There has been a lot of social upheaval in recent years on the topics of equality, “equality,” women’s rights, men’s rights, patriarchy, the wage gap, marriage, MGTOW, misogyny versus misandry (I note the spell-checker has the previous but not the latter word), marginalizing men, etc. websites like Men of the West, videos like this Continue reading
Sound suppressors as public health measure; I still can’t quite get my head around the lunacy of it. That’s like recommending sunglasses for arsonists so the flash from the exploding gasoline doesn’t harm their vision. Or airbags for suicide car bombers.
November 5, 2007
A Democrat’s guide to why firearm sound suppressors (“silencers”) should be made easier to obtain.
[This is what they think of you. If you exercise your specific enumerate right to keep and bear arms you are the equivalent of an arsonist or suicide car bomber.
When they have this attitude it should be easy to see why it is extremely foolish to even discuss any sort of “compromise” with them.—Joe]
On Sunday Barb and went to the range and used the “Training Bay”. Barb practiced drawing from the holster. I set up my chronograph and tested 17 different .40 S&W loads with four different powders and two different bullet types (both 180 grain). I ended up firing 170 rounds of .40 S&W and 20 rounds of .22 into the same target. All the .40 S&W was from about 28 yards. It made for, what I thought was, an interesting target:
I wasn’t doing my best with each shot but I was reasonably careful. My primary goal was to not shoot the chronograph screens and having a constant point of aim helped.
But after pulling the target I wondered, “What would be the equivalent five shot group size made from the same sample of ammo?”
“Group size” has always bugged me. A better measure would be standard deviation. But that’s not what the shooting world uses. I understand why. Standard deviation is much more difficult to compute in our situation. Group size is extremely easy and as long as you are honest with yourself (don’t find excuses to throw away a bad group and always use the same number of shots when comparing) it can give you a fairly decent indication of the accuracy of your system (gun, ammo, and shooter).
One of the problems with group size is that you can’t easily compare a three shot group to a five shot, seven, or ten shot group. I spent a lot of time manipulating equations and running simulations and built a solution into Modern Ballistics. If you edit a cartridge and have it calculate the “5-shot Group Size” via “Calculate via group” you can input a set of one or more groups at various ranges and various shots per group and it will compute the equivalent 5-shot group size in minutes of angle.
Sooo… I put in the group size 13” from the target above for a 170 shot group and it immediately complained. I had programmed in error checking which said, basically, that if you are shooting a group with more than 100 shots you don’t know what you are doing. Heavy sigh.
So I went with a 100 shot group with 13 inches and came up with a 20.84 MOA five shot group. Okay. Not too bad considering the variations in the ammo (the mean velocity on any given loading varied from 907 fps to 1033 fps), iron sights, with a pistol, and not originally intending to shoot for a good group. And it would have been better had my program allowed for 170 shot groups. Converting back to inches and rounding down a bit to compensate for the 170 versus 100 shot group it comes out to 5.75 inches.
I’m okay with that.
Foes of the law such as Gillibrand should not use misleading terms such as “quiet” to describe the sound made by a high-powered weapon with a suppressor attached. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but finally tipped to Three. There is little that’s quiet about a firearm with a silencer, unless one also thinks a jackhammer is quiet.
One should not be surprised an anti-gun organization and their people are lying. It is in their nature and it is the best they have to work with.—Joe]
The bizarre assertion is that feminism is being bogged down by its association with leftist causes.
Sisters; the one and only purpose for the “feminist movement” is to advance what are essentially Marxist principles and goals. That of course includes the defamation and de-emphasis of men, especially Jewish and Christian men, along with them the very concept of morality, and the de-emphasis of the nuclear family as a cornerstone of civilization.
Calling for outreach to Christian women who embrace the American Principles then, is like the PLO and the other jihadists reaching out to Jews for assistance in destroying Israel.
It could work in some cases I suppose, if you find enough dumb “conservative” women who’re only pretending to be conservative or pretending to be Christian but don’t really know what any of it means. You get them irritated and agitated enough, and they’ll be open to your propaganda.
Truly strong, American women have no use for the “feminist” movement. They’re already doing what they want to do, and the “feminists” (communists, essentially) have been verbally attacking them for it all along.
Constantly viewing oneself as a victim of this or that, or a victim of everything, is detrimental to one’s success, whether you’re a truly strong woman or anyone else (we have to be careful with definitions here though; to “The Sisterhood” of pissed off leftist women, the term “strong woman” means “nasty, dumb bitch”).
That’s the whole point really; the Marxist/Progressive/authoritarian movement needs as many people as possible thinking of themselves as victims and thus being pissed off, otherwise the movement has nothing. It’s the Grievance Culture, and so it doesn’t matter whether it’s women, men, black women and men, gay, trans, or any and all of the rest of Humanity; if we can get people pissed off and feeling like they’re powerless without Big Daddy Government stepping in to intervene in their personal lives, then the American Principles have been defeated right there.
It’s never been about protecting anyone’s rights or advancing anyone’s quality of life. The Original American Principles do that already. The Grievance Movement is purely about keeping the grievances alive and growing, as a political weapon against the American Principles.
And you in the “movement”, at least those few calling the shots, you know all this perfectly well. Nice try, keep it up and all, but your premise here is just ridiculous.
You’ve never had a better administration for the gun industry than Obama, and now never a worse one for the gun industry than Trump.
Pennington Capital Management – Analyst
February 23, 2017
RGR – Q4 2016 Sturm Ruger & Company Inc Earnings Call
[Despite this obvious fact known to anyone that cares to do any research (investors dump gun company stocks the day after Trump won the election) we constantly read and hear things like:
Because much of Congress takes its cues (and money) from the National Rifle Association, our nation’s firearms legislation is tilted toward the financial gains of weapons and ammunition manufacturers, and our gun-violence research has largely been suppressed.
