Gun cartoon of the day

Ebola

This is deliberate deception on the part of the cartoonist. Over half of the death by bullets are self inflicted and there is no gun specific preventative that could successfully reduce the number of suicides. Beyond that death by bullet is not an “epidemic”. Both the absolute numbers and especially the raw numbers have been dropping during the last couple of decades despite there being more guns and bullets in circulation, more people having easier access to them, and more people being able to carry guns in public.

The cartoonist furthers their deception by ignoring the potential risk of Ebola. Some strains of Ebola have a 90% death rate. Even if it were as low as 25%, as one might speculate it would be with first class medical care, with infection rates as low at 5% of the population this could result in four million deaths in a year in the U.S. You would be hard pressed to imagine scenarios involving bullets that cause that many deaths unless the government were to try confiscation of guns (H/T to Don K. for the link). Which one might imagine the cartoonist is suggesting. Hence we can tentatively conclude the cartoonist is advocating for policies which will increase not only the death rate from Ebola due to resources being moved from mitigation of the Ebola threat but increasing the probability there will be an increase in the the death rate from bullets. That demonstrates crap for brains. But as we can see it is common in their profession.

Smart bombs and stupid people

How Dumb Cluster Bombs Are Becoming Heinously Smart is a fascinating post on smart cluster bombs. For example:

Once these 64 pound, 31 inch long submunitions are released, each will deploy a parachute, slowing their forward movement and orientating them vertically in relation to the ground. Then, a rocket motor fires and forces these cylinders into a slight climb, although at a distance it would look like the BLU-108s are hanging in mid-air. This rocket also causes the BLU-108s to spin rapidly.

As the submunition spins while almost hovering in mid-air above the target area, each BLU-108 cylinder will throw four individual sub-submuntions, known as ‘Skeets,’ from its body. Each Skeet is slung in a different direction at a 90 degree vector from the now empty BLU-108 cylinder. As these hockey puck-like Skeets fly through the air while rapidly spinning, a small infrared imager and laser ranging system activates on each one. The infrared seeker rapidly scans the ground below for an enemy vehicle or weapons fixture that it can recognize, while the laser ranger provides a ground contour map.

the Skeet fires off its 2lb explosively formed penetrator along with a fragmentation ring, sending a molten spear into the target along with a handful of dense shrapnel covering the area around it. The idea is that the penetrator kills the vehicle from top, where even main battle tanks are vulnerable, while the shrapnel kills who is inside (if it is a lightly armored target) and anyone in the targeted vehicle’s immediate vicinity.

the Sensor Fuzed Weapon’s unique discriminating abilities, and its WCMD delivery system, will most likely morph into even more dynamic submunition capabilities. Ones where taking out individual soldiers via large-insect sized flying explosives, capable of loitering above the target area for long periods of time, could become a reality. Or even a future where small nano-robotic mites are dropped using a WCMD-like dispensers over a convoy of enemy armor, their mission to destroy vehicles’ electronics from the inside out without causing so much as a single explosion, may also become a real capability one day.

In many ways conventional warfare is obsolete because equipment on the ground is so vulnerable. Unless a force can successfully challenge the air superiority of their opponent wars will (and are) be fought using Fourth and Fifth-Generation Warfare.

The most naïve and stupid comment I found on the post is the following:

Why can’t we use this technology to deliver food to hungry people? Smart fruit, laser guided bananas. Something positive, and far cheaper.

Nevermind, answered my own question. There’s no profit in peace or help, only in violence and destruction.

I would try to explain it to them but I don’t think we have enough in common to form a means of communication such that they could understand what I was saying.

Gun cartoon of the day

85

No. Take it from the women of America. Should a woman, wearing poor shoes for running, or with a young child, be required to attempt escape from one or more attackers rather than standing her ground and defending herself and other innocent life with the best available tools?

Notice the overweight, small headed, “angry white male”, gun owner? The cartoonist is demonstrating their prejudice and bigotry as well as their ignorance of who actually benefits from such laws.

Gun cartoon of the day

Evolve

Someone should point out to the cartoonist that guns are an evolved issue and that it is easy to demonstrate the gun is civilization. Furthermore at the time of the wooly mammoth weapons of the day were spears, bow and arrows, and clubs. It would appear the cartoonist would prefer we revert to such primitive times. I find this very confusing. But then, I frequently find people with crazy ideas confusing.

