No comments about Early European Hand-Firearms in Liverpool Museum.

No comments about The gun collector's fact book / Louis William Steinwedel.

No comments about European firearms in Swedish castles.

4 comments about The gun: A "biography" of the gun that killed John F. Kennedy (A Bantam Book).

1. Once upon a time, a JFK conspiracy theorist asked the following question:
   
   >>> "If someone steals my rifle and then kills someone, my fingerprints are on it, but does that prove that I was the killer?" <<<
   
   To which I now reply.....
   
   If a rifle YOU own is used in a crime, the odds are certainly in favor of YOU, the owner of said weapon, being the killer. You're certainly the #1 prime suspect, that's for sure. Why wouldn't you be?
   
   Mere ownership of a rifle doesn't prove you killed a person with said weapon, true. But nobody can possibly deny that the sheer ODDS are in favor of you (the weapon's rightful owner) being the actual killer.
   
   And you'll need to do a lot more work to establish the FACT that your rifle was stolen. An accused killer saying to the cops (or to a jury) that he thinks his rifle was stolen by some unknown person or persons isn't gonna cut it. And I think the "Stolen Rifle" defense is even a tougher road to hoe in the JFK murder case than most conspiracy theorists seem to want to admit.
   
   The known storage location of Lee Harvey Oswald's one and only rifle in the weeks leading up to President Kennedy's assassination on 11/22/63 was Ruth Paine's garage in Irving. There were no signs of any "theft" or "break in" at the Paine house at any time in the weeks prior to Nov. 22.
   
   Now, I suppose it's true that some clever thief could have slipped in and out of Mrs. Paine's garage, totally undetected, and made off with the rifle. But there is absolutely no hard evidence at all to indicate that such a theft took place at the Paine house in late 1963.
   
   The totality of circumstantial "rifle" evidence in the JFK case certainly does not indicate a "theft" carried out by conspirators wishing to frame Oswald -- but, instead, this evidence tells a reasonable person that Lee Oswald, himself, took that rifle from a rolled-up blanket in the Paine garage either on the night of Nov. 21 or the early morning of Nov. 22.
   
   Oswald's OWN LIES that he told later about the "package" and his rifle-ownership status are telling a reasonable person that Oswald desired to distance himself from any "long, bulky package" and ANY "rifle" that he owned whenever he was questioned about those items by the authorities.
   
   And why would Oswald NEED to "distance" himself from EITHER of those items if he merely was hauling innocent "curtain rods" to work on the morning of Nov. 22nd (as he twice told fellow Book Depository worker Wesley Frazier)?
   
   The answer is, of course, quite an obvious one.
   
   Heck, Oswald himself didn't even bother to use the "Somebody Stole My Rifle" alibi....which actually would have been a far better alibi for him to try to use instead of denying ownership of a weapon that he has got to KNOW will be traced to him very quickly. For Pete's sake, he knows he had the gun shipped to a P.O. Box where he received mail.
   
   But, instead, Oswald denied having owned ANY rifle, ever...and he denied telling Frazier anything about curtain rods...and claimed the only "package" he carried to work on Nov. 22 was his "lunch".
   
   On top of these lies, we know that Oswald killed policeman J.D. Tippit without a sliver of a doubt, which is devastating evidence that tells a reasonable person that LHO also killed JFK less than one hour earlier -- due to the fact that JFK just happened to be killed while driving by the place where Tippit's killer worked, and which was also a building that contained scads of "Oswald Was Here At 12:30 Shooting At The President" type of evidence (not even counting the eyewitnesses who placed an Oswald-like shooter on the sixth floor of the TSBD).
   
   For example:
   
   1.) Oswald's gun was found on the 6th Floor.
   
   2.) Bullet shells from LHO's gun were found in the Sniper's Nest.
   
   3.) Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints were found on multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN the Sniper's Nest.
   
   4.) An empty paper bag with Oswald's prints on it was found near the sniper's window....including a right palmprint of LHO's on the closed end of the bag which perfectly aligns with the testimony given by Wes Frazier about how Oswald carried a bag that day. If that bag was a "plant" and was "manufactured" after the fact by the police, then those cops deserve an award for such outstanding work, given that perfect job of "planting" that RIGHT PALMPRINT OF LEE OSWALD'S ON THE CLOSED END OF THE BAG.
   
   Plus -- Oswald leaves the Book Depository just minutes after all the commotion has just begun around his workplace. And LHO lies about why he left. He and Bill Shelley never talked after the shooting. This was just one of dozens of post-12:30 lies that LHO told the police. Another being his "I had lunch with Junior" alibi attempt.
   
   Plus -- There is Oswald's not being the least bit surprised or startled or scared when confronted in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom at gunpoint by policeman Marrion Baker (per Baker's and Roy Truly's testimony re. Oswald's behavior).
   
