Monthly Archives: November 2009

Boomershoot 2010 fall prep done

Posted on by

Two weeks ago I delivered a bunch of concrete blocks, mortar, and grass seed to the Boomershoot site. I didn’t stay long enough to do anything with it because I wanted to shoot in a steel match that same day. I made the quick trip out there because I was afraid it would snow up or rain so much that it wouldn’t be accessible until spring and I wanted the materials out there so I could walk (or snowshoe) in if I needed to and do any last minute prep work.

Today I drove back out and planted the last of the grass. It wouldn’t have been disaster if I hadn’t gotten the grass planted but it will be better that I did get it done. I would have liked to have done some work finishing off the semi-permanent toilet but I ended up spending time talking to my parents and brothers and then driving the 345 miles back to the Seattle area.

I’ll probably go back out there in a couple weeks. Due to a huge office move at work I will have the entire Thanksgiving week off (extra, free, vacation!) so assuming the ground isn’t knee deep in mud or waist deep in snow I will spend some of that time working on the site. But I have 2010 essential stuff done for this fall.

Quote of the day–Gerard Valentino

Posted on by

As pro-gun advocates, we have an obligation to lay out our arguments in a calculating and logical manner. To do so isn’t easy. I fail to tolerate the simple minded nature of our anti-gun adversaries on a daily basis. Like most pro-gun advocates it is beyond my ability to comprehend that people still believe in the validity of gun-control after the mounds of evidence that has disproved it over the last thirty years. Even worse is trying to educate the establishment media on how much they don’t understand about guns. Anger is never the answer, however, since it only reinforces the idea that people who own guns can’t be trusted–an ironic twist since it is backward anti-gun ravings that should incur the scorn of every day Americans.

Gerard Valentino
November 7, 2009
The Good Fight Against the Anti Gun MindSet
[I  spent a good part of my day yesterday being anger over a stupid anti-gun comment by someone. I decided to reload a bunch of ammo rather than make a blog post although the rant I had formulated probably would have released the anger more rapidly.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Paul Helmke

Posted on by

This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
November 7, 2009
Rampage forces review of security policies on Army bases worldwide
[Only if you ignore the facts Paul. Only if you ignore the facts.

The fact is the victims were disarmed–just as they have been in nearly every other mass shooting.

But of course Helmke’s organization success is dependent on the ignorance of people. That ignorance is rapidly becoming a thing of the past and is probably the primary reason he and his organization of bigots are becoming as irrelevant as the KKK.–Joe]

It Boggles the Mind

Posted on by

Reading the swarm of comments over on Oleg’s blog, it seems a lot of military folks, those with real experience, favor keeping people disarmed in barracks and around the base;

It may be hard for some to comprehend, but putting on ACUs doesn’t make you a weapons proficient commando. If they let every cook, clerk, and nurse carry around loaded weapons 24/7 there would be many more “accidental” deaths than this per year.

Exactly what the anti gun rights activists say about the population in general, and it’s been proven wrong.  We have more guns than ever, and the accident rate continues to fall.  Not weapons proficient?  Them train them, then arm them.  In that order.  Takes only a short while.  Put the second amendment back in force and more of them will be proficient, to some degree, when they arrive, which was of course the original idea, wasn’t it, Skippy?

The average “soldier” doesn’t shoot for a living and non-combat arms (the vast majority is support) troops are lucky to even see the range twice a year.

Poor training.  Basing policy on poor training is worse than just poor training alone.  So, we can afford billion-dollar bombers, and gazzillion-dollar satellite networks and all that, but a few extra cartridges for a week of training is out of the freaking question.  Even then, I assume there has to be at least a few in the barracks who know one end of a gun from another.  I know– I just don’t understand.  I’d understand if I were in the military, that you don’t train too many people too well, ’cause that’s “dangerous”, even though I see every day here in the real world that that line of thinking is pure horseshit.  The more people equipped and trained in the use of arms, the safer your whole society, and the more versatile and effective your military.  If you people don’t trust your own, you need to seriously get the f^#K out.  Now.

They would also have to lock the base down from un-verified (without prior clearance) civilian entry as weapons would be too easily accessed.

