  It was stupid, we had to wait until she pretty much took a dirtnap before shoveling her into the wagon.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Kudos to Jared Diamond. (none / 1) (#26)
by Peahippo on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 05:44:02 PM EST

Good call. Diamond is one of those intellectuals who is so mentally accomplished that I frankly feel like an idiot when I read his writings and listen to him speak. He has that nearly magical thing I call "grasp", where in his mind the proper mental structures have been built such that he fully grasps the essential truths of the Human condition. The works you cited are engrossing and provoke a great deal of radical thought. Diamond's GG&S should be required reading in American high schools.

[ Parent ]
Oh come on (none / 0) (#38)
by trhurler on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:07:46 AM EST

What you say here makes no sense unless you mean "supposed to be" in the most theoretical sense. Cops, a few notwithstanding, are in general petty, vengeful high school bullies who grew up and needed a job where they could keep abusing other people. The stupidest of them end up as mall security, but any of them who can think or cheat their way to a liberal arts degree (whatever the easiest one offered might be,) become real cops.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
now you're being theoretical (none / 0) (#48)
by GhostOfTiber on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 01:07:36 PM EST

c'mon now, some people just enjoy service to the community.  At very least, the fact that there's an entire show dedicated to COPS helping people in the community provides an exception to what you're saying.  Of course, there's no COPS: BROOMSTICK RAPE edition.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Are you serious? (none / 0) (#56)
by trhurler on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:10:08 PM EST

COPS? You buy that shit?

Let me explain a few things about COPS that even the director of the show admits in interviews.

1) They may film everything, but they only show the material that presents the police in the best possible light. If they did anything else, they wouldn't be allowed to film.

2) They only film those officers who agree to it, and only if their superiors agree to it. This guarantees there will be no bad cops involved, or at least that any who are involved will know about it and be on their best possible behavior.

3) Even though the public obviously has a right to know, the police get to review all footage, and if they find anything that might indicate that a crime may have been committed by an officer, even inadvertently, that footage will never see the light of day. Nevermind that this is possibly the only social benefit any such show could possibly offer.

So basically what you have is propaganda, pure and simple - the worst propaganda probably anywhere in the first world, in fact.

As for people who just enjoy service to the community, they become church leaders, social workers, and so on. Or they become cops and quit a few years later in disgust. If even a substantial minority of police were honest and upstanding, the rest wouldn't be ABLE to behave as they do. But they're not.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
no shit, hence BROOMSTICK RAPE edition (nt) (none / 0) (#59)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:20:08 AM EST

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

tl;dr -nt (none / 0) (#18)
by Kasreyn on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 03:16:10 PM EST

"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
prove the rectitude of your intent (none / 0) (#19)
by postDigital on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 04:07:19 PM EST

State you support for the government supplying every adult American citizen whose income is below the poverty level with an AR and 1000 rounds of ordinance accompanying it. Just think how it would help eradicate inner city crime.

This is where the wheat gets separated from the chaff; what differentiates real libertarians from GOP castratti; and forces the real right-sided scum to flee to the top of the cess pit, like Bill O'Reilly, seeking a warm and fuzzy return to the days of his youth with mom and dad, while masturbating with a vibrator "shaped like a cock with a little battery in it", as he sexually harasses a female employee.

Yep, Bill O'Reilly, the contemporary conservative's' real manly man...

are you trying to reply to peahippo? (none / 0) (#21)
by GhostOfTiber on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 04:21:54 PM EST


[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

correction (none / 0) (#29)
by khallow on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:23:34 PM EST

A real libertarian would strongly oppose using government money for such a task when it can be returned to the tax payer instead. They would instead donate money to charities to implement this noble goal.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Charities ? (none / 0) (#83)
by BlueTrin on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:04:39 PM EST

I can imagine already your charities cleaning up the streets "in the name of the GOVERNMENT" !
"Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?"
[ Parent ]
Hmm (none / 1) (#39)
by trhurler on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:10:13 AM EST

Nope. I don't support government handouts of any kind whatsoever, for whatever purpose. However, I do support government eliminating the stupid laws that keep such weapons expensive here, which would lead to the same basic effect - massive armament of poor people. Sure, a few of them might try to rob me. And that'd be a few less very stupid violent people on this earth. Big deal.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
I like the Mini 14 (none / 1) (#40)
by eavier on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:23:55 AM EST

but I like my Springfield M1A better.

+1FP from this redneck.