   And there's a logical "He's Guilty" reason for this non-reaction of Oswald's too (IMO) -- i.e., he no doubt EXPECTED the building to be filled with cops very shortly after he fired three highly-audible rifle shots from an open window that he knew would be heard by a lot of people in Dealey Plaza.
   
   How could Oswald NOT have expected the police to race into that very building within minutes of the shooting? Of course he expected that to happen. Hence, his rush to get off of the "Floor Of Death" (Floor #6) and at least down to a lower floor where the shooting did not occur. Unfortunately for him, he had to peel off at the 2nd Floor when he no doubt heard the heavy bootsteps of Baker (plus Truly too) coming up the stairs.
   
   But fortunately for Oswald, he worked there, and was cleared by Truly as just another employee of the TSBD. If Lee had not been employed there, J.D. Tippit would probably still be alive, because Oswald would have likely been detained by Officer Baker due to his "unknown" status in the eyes of Superintendent Roy Truly.
   
   After the Baker encounter, Oswald can no doubt breathe a tad easier....because he's just passed a major hurdle in slipping through any early post-shooting dragnet. So, he pauses at the Coke machine for just a moment or two and purchases a soft drink.*
   
   * = Whether it was a "Coca-Cola" (in the trademark "hourglass"-shaped bottle) or Oswald's favorite soft drink, Dr. Pepper, is something that I do not believe has ever been officially established.
   
   But, regardless of flavor, LHO buys a soft drink and walks through the Depository's second-floor offices, where Mrs. Robert A. Reid sees Oswald and even speaks to him, telling him "The President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him".
   
   Oswald then exhibits another perfectly-reasonable reaction from his own point-of-view, seeing as how he already KNOWS the information being told to him by Mrs. Reid -- that reaction being (like with Officer Baker) another "non-reaction" for the most part, as he brushes by Reid without saying anything that Reid could understand (she said he "mumbled something to me"), and without displaying the slightest bit of shock, surprise, or concern. According to Mrs. Reid, Oswald was "very calm".**
   
   ** = A grain of salt needs to be taken here re. Reid's testimony. This salt is needed because we know that Reid herself was somewhat upset about the President being shot and she would have had no particular reason at all to pay very much attention to Lee Oswald as he passed by her, a trip which took no more than a few fleeting seconds, quite obviously.
   
   Mrs. Reid said to the Warren Commission that a major reason why she recalls seeing LHO that day is due to the fact that it was somewhat unusual to see any of the "warehouse boys" in the office area except when they needed change for the soda machine. But since Reid could see that Oswald already had a "full" bottle of a soft drink, she knew he probably wasn't in the office to get change.
   
   Oswald then departs the TSBD at approx. 12:33 PM and goes home in a very unusual way (for him)....via bus AND taxicab. Being the miser that he was, the 95-cent cab ride ($1.00 including the tip for driver William Whaley) was definitely out of character for the frugal Mr. Oswald.
   
   So, a logical question needs to be asked here as well -- Why doesn't Oswald just take the bus home (like usual), instead of asking for a bus transfer from driver Cecil McWatters and then walking to the Greyhound taxi stand to get into a cab? Why is Oswald in such a hurry to get to his roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue on this particular November day....only minutes after a U.S. President has been shot from right in front of the building that Oswald just vacated?
   
   Another question that needs to be asked is -- Why does Oswald leave work at midday in the first place if he was totally innocent of any wrong-doing that day?
   
   That last question is a valid one, since we KNOW that Oswald lied when he gave his own explanation for leaving work when he did on Nov. 22. That lie being: He said that he assumed there would be "no more work" done that day due to the fact the President had been shot.
   
   Via at least one official Dallas Police account of Oswald's story, LHO said he had confirmed with his boss, Bill Shelley, that he (LHO) could leave the building and knock off for the rest of the day. That was positively a lie, and here's why (via the Warren Commission witness transcripts).....
   
   MR. BALL -- "Did you, at any time after the President was shot, tell Oswald to go home?"
   
   MR. SHELLEY -- "No, sir."
   
   ~~~~~~~
   
   So, when all of the above things are assembled together, a pretty clear picture begins to form. There's so much evidence to show that Lee Oswald is a double-murderer, it's staggering. There is so much, in fact, that the idea that ALL of this stuff (including impossible-to-control circumstantial evidence) could possibly have been manipulated so perfectly and so swiftly (by the DPD, the FBI, or whoever) is a foolhardy conspiratorial belief.
   
   There's just too much stuff here....stuff that couldn't have been perfectly "controlled" by anyone attempting to frame Oswald for two murders. And the biggest reason to know that this is true is by taking a look at Oswald's own incriminating, guilty-like actions after 12:30 on November 22. Does an innocent "patsy" act like Oswald acted in the hours following JFK's murder (a murder that LHO said he had nothing to do with)?
   
   Or, to quote an excellent passage uttered by Larry Sturdivan in his book "The JFK Myths".....
   
   "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole....with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"
   
   ~~~~~~~
   
   Vincent Bugliosi also provides a good capsule account of assassination events, via the following remarks, spoken in 1986:
   
   "So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL doubt that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!
   