“Civilian entry”?  Like at my house, where there’s infinitely more firepower than in military barracks?  Like at a gun store or a gun show, or a shooting range, practically anywhere in the country?  So then, it’s fine to just let any stranger onto a military base so long as that base is almost as unarmed as a kindergarten-school-gun-free-zone, and it would be worse to let strangers in if people on the base were mostly all armed and capable of defending themselves?  That’s hippie logic, right there, folks.  It’s right out of Diane Feinstein’s teeny tiny little bird brain.

Somebody (re)educate me here (haul me to a camp or something) ’cause I figure that if you’re training an army, any time, any where, they should all know how to handle a weapon, from the nurse, to the cook, to the electrician, to the floor sweeper, to the truck driver, etc. (just like in the civilian population) all the way through to the actual combat units.  Falling short of that (because you’re in the military and afraid of guns?) I would think that, at the very least, anyone trained in weapon handling should be well-trained, and should be hauling at the very minimum a sidearm around at all times (just like millions of civilians do every day already).

ATF gets slapped down

Posted on by

I don’t think the ATF gets their wrists slapped often enough for thuggish behavior but it’s always a pleasure when it does happen:

A judge found the actions of federal agents who refused to show Zanesville residents a warrant when asked are “completely unreasonable and unjustified.”

…

At the suppression hearing in July, Marbley made it clear to agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and Assistant U.S. Attorney David Bosley, that he was unhappy with the way agents handled the search June 18 at the Thompson home on Kopchak Road.

…

Marian Thompson said even though she repeatedly asked for a warrant, none was ever supplied.

Marbley stated in his ruling that “one of the purposes served by the warrant requirement is informing citizens that the executing agents are acting under proper authorization when they invade the sanctity of a citizen’s home.”

Marian Thompson testified she was fearful when the agents confronted her and without a search warrant, wasn’t sure if they truly were agents.

She said she was made to sit outside the home, with only a shirt on, for hours. She was nude when agents came in, she testified, but they did allow her to put a shirt on.

Marbley said nothing indicated that Marian Thompson was uncooperative or in any way jeopardized the search and rather than quickly allaying her fears, her doubt was prolonged for several hours.

Marbley also said not only not showing Marian Thompson the warrant at the onset of the search led to his decision, but because she was forced to partially dress in plain view of 14 officers with guns pointed at her rather than being allowed to dress behind a counter, then made to sit outside in the heat for five hours, went without food or water and never shown any identification of the officers was also in violation of her Fourth Amendment Right.

I think the thugs should be prosecuted under 18 USC 242 and forever barred from a government job. But that’s not going to happen. And as long as it doesn’t incidents like the above will continue.

The Tenth Amendment is for cowards

Posted on by

Wow! It’s almost surreal reading this:

I’ll say the last refuge of cowards in the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth has been invoked a lot lately. The Tenth has been mentioned as the reason health-care reform is unconstitutional. It’s the way the Speaker of the Tennessee State House says his state can circumvent federal gun laws. It’s the states’ rights argument carried to the extreme.

The amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

What that says, in other words, is that if a power is unclaimed by the federal government — or if that power is not denied to the states — then the states have it. The intent is to clarify the basic point that if the feds aren’t in charge, the states are.

It’s a truism, not a grant of power.

Soon after the framers wrote the original document, it was obvious states couldn’t act independently. When the Constitution was written, there wasn’t much interstate commerce at all. Going from one end of the country to the other end didn’t take five hours — it took five months. So the federal government claimed some powers to tie up loose ends.

If states acted on their own when it came to matters of interstate commerce, it would be to easy for states to grant monopolies to business, and too easy for large businesses to fix prices and destroy smaller competition.

…

Everyone learns at some point in life that there are three remedies to a negative situation: avoid, alter or accept it. Those against health-care legislation or gun-control laws don’t need to accept what they see as bad policy. They should try alter the policy in all the accepted ways.

But reverting to the Tenth Amendment is avoidance. It’s the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. And these issues are too important to do that.

After invoking the Tenth Amendment he goes on (there is more than just that above) to justify the Interstate Commerce clause without even mentioning it as if it were the Tenth Amendment.

And did you notice all the errors in the passages above?