Whatever you do, don't take it into your house. It's probably full of Greeks. - Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi

Ufology Doktor in da house

Never liked Rugers (none / 1) (#42)
by strlen on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 04:54:58 AM EST

I've shot several (mostly pistols) and come to think of them everyone of them had some sort if an issue. I'm also not a fan of any miniaturized weapons.

I have to agree with the M1A1 as being an excellent rifle. If I had to purchase a repeating rifle, this would be on the top of my list (along with perhaps a civilian AR-15). I've shot the M1A1 once and have found it an immensely satisfying weapon to shoot especially given the price these can be picked up for.

However, bolt action rifles are even more satisfying to shoot, especially in a SRS BUSINESS caliber (i.e. 308). I'm presently looking for a target shooting rifle and the Remington 700 SSP is what seems to appeal to me the most (the Armalite AR-30 is also appealing, but it's over twice the price; the extra money is best spent on a scope).

[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.

Gun people: should Cho have been allowed a gun? (none / 0) (#66)
by shinshin on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:34 PM EST

On a somewhat related note, do you believe that Cho Seung-Hui had a right to own a gun? Pro-gun folk tend to be pretty right-wing, who, in turn, seem to have recently determined that the rights enshrined in the constitution only apply to full citizens of the United States.

Since Cho wasn't a citizen, should he have been allowed to have a gun here?

We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

Your ideas would save us a lot of money! (none / 0) (#67)
by yuo on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:30:40 PM EST

If only citizens have the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, then, by throwing out the third amendment, we can simply have our troops "bunk up" with non-citizens. That would save our government a lot of money in the long run.

If these non-citizens try to complain, we can just shut them up. That's just another pesky right that should only be allowed citizens.

I wish I had thought of pants pants pants pants pants pants pants pants.
[ Parent ]

That's a state issue (none / 0) (#70)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 02:02:21 PM EST

Each state can determine what it's gun ownership requirements are.  They're just not allowed to outright ban all weapons.

But, as Nimey points out, he had two stalking charges.  If he was actually convicted, then someone wasn't doing their homework as he would have been in violation of federal law to own a firearm.  Someone probably wasn't doing their federal background check.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

So the government can't prohibit a non-citizen (none / 0) (#73)
by shinshin on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 04:27:42 PM EST

from owning a gun, but they can ignore habeas corpus and take away their eighth amendment rights.

That's pretty much what I figured you would say.

We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

Why do you assume.. (none / 0) (#75)
by strlen on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 04:30:06 PM EST

Why do you assume anyone who supports gun rights supports the latest abomination that comes from the Bush administration (unless you specifically know the Ghost of Tiber's position)?

[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
The latter (none / 0) (#76)
by shinshin on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:45:43 PM EST

I specifically know GhostOfTiber's (contemptible) position.

These sorts of questions are actually a good way of distinguishing the true libertarians from the pseudo-libertarians who are just right-wing crackpots operating under the intellectual cover of a libertarian philosophy.

This phenomena was best encapsulated by a comment by toulouse: "Fuck your rights, Jim; You weren't there for ours".

We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

Don't you mean star trek? (none / 0) (#78)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:44:02 PM EST

And I have no idea what you're talking about taking away his rights.  This isn't anything new.  It has been this way since the implementation of the federal background check.  On the other hand, I know you're a shitty troll who doesn't know my position on anything.  Personal responsibility as in "well regulated" discounts people who don't know the difference between breaking up with their girlfriend and shooting 33 people.

To make it into a purely philosophical question, he forfeited his rights when he decided to deprive others of theirs.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Yes and no (none / 0) (#74)
by strlen on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 04:28:48 PM EST

Non-citizens should be allowed to own guns, just as they should be allowed all the other freedoms in the constitution (I am also opposed to the recent acts which have limited the constitutional protections afforded to non-citizens detained as terrorists suspects; I guess I'm more of a Goldwaterite/small-l libertarian than a neo-conservative).

Cho specifically, however, shouldn't have been allowed to purchase the gun due to having been committed to a mental institution (which is what the law presently specifies and that is the law that was broken).

[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

Only if it is the result of due process! (none / 0) (#77)
by yuo on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:00:54 PM EST

You shouldn't take away rights just because a psychiatrist says so. Well, in the short run, it obviously seems okay, but not in the long run.

I gladly concede that felons maybe should not be allowed to ever have guns, but to punish for life anybody who was ever institutionalized is going a little far.