   And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit...he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.
   
   At this point if we had nothing else...nothing else...how much do you need?...if we had NOTHING else...this would be enough to prove Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt." -- V. Bugliosi
   
   ~~~~~~~
   
   Given the facts previously discussed (and several more not touched upon), I'd say, yes, it's a pretty safe bet that the owner of that Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th Floor, a Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald (alias "A.J. Hidell"; alias "D.F. Drittal"; alias "O.H. Lee"), was indeed the person who actually used it to shoot and kill John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.



2. The lack of footnotes, references, or a bibliography of any sort is a serious flaw in this book. By appearances, a significant amount of research was required to prepare this book, none of which is offered for the reader to corroborate. The author is obviously a proponent of gun control, so much so that, at times, the book seems to be a rant for gun control written under the guise of a history of Mannlicher Carcano C2766, the gun Lee Harvey Oswald used to kill John F Kennedy.
   Notwithstanding that, there is usefull and interesting information about the rifle, including details of it's trip from Italy to the United States. The reader should be prepared to sort through the author's gun control propaganda to learn the story of C2766.



3. If you are a serious investigator into the JFK-assassination this is the book on the history of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifles. In my work with the rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald, I have used this book a lot. My advice; buy it...



4. This book (once available as hardcover, 1975, and as paperback, 1976) sets out to explore the history of one specific old military rifle: the one Carcano short rifle, Fucile Modello 91/38, in 6,5 x 52 mms, serial number C 2766, that was (according to the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations) used to assassinate US president John F. Kennedy in Dallas, in 1963. Such monographic studies of the history of a single firearms are already rare. But what makes this book unique and worthwhile reading, is that its author succeeds in presenting his (painstakingly collected) information in a much larger coherent framework. We not only learn about the maker back in 1940 (the Italian government state arsenal in Terni, north of Rome), but also about the use of Carcanos in World War II, about the colourful history surplus firearms trade back in the 1950s and 1960s, about trade customs and fraud. We get to know the name and life story of the Italian gunsmith, Luciano Riva, who reworked the Carcano rifles before they were exported, and how he was cheated by his US corporate partners, and went ill and bankrupt over this. Altogether, a gun packed full with historical information, of interest not only to the "JFK assassination buff" (who will learn a great deal about things otherwise not covered by pro- and anti-conspiracy authors), but for everybody interested in the lore and history of military firearms. The book is entertaining and far from dry.

No comments about Decoys of the Mid-Atlantic Region.

No comments about Handbook of military rifle marks, 1870-1950: An illustrated guide to identifying military rifles and marks.

No comments about Gun Digest, 1990: 44th Annual Edition.

1 comments about Frontier Pistols and Revolvers (The World of Arms).

1. I purchased this book primarily for the beautiful photography. The text is very brief. Unfortunately, it is also filled with much erroneous information.

No comments about Colt Peacemaker Collector - Hand Book & Guide.

2 comments about Reducing Firearm Injury and Death: A Public Health Sourcebook on Guns.

1. Trudy A. Karlson & Stephen W. Hargarten. Reducing Firearm Injury and Death: A Public Health Sourcebook on Guns. 1997. xix +172pp. $24.95 (paper).

   "Often the best solutions to injury problems are passive ones. William Haddon Jr, MD, a founder of modern injury control research, urged public health professionals to focus on changing the product, rather than focusing exclusively on changing individual behavior." (p. xvi).

   In the 1950s the common belief was that almost all motor vehicles injuries were caused by driver error, by the "nut behind the wheel." Thus policy attention was directed primarily to driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. This approach was not very successful in reducing vehicular injuries. The approach advocated and subsequently undertaken by injury control experts in the public health community was much broader. They recognized the importance not only of the motorist, but also of the vehicle and the highway environment. These factors were easier to change. Individuals will always make mistakes, and they sometimes behave recklessly. But when they do, should they have to die, or should their actions lead to the death of others? In the highway safety area, a decision was made to try to build a system that made it less likely for people to make errors, and also one that was more forgiving when errors were made. Automobiles now have better braking systems, collapsible steering columns, shatterproof windshields, nonrupture gas tanks, seat belts and airbags. Highways and emergency medical systems have also been vastly improved. This public health approach to traffic safety has been remarkably successful. Although there is no evidence that drivers today are in any way better than those of the 1950s, motor vehicle fatalities per mile driven have been reduced by over 75%. Karlson and Hargarten believe that a public health approach could also be effective in reducing firearm injuries. They focus on the gun as a consumer product, examining the sale and distribution of firearms as well as product design. "We know that great results in reducing injuries and deaths can be achieved if changes are made