  • The first line says “…in the Tenth…” instead of “…is the Tenth…” but I figure that is just a typo and I give him a pass on that.
  • “It’s a truism, not a grant of power. “? It explicitly states that the Feds are not granted most powers and he turns it around to claim the states are not granted powers.
  • It took five months to travel from one end of the 13 colonies to the other? It’s only about 1500 miles so he is saying the average speed of travel was 10 miles per day. Even with a backpack on and walking on mountain trails I can do better than that.
  • The Tenth Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution and it’s pretty clear the original intent is being violated. Many other Federal laws have been struck down by the courts as violating various parts of the constitution, including the Tenth Amendment, so it’s entirely reasonable to quest whether this law is in violation.

 So it’s the author that is the coward avoiding the issue. He gets it exactly backward and calls people invoking the Tenth Amendment cowards. It’s called “projection” and it just goes to show he either has mental problems or has crap for brains.

The government is arming civilians

Posted on by

It’s rare that the government gives guns to civilians so they can defend themselves. But it’s apparently happening in Thailand:

At the local Buddhist temple at Trohgen village in Pattani province a class is being held for a group of mostly female community volunteers – but this is no religious ceremony.

“It’s getting more violent every day,” said Monthira Peng-Iad, a 40-year-old farmer.

“So many of my relatives have been shot and killed I feel bitter inside. I want to know how to shoot, so I can help people in the village.”


Monthira Peng-Iad

…

One human rights group says up to a hundred thousand civilian Buddhists and Muslims have been given guns to “protect” themselves in the three southern provinces of Thailand, but this is a figure the military denies.

This is a BBC report and it’s not surprising they put the word ‘protect’ in quotes. Would they do the same if they were talking about the police being given guns?

H/T to Ben K. for the link. Ben worked in Thailand for a while.

Quote of the day–Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan

Posted on by

What you’re going to see (Friday) in this report produced by the national firearms centre … is that the statistics I just gave you were not included. Whoever put it together didn’t put in there the information that only 2.4 per cent of those 3.5 million queries (to the registry) were actually related to information about a long-gun registration number or about a serial number of a gun.

That information was not put there by the people at the national firearms registry so you should ask them why that information wasn’t there.

Peter Van Loan
Public Safety Minister, Canada
Battle heats up over gun registry: Minister suggests staff of national database are hiding information to ensure its survival
[If the staff did this it certainly wouldn’t be the first time the anti-gun people told half-truths to justify infringing upon a natural right.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Robert Orben

Posted on by

Washington is a place where politicians don’t know which way is up and taxes don’t know which way is down.

Robert Orben
[I was reminded of this by the failure of I-1033 in Washington State. Andrew Garber at the Seattle times (previous link) described it this way, “Initiative 1033 would have limited revenue increases for state, city and county governments to the rate of inflation and population growth. Additional money collected above the limit would have been used to reduce property taxes.”–Joe]

Very Good Post

Posted on by

Most of you probably already visit Kevin’s blog regularly.  If you don’t, please go and read this piece.  It’s by one of his readers, formerly of the U.K.  It’ll take you a few minutes, but it’s well worth it.  It’s an overview of what’s been happening in the U.K. and what, I submit, has been happening here in the U.S. though more slowly (until now).

Yards, Meters and BDC

Posted on by

So maybe I’m an idiot.  I was out firing a Colt AR-15 HBAR with a Trijicon ACOG scope.  I’d gone the extra step and drilled through the A2 carry handle on this otherwise pristine Colt so as to add the second mounting screw for the scope.  The BDC (Bullet Drop Compensating) reticle has different crosshairs for elevation at different ranges (wind is of course still up to your doping skills).  You zero at, say, 100 using the main crosshair, and your elevation is supposed to be correct at all the other indicated distances.  One comment on that; it would be much better to refine your zero at greater distances, using that other crosshair, say, at 500 using the number 5 crosshair or etc.

Out in the real world though, your targets aren’t placed at nice, even, measured distances, so it gets just a little bit more complicated.  I’d brought a laser with me to do range measurements.  The laser registered a particular target at 385 yards.  Said right there, so it couldn’t be wrong, “385 yd”.  That’s close enough to 400 that I opt for the number 4 crosshair.  Shot went high.  “Not possible– I called that shot dead on.”  Same thing again.  Walking the shots onto the target, I find I have to hold halfway between the number 3 and 4 crosshairs*.  “Crap.  This shouldn’t be happening.  I have nigh on three grand worth of equipment in top condition, the right ammo, and a standard length barrel.  What the hell?”