I wish I had thought of pants pants pants pants pants pants pants pants.
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 1) (#80)
by strlen on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:16:49 AM EST

I believe there is a limit also on how much institutionalization remains on file; also those who are institutionalized typically do receive a hearing that meets the criteria of due process (it is very hard for somebody to be institutionalized in the United States).

[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
non-citizens, yes; crazies, no. = (none / 0) (#82)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:00:43 PM EST

A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Do you mean 10/22? (none / 0) (#71)
by bbraun on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:33:04 PM EST

In the article you refer to the mini14, but later mention that you shot .22LR out of it.  The mini14 has always been chambered for a .223 Remington cartridge, and recently has been offered in 6.8mm.

It is mentioned the weapon in question was a 'plinker model' of the mini14.  Since the mini14 has never been available in .22LR, but Ruger does make the 10/22 rifle, a very common rifle chambered for the .22LR, it would be reasonable to assume the author had mistaken the 10/22 for a mini14.

It is important to note that the 10/22 is a completely different rifle from the mini14.  It would appear that this article is inaccurate in either the round used, or is reviewing the mini14 on the basis of a completely different rifle.

Of additional note, the mini14 is explicitly mentioned in recent weapons ban legislation (introduced before the recent VT shooting).

An amusing piece of trivia, Rep. McCarthy who introduced the bill cannot define what a barrel shroud is, explicitly banned in Sec 3(D)(v).

I am buying that AR-15 tonight (none / 0) (#72)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 04:10:33 PM EST

I am absolutely sure that it was a Mini-14 in 22LR.

However I'm open to the idea that it was a conversion.

Also remember that Universal Arms was making Mini-14s as a function of their military contract for awhile.  Obviously not a Ruger, but similar to Taurus they may have the design under contract.  They've long since folded.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Stamped Steel? (none / 0) (#79)
by dasreboot on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:06:05 PM EST

Which parts on the mini-14 are stamped steel? Mine has a cast stainless steel receiver the only part that appears to be stamped is the magazine, and possibly the safety. The description you offer does not describe my stainless ranch rifle, or my in-law's early (first gen) blued model. I've never seen a ruger with the level of craftsmanship you describe, nor have I owned one ( I have five). I also cannot find any information on a factory supplied .22lr mini-14. If this is the case you may have given away a very rare rifle .. perhaps a prototype :).

I talked about it in another thread (none / 0) (#87)
by GhostOfTiber on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:03:04 AM EST

We pretty much figured out it was the Universal Arms production of the Ruger Mini-14.  The Ruger Ruger Mini-14 is apparently made a lot better and a lot more fun to shoot.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Link to Mini-14 please (none / 0) (#81)
by Noexit on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 10:47:23 AM EST

It'd be helpful to the article. k. thnx. bye.

Teh Mini 14!!!!!!!!! Ruger.... (none / 1) (#85)
by Basser on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:00:59 PM EST

Once at a gun show a friend of mine got into a discussion with this grizzled old man who had immigrated from some eastern Bloc country.

This was a while ago. My freind and I were pretty young, and thought the mini 14 was sort of neat. The old man thought it was pure crap. His point was that no military had every picked it to be their main weapon, and there were better alternatives to it that were more readily available, and no more expensive to manufacture. I forget all of the other points he made, but he made a really convincing arguement about how it was basically a mediocre gun at best.

That being said, Ruger has made some pretty good guns, as far as guns go, IMHO. The Mark I, all the
single action revolvers, etc.

Been a while since I thought about them. Now that I am I remember how clunky their semi automatic pistols and double action revolvers seem...

Probably everything they make has been made better
in a slightly different form (not necessarily a copy, but just a similar type of gun) by another company though...

yeah, that's mostly where the company went (none / 0) (#86)
by GhostOfTiber on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:01:40 AM EST

If you look at Taraus's production, they're making really well done copies of Ruger's guns.  The new stuff is pretty rough.  My last purchase from them, the Ruger 96/17, has an incredibly complicated action for not that short of a throw and a stupidly heavy trigger.  If I didn't get it on sale from Walmart when they were liquidating their gun stuck, I probably would have gone for a Marlin lever action in the same.  Ruger set the trigger pull to 7lbs on a gun that doesn't even weigh as much.

But I agree, for a person who has only seen a hunting rifle up close, the strange combination of "lots of wood" with the badass looking muzzle device and barrel shroud is really appealing.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Sturm and Ruger | 87 comments (49 topical, 38 editorial, 2 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!