to the product or if access to the product is reduced. Least effective in impact on the population is trying to change how individuals use the product." (p. 125). Guns are among the most dangerous consumer products in the United States--currently an average of 100 people a day are killed with guns, a fatality rate far in excess of any other developed nation. Yet guns are among the least regulated of all products--in the United States there are more safety standards for toy guns and teddy bears than there are for firearms. The Karlson-Hargarten book is a sourcebook on firearms. It provides a brief history of guns and carefully defines terms: e.g. "relative stopping power," "double action," "terminal ballistics," "breech loader," "magazine," and "bore." The book then discusses how firearm design and the firearm distribution system could be changed to reduce gun injuries. As many aspects of automobiles have been altered to reduce their danger, so too could many aspects of firearms be altered--magazine capacity, barrel length, muzzle velocity, trigger pull, safeties, recoil, cartridges, serial numbers, and bullets. One could imagine a firearm which had a low risk not only of accidental discharge but also of lethal assault and suicide. The Karlson-Hargarten book is filled with reasonable policy suggestions which could effectively reduce firearm deaths at low cost to both gun owners and the general public. The following are only a few examples of the many aspects of firearm design and distribution which could be improved: (1) grip safeties which reduce the possibility that young children could inadvertently pull the trigger of a gun; (2) personalized guns which prevent unauthorized individuals from using the firearms--including angry or suicidal adolescents; (3) load-chamber indicators which prevent unintentional killings because the individual "didn't know the gun was loaded"; (4) lowered magazine capacity to reduce multiple killings; (5) the use of less lethal ammunition, such as rubber bullets, to lower the fatality rate due to gun woundings; (6) guns that "fingerprint" or mark each bullet as it is fired to improve bullet identification in crime; (7) state maximum one-gun-per-month purchase laws which reduce the profitability of gun-running from one state to another. The book is objective and easy to read. Public health implications are included for each section of each chapter. The book is not a strident demand for gun control, but a reasoned argument for a broader approach to gun policy--one that has worked well in other injury areas. The Karlson-Hargarten book is one step in the long journey to move the gun debate and gun policy away from the almost exclusive focus on training people in gun use and punishing those individuals who use guns in crime. Reducing Firearm Injury and Death makes it clear that there are numerous other policies which can effectively reduce firearm injuries and death. Anyone interested in firearms policy should read this book.

   David Hemenway, PhD Professor of Health Policy Director, Harvard Injury Control Research Center Harvard School of Public Health 677 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 (617) 432=4493 (617) 432-4494 (fax) hemenway@hsph.harvard.edu




2. Dr. Hargarten, a gun prohibition activist best known for his discredited "food processor through flesh" wound ballistics, has authored a propaganda piece that masquerades as science. Hargarten relies on the publications of other activists and advocacy "researchers" whose work has been throughly discredited in the scientific criminolgic literature. (Better you should rely upon Gary Kleck's meticulous book, Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control", Aldine, 1997.) Among the flaws in the public health literature upon which Hargarten relies are: Failure to distinguish technically sound from inept studies, inconsistent application of scholarly standards, using speculation to rebut empirical evidence, omission of data or studies with unsupportive findings, pretending that evidence is worthless if it is not perfect, statistical legerdemain, failure to address relevant, contradictory studies; [1,2,3,4,5,6] habitual citation of sources for support when the sources were actually non-supportive; [1(at citations 2 and 15-17), 2(at citation 12), 3(at citation 7)] citation of sources for non-existent statistics;[5 (at citations 11 &13)] citation of sources for a proposition not studied by the sources;[2(at citations 10,12,14,15)] failure to address possible confusion between cause and effect;[3] use of small, unrepresentative, non-probability convenience samples improperly generalized to large populations;[1] the use of simplistic models that fail to control for complicating factors;[3] unawareness of valid measures of gun availability or the limitations of those measures;[3] illogically studying how often gun owners conceal their ownership by studying a sample of only those who have revealed their gun ownership;[4] "adjusting" the study sample to buttress a foregone conclusion;[2] prejudicially truncated data;[5] non-sequitur logic;[5] and characterization of lawful self-defense as "murder."[6] Do not waste your money on this propaganda. Edgar A. Suter MD, National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research Inc. [1]Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91. [2]Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relationship to Gun Ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327: 467-72. [3] Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities." N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1256-62. [4] Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Banton J, Reay D, Fligner CL "Validating survey responses to questions about gun ownership owners of registered handguns." Am J Epidemiol. 1990; 131(6):1080-4 [5] Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60 [6] Kellermann AL and Mercy JA. "Men, Women, and Murder: Gender-specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and Victimization." J Trauma. 1992; 33:1-5.