Some of you will already have figured out the problem (I seem to recall something about an interplanetary probe oblitorating itself on Mars due to a similar error).  The ACOG scope is calibrated in meters and the laser was set to display in yards.  A yard is 0.9144 meters.  In realistic rifle shooting distances, we can simplify that to either adding or subtracting 10% to do the conversion in our heads, and be close enough.  At 385 yards I was rounding up to 400, which made sense, but I was still thinking all in yards.  I didn’t convert.  385 – 10% (simplify further and subtract 38) =  about 347 meters, or close enough to the 350 meter crosshair for this target.  *Ah Hah!

Better yet would have been to take all of half a minute (only because I don’t mess with the settings much and I’d have had to take that long to figure it out) to set the laser to read in meters.

On a nice, relaxing day with a full belly and a Thermos-full of hot coffee (as backup this time) the sun shining and the birds chirping among the beautiful North Idaho scenery, this was more of an amusing lesson than anything serious.  If there is ever a situation in which it really matters, you’ll want to be aware of these things in advance, and have taken the necessary steps already.

Part of my problem is that I fool around with so many different weapon systems, in addition to being an idiot.  How does that saying go?  “Beware the man with only one gun.”  Something like that.  He knows his weapon backwards and forwards, right and left, upside down and every which way, in the dark, summer and winter, and with one hand tied behind his back just to make if fair he’ll still kick your ass.  Hmm.  Maybe there’s a new IPSC stage in there somewhere.

Update: With the low recoil of the 5.56 round and a low power optic, you can usually spot your own hits even at longer distances.  Take that for what it’s worth.

Gearing up for battle

Posted on by

Seattle may become a very important battle ground with some heavy guns involved. SAF and NRA just filed a lawsuit against the city and I expected an easy win because the law is so clear. But it’s not always about truth and justice (some may even say it’s rare that truth and justice are the result). This may be one of those cases and it has national implications:

Stepping in to defend Nickels and the city in this confrontation at no charge is the Northwest office of an international law firm, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. This firm, according to its website, has 21 offices in Asia, Europe and North America. It has a history of providing pro bono legal representation to various causes.

Plaintiffs are represented by Seattle attorney Steve Fogg with the Seattle law firm of Corr, Cronin, Michelson, Baumgardner & Preece LLC. According to their website, the firm has been recognized for its litigation abilities.

…

So how does this case have possible national implications? If Seattle’s creative approach as a private property owner simply regulating conduct on its park properties is allowed to stand (that strategy failed in Ohio, where a parks ban imposed by the City of Clyde was struck down by that state’s Supreme Court), it is conceivable that other cities in other states, or even in the Evergreen State, will start pushing the envelope.

I doubled my payroll (and Microsoft matching) contributions to SAF for calendar year 2010. I hope a lot of other people contribute as well.

The Unit and exploding bullets

Posted on by

Barb and I just finished watching the TV series The Unit. We really enjoyed it.

The gun handling and shooting was way above average. They shot around corners correctly, they cleared rooms correctly, they got hits at ranges in times that could be expected from expert shooters.

Barb loves to predict the outcome of any movie or show she watches. Who is going to be the bad guy? How are they going to get out of this predicament?

She is very good at it. So good that our kids tell her to shut up just as soon as her mouth starts to open. I don’t mind and frequently play the game as well. Barb was frequently stumped. The writers were very good and we enjoyed the show being unpredictable without “angels flying out of their ass” to save the day. The solutions to the problems the characters faced were nearly always innovative and believable.

It was also very cool that the operatives/shooters wives were a big part of the stories they told. I was afraid that Barb wouldn’t care for the show and I would end up watching it alone but the inclusion of the wives side of the drama made a big difference and did not detract from my enjoyment of the show.

There were occasionally things that bugged me about it however. Ironically the biggest was the item that got me to start watching it to begin with.

I had lunch with a friend a few months ago and he asked if it was true that putting mercury in a bullet would cause it to completely disintegrate upon impact because he had seen in on the show. I told him I would have to watch the show to be certain but it probably was just reusing an old plot device.

As near as I can tell the mercury bullet thing first came from the novel The Day of the Jackal (1971) by Frederick Forsyth. I read the book shortly after it came out and was fascinated, as many people are, by the mercury filled bullets. It’s a great plot device but as near as I can determine pointless.