Gun cartoon of the day

WellRegulated

Aside from the false stereotype of the overweight, goofy looking, flannel shirt wearing, gun owner there is a fair amount of truth in this.

Well-regulated as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision is close to what the cartoonist says (Heller pages 23 and 24) :

… the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Of course the cartoonist intended to portray the NRA as ignorant and ridiculous but instead demonstrated their own ignorance and prejudice. You should not be surprised. It is “par for the course”.

Appliances

Guns are, in a manner of speaking, an appliance. They have a function, and they do it well, for a very long time under most usage rates. The technology is pretty straightforward, the cost is competitive, the technology generally improves with time, and they are easy to operate.

Major home appliances? Not so much. Continue reading

Gun cartoon of the day

Ry sent me an email with a link to this collection of gun cartoons. A few are duplicates of my collection but there a bunch of new ones as well. I’m going to be posting the ones I’m fairly certain are new to this blog starting with:

SmartGun

Not-so-smart? So perhaps our brainiac cartoonist could answer the following questions:

  1. What happens when the batteries go dead when the gun owner is in a life or death situation needing the gun to save their life?
  2. What happens when the gun is in the opposite hand from the watch, wrist-band, or hand with the RFID embedded chip which is occupied holding their child’s hand or a phone with which they are trying to call the police while in a life or death situation?
  3. What happens when the bad guy has a transmitter broadcasting on the same frequency as the RFID chip and the gun owner is in a life or death situation?
  4. Why do no law enforcement organization or military use this technology on their guns?

The answers are:

  1. The gun owner and perhaps other innocent life die because of a dead battery.
  2. The gun owner and perhaps other innocent life die because the RFID chip is out of range.
  3. The gun owner and perhaps other innocent life die because the RFID chip is blocked from authorizing the gun to shoot.
  4. Because they are smart enough to know the technology will put them and other innocent life at risk.

And furthermore the NRA and most gun owners don’t have a problem with the existence of “smart guns”. They have a problem with and correctly do object to the mandating of “smart-guns” on Second Amendment grounds.

“Smart guns” aren’t smart except in some very limited circumstances. This cartoonist isn’t very smart and should seek help for their prejudice.

Idiots

Via email from Ry we have this:

Five of Idaho’s universities and community colleges have spent more than $1.5 million to beef up security after the law allowing concealed weapons on campuses was approved, and the schools expect total costs to top $3.7 million for the year.

The concealed carry law, passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor last year, took effect July 1. It permits retired law enforcement officers and those people holding the state’s enhanced concealed-carry permit to bring firearms to campus, but bans weapons in dormitories and buildings that can hold more than 1,000 people, such as sports or concert venues.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Boise, passed by better than 2-1 margins in the House and Senate. A fiscal note accompanying the legislation predicted minimal “fiscal impact associated with posting signage at public entertainment facilities.”

But the schools say they have had to add new staff, provide for training and purchase new equipment.

How did the concealed carry law change their security requirements? The only way this makes sense is if one were to believe that retired cops and people with enhanced, as opposed to standard, concealed weapons licenses are more of a threat than people with no license to carry or standard CWLs.

I think it is very telling that the article doesn’t allow comments.

This like a public restaurant complaining about the costs of segregating their customers after being forced to serve non-whites. These people are either idiots or emulating the KKK on principle.

Words still mean things

We all knew why the infamous H&K catalog depicted cartridges loaded backwards in a pistol magazine – photographers are not necessarily knowledgeable in the fields of their client’s businesses. In the gun industry however, we have Oleg.

I only bring this up to point out, once again, that a cartridge is not a bullet, any more than a tank of gasoline is an automobile.

The bullets shown on the catalog cover were not backwards. They were seated in the cases in the proper orientation. The cartridges however were inserted backwards into the magazine. Some people have loaded bullets backwards so as to achieve some desired terminal effect, as was explained in John Ross’ book for example.

If you walk into a gun store and ask for bullets, they’ll show you the bullets. If you ask for cartridges, they’ll bring you to the shelves of loaded ammunition. The standard, “Well you know what I mean so quit yer damn nitpicking” only comes after you’ve cleared up the misunderstanding that will certainly ensue when you use the wrong words.

Later I’ll post a story about my using one wrong letter in one word in a correspondence with a customer, and what happened because of it.