Obviously, if the NRA were actually looking after the financial gain of the firearms industry they would have endorsed Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump. The NRA, as they claim, represent the interests of firearm owners.
I believe the reason people continue to make such crap for brains claims is because they have a deep seated hatred of capitalism and people making a profit. They believe that if they frame the debate in terms of someone making a profit “everyone” will recognize the “evil” just as easily as they do.
What these people can’t understand is that profit and capitalism are not inherently evil. Free markets and free minds don’t always make the best choices. But they do make far better choices than than coerced markets and minds–the type of markets and minds the anti-gun people insist on creating. Gun control is about control.—Joe]
A form of direct democracy is coming. One that lets people directly influence the decisions of the people they send to Washington.
A form of interactive democracy that doesn’t require any changes to the constitution since it works at the party level and not the national.
When it does, it’s going to hit us fast, taking off like wildfire since it fulfills a fundamental need that the current system does not provide.
Here’s a quick example from the perspective of the Trump insurgency. Other political parties would need different approaches, but they could if done in the right way (simple approach, scaled quickly by using disruptive marketing, grow from there), grow as quickly as this.
Here’s how quickly populism can be automated:
- Trump or Bannon picks an issue: the narrower and more inflammatory (disruptive marketing) the better. Make the vote a yes or no.
- Trump asks his supporters to tell him what they want (he doesn’t ask those opposing him).
- His supporters download the app to their smart phones and vote.
- A little programming and marketing magic radically improves the number of Trump supporters using the app and reduces spammers/non-supporters attempting to skew the vote down to a trickle.
- Millions of Trump supporters download the app and vote.
- Once the decision is in, the app makes it easy to call or spam message to the user’s Congressional representatives. Millions of calls roll in.
- A bill that codifies that issue is fast tracked in Congress. Massive pressure via the app and the White House gets it passed quickly.
- Connecting action and results quickly generates buzz. Repeat. This time with 10 m downloads.
- The app evolves. The pressure from the network increases. It consumes the Republican party.
March 10, 2017
How Trump and Bannon Could Automate Populism
[I’ve been wondering, for at least 30 years, what sort of new form of government might come out of the rapid technological changes we are seeing. Robb offers us, and he admits this, a very simple view of one possible outcome. I’m not convinced he is correct about the potential for the model he presents. I admit instant communication has great potential to make changes. But the minority party has the same tools as the majority party.
And the technological changes are not just in the field of communications. There are things of great importance on “the technological spreadsheet”. These include, essentially, continuous electronic surveillance on political opponents and the public at large, robots and drones (both armed and unarmed) for law enforcement and military action, and the threat of implementing a cashless society (more than just surveillance, it would make tax resistance extremely difficult).—Joe]
As I found this in my \temp directory when I was cleaning up things I don’t know where it came from. I don’t recall visiting thepeoplescube.com until today when I went looking for it:
I find image fitting.
Barb and I were amused by this line:
There are over 1,000 of these targets, rigged with 1,500 pounds of explosives.
The targets are not “rigged with explosives”. The packaged explosives are the targets.
From this morning:
Barb: I’m lollygagging.
Joe: I don’t understand why you would want to gag lollies.
<still more silence>
Barb: I love you anyway.
I presume she was using a more modern definition of lollygag than that at the beginning of the 20th Century. I suppose I should confirm that.
No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce.
Thomas Sowell @ThomasSowell
Tweeted on March 15, 2017
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
If you substitute “colored people” every time you read “people of color” as you follow the so-called “news” the racism is glaring. The grammatical difference is tiny. The substantive difference is enormous. Left-wing racists insist on singling out people based on race, and name calling. Conservatives, centrists and moderates (almost the same thing) never do, because they shy away from racism and calling people colored (“of color”). It’s just not right. It’s left.
February 12, 2017
“People of Color” Is Racism
When the cats are being killed and eaten by the coyotes, only a fool would declaw the cats.
February 23, 2017
TED NUGENT: INSANITY IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON—BAN IT
[And we certainly have the evidence to support the conclusion our country has a surplus of fools.—Joe]
Rights shouldn’t have borders, and they shouldn’t have walls either. Washingtonians are tired of out-of-state interests buying our elections and chilling our civil rights—and they have made their voices heard loud and clear in the legislature.
Firearm Policy Coalition Legislative Advocate
March 10, 2017
Gun Ban Fail: FPC Tearing Down “West Coast Wall of Gun Control”
[The last sentence is probably a little overstated by there is a lot of truth to it.—Joe]
This is news to me:
Officials from the Czech Republic have been among the most vocal critics of the European Union’s efforts to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Most recently, the Czech government has contemplated taking the drastic step of amending the country’s constitution in order to better protect the rights of Czech citizens to possess guns for self-defense.
I didn’t know they had a strong RKBA attitude there. If the MSM and anti-gun people (redundancy alert) are to be believed Europe is almost gun free. I knew Switzerland was good about guns but I figured that the Czechs would have had their gun rights supporting people sent to the gulags during their time behind the iron curtain.
With Obama in office and Clinton poised to take office, Americans were concerned about their Second Amendment rights, and they were arming up. The guns they didn’t want Americans to have are now in the hands of the very citizens their gun control schemes targeted. The irony is almost overwhelming.
March 7, 2017
Obama’s Unintended Legacy: A Better Armed America
[I think he left out a word. Between the last word and the period I think there should be the word “sweetness”.—Joe]
H/T to daughter Jaime who told me about this earlier this week when we had dinner.
A restaging of the presidential debates with an actress playing Trump and an actor playing Clinton yielded surprising results.
After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016—a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who’d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women—Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?
Here is a sample of the result:
Read the whole thing. It’s very informative.