First off it’s going to be really tough to make the bullet accurate with a liquid moving around inside the bullet. Second, we already have rifle bullets that can, essentially, explode upon impact. Why do you think Speer calls their varmint bullets TNT?

The TNT bullets are only rated at 3100 fps because, according to the manual, they are likely to “explode” before reaching the target if you push them faster than that. I bought some .30 caliber 125 grain TNT “seconds” (the factory is in nearby Lewiston Idaho and they sometimes sell cosmetically defective bullets in bulk to the local gun shops) for breaking in the barrel of my .300 Win Mag. Yeah, isn’t that a real kick? Using a 125 grain varmint bullets in .300 Win Mag.

The 3100 fps limit specified didn’t really make sense to me. I would have expected a rotational rate limit rather than a velocity rate and I sent a customer service guy I knew at Speer an email. He confirmed what I suspected. It really was a rotational issue. 3100 fps assumed the normal 1:10 twist barrels. But I have a 1:11 twist. Which means I could push them faster. Furthermore he told me that it also assumed a normal hunting type barrel where the rifling was fairly sharp and engraved, and weakened, the bullet jacket considerably. Many match grade barrels resulted in a less compromised jacket and hence you could push the bullets even faster without having them go “poof” on the way to the target. My calculations indicated I should be able to get at least 3400 fps out of them. Cool! Imagine what those bullets are going to do with they hit something.

I decided to use the bullets for something more than breaking in the barrel. I coated my bullets with moly to further reduce the engraving of the jacket by the rifling and began working up a load.

According to my references the min and max loads of Varget for 125 grain bullets in .300 Win Mag are 65 and 70 grains. I worked my way up to the max loads without any signs of excessive pressure. On the range the chronograph told me I was getting a mean muzzle velocity of 3497 fps using the max load. Occasionally one of the bullets won’t make it to the target but that’s a bit rare. Tests on milk jugs filled with water with a tarp underneath and around them to aid in collecting the pieces confirmed that the bullet essentially disappeared into a collection of lead sand upon impact and the jug behind it would only get a small “puncture wound” from the base of the jacket. The main part of the jacket was torn to shreds and no piece, other than the jacket base, was larger than about 0.1 inches in any dimension.

I use factory loaded 50 grain VMAX bullets in my AR-15 from Black Hills with similar results.

Mercury filled bullets? Why? Because it’s a cool plot device.

Put a bullet in it

Posted on by

They are getting closer and closer:

Opponents of a long-gun registry in Canada are about to put a bullet in it.

Both sides of the gun-control debate believe the Conservatives now have enough Commons votes to give parliamentary approval in principle to a private member’s bill to kill the registry for rifles and shotguns.

…

Hoeppner said the registry is a waste of $2 billion – referring to the cumulative costs over more than a decade of setting up the licensing and registration system for firearms in Canada.

Just think of all the other things that $2 billion could have been used for that would have been effective in making people safer. More police officers, better equipment, more jails, or even training programs for “people at risk” of committing crimes.

Instead they spent $2,000,000,000 on something that didn’t register all the guns, and couldn’t accomplish what they promised had it succeeded in it’s goals.

If they can actually put this rabid dog down it will be a long time before new firearms registration schemes will be given serious consideration in the U.S.

Quote of the day–Spartan ephor

Posted on by

If.

Spartan ephor
Via the Wikipedia entry on Laconic phrase. This must be the ultimate example.

Direct quote from Wikipedia:

From the time of the invasion of Philip II of Macedon. With key Greek city-states in submission, he turned his attention to Sparta and sent a message: “If I win this war, you will be slaves forever.” In another version, Philip proclaims: “You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city.” The Spartan ephors sent back a one word reply: “If.”[17] Subsequently, both Philip and Alexander would avoid Sparta entirely.

[Very cool.–Joe]

How’s that gun ban working out?

Posted on by

The headline tells the story–London gun crime rises as shootings nearly double.

It must be that someone somewhere needs to have their gun show loophole closed, have one gun a month law passed, or “assault weapons” banned.

Oh yeah. I forgot. They are way past that point with a complete ban on nearly all guns and people increasingly use guns in the commission of violent crimes.