Anyway; many years ago we hired a sketch artist to depict a saxophone in a humorous cartoon advertisement. It was going to be an ad by a music instrument dealer, directed at musicians, so we wanted it to be accurate (we wanted our humor to be taken seriously). Since we knew the artist was not a sax player, we brought her in, showed her the various signature features of a sax, and then gave her one to study before doing the artwork. The ad also involved a dinosaur, so we had her look up that particular species of dinosaur and study it. That’s the kind of thing Walt Disney did for his cartoonists, and so it’s far from being a new concept. He brought a live fawn into the studio for his artists to study before doing the movie “Bambi”.

Quote of the day—Upton Sinclair

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair
1935
I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked
[This observation applies to a great number of career paths but probably more so than any to those paid by organizations such as The Brady Campaign, The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Every Town For Gun Safety, and The Violence Policy Center.—Joe]

Responsible Body Armor Possession Act

HR 378

The title is of course misleading, as is all the speech of authoritarianism. Is it to protect the possession of responsible body armor? But an inanimate object can be neither responsible nor irresponsible. Is it to protect responsible bodies with armor? If so, why does it limit said armor? Is it to protect the responsible possession of body armor? How then would body armor be possessed in an irresponsible manner? Are there hoards of people possessing their body armor in some obnoxious fashion, say, wearing orange body armor with red clothing? One is given to wonder.

With all the Progressives pretending to be concerned, to the point of hyperventilating, about all the carnage carried out with guns, you’d think the one thing they’d want to see, besides a monopoly on gun possession for criminals, is more people wearing more effective body armor. Oh wait…

Authoritarians are of course insane, so in that sense there is nothing to see here.

One has to wonder what the authoritarian Republicans will do with this. My gut tells me they’ll be very much in favor of it, but will at the same time feel uncomfortable about letting their support be known. How that will manifest itself in their political actions I cannot guess. This sort of thing is an on-going problem for them (damn those liberty-minded little Hobbits!).

Please try to avoid getting caught up in the matter of the technical details of the various classes of body armor. This has nothing to do with any of that you know.

If the truth be known (perish the thought) this is one of many signs indicating that Congress is preparing for war with the American people. Many of them are no doubt blissfully unaware of that prospect, but it must be understood that blissful unawareness, and the vehement defense thereof, is a key component of such campaigns, right up to, and through, the the very end.

Quote of the day—Marc Lane

This needs to be enforced and standard on all guns. Not only does it make sure we don’t have unintentional shootings with children, but also completely eliminates gun resales. Standardizing this technology and reinforcing background checks is part of the way to cure American’s gun problem.

Marc Lane
2014
Comment on this video:

[The stupid is strong with this one. Every single thing he said is wrong.

  • As long as there exist functional guns and children it will be possible and probable there will be unintentional shootings with children involved.
  • How can it possibly eliminate gun resale any more than it would original sales? Apparently he is of the belief there is some sort of pairing between the original owner and the gun such that the bond can never be broken.
  • It appears he equates “standardization” with mandating. These are two completely different things.
  • I have no idea what he means by “reinforcing background checks”. I know how to reinforce a physical structure or even an argument or theory.
  • His last statement assumes facts not in evidence as well as being nonsensical. He must first demonstrate American has a “gun problem” then he must articulate the problem in a manner in which there exists the possibility of multiple solutions.

But what do you expect from an anti-gun person? Ignorance and stupidity is their currency.—Joe]

The derp is strong with this party

Now that the Republicans control both Houses, they’re asking for money to “fight” the Democrats. I get multiple pleas from them every day, asking for money.

I didn’t know it took a constant in-flow of money for a representative or a senator to do the right thing, that without said constant flow of money they’d…what?– They’d still be caving, capitulating, and expressing disdain and disgust toward their liberty-minded base? This is an interesting phenomenon. So money = courage, principled stands and moral fortitude? I did not know that.

It would be vastly more principled and honest of them to come right out and say, “We’ll support this specific bill and get it pushed through for this specific price. We’ve already received this percentage of our price, and so can you spare a hundred bucks? And by the way; if our price isn’t met, we’ll of course keep your money anyway and use it for things WE want instead.”

Or is it that they intend to buy gold with my donations, place gold bricks in a leather bag, and beat Democrats up ‘side the head with it? That would at least make some kind of sense, but then why not use a plain, clay bricks, or some rocks? Why gold, particularly? A hickory axe handle can work wonders, and it only costs a few dollars.

The math doesn’t work

Computer CPU clock speeds are now well into the gigaHertz range, meaning that there are potentially billions of things per second that can be done by the computer. Billions. Thousands of millions of cycles per second.