And it’s not just a little bit either:

…[T]he number of actual shootings has almost doubled from 123 to 236 in the last six months compared with the same period last year, a rise of 91.8%. Serious firearms offences have risen by 47% across the capital.

So what’s the reason they want to ban the guns in our country? What do they think the benefit will be? We know it and they know it. It’s not about making people safer. They have some other motivation because the data tells everyone that gun bans do not make people safer.

So what is the real reason for wanting to restrict firearm ownership? After failing to get an answer to Just One Question that should be follow up when they still insist on “common sense” regulation. Either that or just tell the bigots Μολὼν λαβέ.

Speaking of crap for brains

Posted on by

Crap for brains isn’t just in Seattle. It appears to be far too common these days. There should be a law against it.

Oh, yeah. I forgot. There is a law against it. It’s Darwin’s Law. But we have been helping others violate Darwin’s law for so long that stupid is becoming dominate when, by law, it should become more and more rare.

Other people ignore the law and we have to pay the consequences. Life just isn’t fair.

It must have been an AK-47

Posted on by

Whenever they smell blood they start dancing to the tunes of AK-47s:

Tragic as it was, the cold-blooded drive-by shooting of Officer Timothy Brenton over the weekend handed supporters of a proposed state assault weapons ban with a compelling case to take to Olympia. Even though police say they have not yet determined what weapon was used, Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, says he plans to cite Brenton’s murder when lobbying for the bill in the next legislative session.

“Maybe this particular [police victim] wasn’t killed with an assault weapon, but the next one maybe will be,” Fascitelli says, adding that police safety was a key reason that automatic weapons were banned decades ago and that the International Association of Police Chiefs supports a ban on military-style semiautomatic weapons today.

It doesn’t matter if the band playing doesn’t even have an AK. Heck, I don’t think it would matter if there were even a band.

They apparently live in some sort of alternate reality where their fears of imagined boogie men are sufficient grounds to demand the government infringe upon a specific enumerated right when even their leaders admit they have insufficient evidence to justify their actions. And they call that “a compelling case”.

I call it crap for brains.

CCRKBA has something to say too.

Portland Metro firearms

Posted on by

It has been found via public records requests that Portland Metro says one thing publicly and has a different internal policy:

…[T]hese locations have signs posted saying that no firearms are allowed and there are no exceptions.

…

In September we made a public records request from Metro asking for all rules and restrictions dealing with firearms at facilities and locations they control. While we still have not received those we have received a copy of an executive order dealing with firearms and license holders that clearly contradicts their stated policies.

While we believe that Metro is reexamining all of its firearms restrictions, until they have corrected the many unlawful rules at locations they control, we want you to have a copy of their executive order which clearly states that license holders are NOT subject to their restrictions.

As is usual the bigots drag their feet as much as possible in their continued attempts to deprive people of specific enumerated rights even when it’s made extremely clear to them they are in violation of the law.

Via email from Ben K.

Quote of the day–Tamara K.

Posted on by

…We circle back around to one of the big problems in our society, which is the idea that line-memorizing clothes horses have anything more valid to say about politics, science, or current events than the hippie on the street corner with a guitar case. The Romans had the right position in society for actors: Above cesspit cleaners, but not as well-respected as a decent whore.

Tamara K.
November 3, 2009
Shame!
[This reminds me of a Robert Heinlein quote:

A whore should be judged by the same criteria as other professionals offering services for pay–such as dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc. Is she professionally competent? Does she give good measure? Is she honest with her clients?

It is possible that the percentage of honest and competent whores is higher than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers. And enormously higher than that of professors.

Lazarus Long
A character in several books by Robert Heinlein.

Getting back to Tamara’s quote…

The problem is that people are still largely driven by some evolutionary advantageous urge to listen to and obey those whose faces are familiar rather than actually think for themselves. But of course that presumes said person is capable of and willing to think for themselves. I’m not convinced the majority of people are up to the task yet we protect them from their own stupidity almost as if they were children who would grow up someday. I sometimes see a future where the system collapses and Darwin collects on a massive debt we have been accumulating for the last 100 years. It would have been far, far better in so many ways to pay off Darwin in regular installments than to have the Grim Reaper swing his scythe in such a broad swath as I sometimes see as plausible.–Joe]