Why then is it impossible for my tablet to keep up with my typing? I’m not a fast typist, but a modern computer should be able keep up with the kind of fantasy, hyper typing that pushes the limits of the human hand’s ability to withstand the G forces involved in moving the fingers.

You can record audio and video simultaneously and with fairly good resolution with this thing, and one would think that taking key pad instructions at rates of a few hundred strokes per minute, converting them to text, displaying the text on screen and making a click noise would not tax the computing power beyond its limits, but it apparently does. I find this more than curious.

Either a large number of programmers and project managers have crap for brains, or we are being intentionally messed with, or converting display screen address touches and converting them to text is one of the most extremely complicated things a computer can ever do. It has to be one of those three, doesn’t it? What am I missing?

Quote of the day—Anonymous Conservative

The problem I see is, the left imported the Muslim threat. Then the leftists at Charlie Hebdo inflamed it with leftist snark to the point that it began shooting at them, and even killed innocent citizens in the Kosher Deli. Now they want everyone to “stand with them,” which really means fight the enemy they imported and angered, while they hide under the table, so they won’t have to face the consequences of their own stupidity.

Anonymous Conservative
January 22, 2015
Are We All Charlie Hebdo?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—user1089750

What a festival of disturbing, unbalanced, one-issue low IQ retards.

user1089750
January 15, 2015
Comment
to Hundreds at Capitol protest new gun-purchase background checks
[This in regards to the I-594 rally in Olympia. This is what they think of you.

I would like to suggest they just keep on thinking that. Delusions are often functional right up to the point where reality obliterates them.—Joe]

Achtung, Juden! Das ist Verboten!

In processing a customer order today, we got a “Service Not Allowed” message from our credit card merchant services bank. They’re the ones who handle all of our credit and debit card transactions. We called them to find out what this message means, because we’d not seen it before. Well, they were by this time quite familiar with the “problem”. The problem is MBNA, in this case, who issued the card to our customer, DOES NOT ALLOW TRANSACTIONS WITH GUN RELATED BUSINESSES.

If you’re doing any business with MBNA, you’d best give them a jingle, and DO NOT FORGET this. This sort of thing seems to be on the rise, and it will get worse unless we push back, soon.

Update, Jan. 7, 2015; The customer called his bank, assuming the “Service Not Allowed” was due to a late payment on his part. As I explained to him several times; we were told by our Merchant Services bank that it was due to MBNA policy, and that our Merchant Services people were quite familiar with said policy as they’d had to deal with such denials many times previous. The customer only repeated what he’d said about a possible late payment. In any case, the transaction, on the same card, was approved today. All I can make of it, given what we were told by Merchant Services, is that MBNA will cave without comment or discussion once they’re called on it. From what commenters are saying, the practice of denying transactions may be random, or it may be targeted toward individual customers or vendors. Without more information I have no way of knowing. This would all seem quite unbelievable, except for what we already know about the recent IRS targeting, Fast & Furious, the attempted intimidation of Sharyl Attkisson and others, and other insidious pranks aimed at the perceived enemies of Progressivism.

This is how you measure racism?

From this “study” claiming to show that gun ownership is positively correlated to racism we find this is how they measure racism:

1.   It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites.        

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

2.  Irish, Italian, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up.  Blacks should do the same.

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

3.  Some say that black leaders have been trying to push too fast.  Others feel that they haven’t pushed fast enough.  What do you think?   

<1> Trying to push very much too fast
<2> Going too slowly
<3> Moving at about the right speed

4.  How much of the racial tension that exists in the United States today do you think blacks are responsible for creating?                       

<1> All of it
<2> Most
<3> Some
<4> Not much at all

5.  How much discrimination against blacks do you feel there is in the United States today, limiting their chances to get ahead?

<1> A lot
<2> Some
<3> Just a little
<4> None at all

6.  Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class. 

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

7.  Over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve.

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

8.  Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve.

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

Wow! And here I thought racism was an biased view of someone because of their race which was unsupported by, or in spite of, data. Nearly all of the questions can be answered by appropriate research. Asking these questions tells us nothing about real racism. It may well be that someone knows the factually supported answers to these questions and nearly maxes out as a racist.

For example; Imagine the survey was attempting to measure racism toward Asian women and they asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “Asian women are underrepresented on United States professional basketball teams because of racism.” The only bias that could realistically be measured is if the answer was in agreement with statement since:

  1. Statistically Asian women are shorter than average.
  2. Height is a big advantage in basketball.
  3. Both of the above conditions are well known.

In general there are three conditions which must be met before racism measurement survey can be valid:

  1. The factually supported answers align with the biases of the creators of this test.
  2. The person taking the test knew the factually supported answers.
  3. The person taking the test answered the questions in a way that was not factually supported.

If any of the conditions are not met then the survey results are invalid. I am virtually certain the second and third conditions are false for the vast majority of people being surveyed and I suspect the first condition is as well.

There can only be one correct conclusion from this. I must be a racist.

The psychological model

I had an interesting “conversation” with some people on Twitter the last few days. Their contribution was a constant string of insults such as:

@jgrubb62190 @EndNRA @AWorldOutOfMind Because you show your inadequacies so proudly. Someday you might find a woman.

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 9, 2014

@JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 @AWorldOutOfMind PS, at no time did I refer to myself as anti-gun, presumptuous dick-bag.

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 29, 2014

@DarthNihilus1 @JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 The gun nuts are a sad, sorry lot with zero human empathy. Heartless, dense.

— Saint Brian (@AWorldOutOfMind) December 30, 2014

@JoeHuffman @AWorldOutOfMind @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 Put your glasses on, old timer..

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 30, 2014

@JoeHuffman @AWorldOutOfMind @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 More blog links, this guy is fucking dense!!

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 30, 2014

@AWorldOutOfMind @JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 I enjoy destroying them slowly.

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 30, 2014

@DarthNihilus1 @JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 And did you? I mean, you should have, but you can’t destroy Teflon Idiocy.

— Saint Brian (@AWorldOutOfMind) December 30, 2014

@AWorldOutOfMind @JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 I destroy him publicly, so others can see him with his pants down.

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 30, 2014

@DarthNihilus1 @JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 I can’t interact with them that much anymore. I get actual nausea.

— Saint Brian (@AWorldOutOfMind) December 30, 2014

You don’t win the gun rights debate by getting your peer group to agree with your insults. You win by getting public opinion on your side and winning court cases.

Yet the psychology is interesting. Insults versus logical arguments? Patting themselves on the back thinking they have won? Nausea?

Hmmm… this is all consistent with the neurological and psychology model proposed by Anonymous Conservative.

This is what I’m talking about

In the comment thread here ubu52 demonstrates something I have been saying for a long time. Sometimes people literally cannot “hear” (or in this case read) your words without mapping them into something else which you did not say.

Here is an abbreviated version of the conversation:

ubu52: That’s ridiculous. That’s like saying all those who wanted to see Bush/Clinton tarred and feathered actually wanted to see that.

Joe: 

And it is ridiculous to think those saying, “Rats. Destroy Them.” actually wanted to see that.

Spiegelman-Rotten

Right?

ubu52: [Repeatedly says she doesn’t get it. After completely spelling it out for her she finally says she gets it.]

Joe: [In six different contexts I ask, “Is it ridiculous to believe they are serious?”]

ubu52: So, who created it? Was it the occupiers? Was it someone Danish? Did they do it under duress or with their own free will? Was it created to mock the Nazis or was it created by someone who agreed with them? Without knowing it’s actual background, it’s really just a piece of 1940’s art.

Sometimes, creative people do things for effect. It has absolutely nothing to do with what they really think or feel. You are looking for some sort of deeper meaning to things that may not mean anything at all. (You’re also trying to compare them to people who are mentally ill, but that’s another topic altogether.)

You have such a black/white way of looking at things, it seems that you are incapable of seeing any of the grays in life.

I was asking if it was ridiculous to take the rat poster seriously. This was the work of the most famous genocidal group of all time targeting their most famous victims and she changes the subject to be something about “creative people” doing “things for effect” and claims I’m “incapable of seeing any of the grays in life.”

I cannot fathom how someone could see “shades of gray” in answering the question whether it was ridiculous to take the poster seriously. This poster cannot be interpreted any other way than literally deadly serious. It would be unfathomably ridiculous to interpret any other way than serious.

My question was not verbal, but in written word, repeated six times, and yet ubu52 ignores the question, changes the subject to be a question about the person who did the actual artwork, and tells me I have some deficiency in seeing the nuances of “just a piece of 1940’s art.”

Either she is deliberately trolling me to waste my time or chiefjaybob got it right, “In the end, they are all like Joan. It’s just a matter of degrees.”