Nice work!
We often hear from anti-gun people things like:
It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles.
Or this:
If you’re someone who honestly believes that you can stage an armed rebellion to overthrow the United States government, you’re too mentally unstable to own guns.
Is it asking too much for these people to learn something from the number of police being shot up in Dallas? ONE guy murdered five armed police officers and wounded several others in the span of a few minutes. He didn’t make it out alive, but still there are some things that could be learned here.
How many “gun nuts” would it take to overthrow, or at least completely remove the majority of those in control of, a small city government they thought was corrupt? Or a large city government? Or a state government?
Think about the resources tied up for a month when the two D.C. snipers were active. Think about the time and number of police it took to find, surround, and finish off the one rogue police officer in Los Angles a few years ago.
Multiple that by, picking a number, 3% of the number of gun owners in the U.S. (about 100 million). For those anti-gun people who may be arithmetic challenged that is 3,000,000. And 3,000,000 is much, much, larger than one or two. And there is a synergy with larger numbers that cause a systemic failure such that it would far worse than just 3,000,000 times the effect of one or two acting on their own. Nearly all of those 3% would do virtually nothing more than show up, look around, shrug, and talk among themselves about the replacement government to put in place.
Or looking at it another way, think about what might happen if ISIS, with a few thousand fanatics, decided to put together an ongoing, diversified, guerilla attack against us with a dozen or so people per team.* The evidence supplied in Dallas demonstrates our police would not do well. The military doesn’t have enough people to protect every local government or vulnerable target. It would require some percentage, maybe 3%, of U.S. gun owners to help defend our homeland—to protect “the security of a free state”.
See also my previous post on the topic, Boots on the ground.
But don’t expect anti-gun people to change their story. They believe what they want to believe. Facts are apparently not something within their domain of expertise. They work more with insults.
* I’ve seen some of the training tapes our military found in the caves of Afghanistan. One of those was about ambushing and killing police officers.
In my writings, when I first came out of Wall Street, I focused on debt, I focused on economics and I focused on financial markets. I did all of that stuff, but I stopped doing that for one simple reason. It was obvious to me . . . that this thing had only one way to go, which is a complete collapse of everything. We’re going to need to start over. There’s too much debt. There’s too much corruption. There’s too much BS. There’s too much war. There’s too much everything that is bad in this world, and debt is one aspect of it. Are we going to have to wipe out the debts one way or the other? Of course, we will. I guess the reason I have stopped talking about that and writing about that is because it is so obvious. So, what I have been doing over the last three years is getting people aware and engaged on everything, not just the economics, but the political corruption. Every single industry in this world is basically hitting peak corruption, peak shadiness, peak violence and peak everything. So, it’s not just the debt or the economies that are going to collapse, it’s everything, the political establishment and the social fabric. All of these things we have been living under our entire lives will be replaced by something else. . . . The only question is, are we going to get something better or are we going to get something worse?
Michael Krieger
July 3, 2016
Disintegration & Overthrow of Global Elite Regime-Michael Krieger
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
What liberated us? It might have been the printing press, or capitalism, or the sailing ship. But it might have been the gun. And if it was the gun that liberated us, then we should be very worried. Because when the Age of the Gun ends, the age of freedom and dignity and equality that much of humanity now enjoys may turn out to have been a bizarre, temporary aberration.
Noah Smith
March 11, 2014
Drones will cause an upheaval of society like we haven’t seen in 700 years
[We all know that the gun is civilization so that condition is met, but it’s not entirely clear to me that drones will eliminate the power of the gun. And drones are in the hands of private citizens as well as the government so it’s not a complete loss of power by the individual even if drones somehow make guns essentially obsolete.
But it is something to think about and I think a very real concern. Especially since the government is ahead of the curve some and is requiring registration of drones in this country. They missed the window of opportunity on registration of guns but they nailed it on drones.—Joe]
Via a tweet from the NRA we have this:
Among Democrats, 20 percent said all 11 guns should be illegal, while 15 percent of Republicans said they should all be legal.
One of the guns was clearly a flare gun and marked as such. A flare gun!
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns. One out of five Democrats want it to be illegal to own a hunting rifle, a common shotgun, or even a flare gun.
Ry and I participated in the steel match at the Renton Fish and Game Club yesterday. We got rained on a little bit at the beginning of the first stage but it cleared up quickly.
Except for the first stage the courses of fire had small targets some distance away with fairly large transitions:
This, of course, slowed the shooting down. This was especially true for the younger kids in the match. Compare my times on the various stages to those of Joey Meboe, Isabelle Meboe, and Matthew Meisner. Look at how close we are on stage 1 and how different we are on the other stages.
But I still did well enough that I was happy with the results.
The entire match results are here. My average time per hit with Rimfire Pistol Iron sights (RFPI) was 0.7406 seconds:
| RFPI | |||||||||
| Final | Name | USPSA | Class | Division | Time | Stage 1 Go Fast | Stage 2 In And Out | Stage 3 Focus | Stage 4 Pitfall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sailer, Christian | A86982 | U | RFPI | 33.86 | 5.91 | 9.00 | 9.61 | 9.34 |
| 2 | Paczosa, Connor | A628860 | U | RFPI | 41.39 | 8.41 | 10.53 | 12.12 | 10.33 |
| 3 | White, Alex | U | RFPI | 44.64 | 8.47 | 10.24 | 13.81 | 12.12 | |
| 4 | Miner, Bradley Jr | U | RFPI | 44.89 | 8.85 | 11.47 | 11.30 | 13.27 | |
| 5 | Larson, Addison | U | RFPI | 54.60 | 11.05 | 13.26 | 14.80 | 15.49 | |
| 6 | Huffman, Joseph | U | RFPI | 59.25 | 9.89 | 15.39 | 17.41 | 16.56 | |
| 7 | Morris, David | U | RFPI | 60.19 | 9.71 | 15.41 | 18.67 | 16.40 | |
| 8 | Mortell, Jeffery | U | RFPI | 64.83 | 11.80 | 16.68 | 18.13 | 18.22 | |
| 9 | Meboe, Joey | U | RFPI | 69.25 | 8.90 | 16.84 | 26.15 | 17.36 | |
| 10 | Bakken, Lance | U | RFPI | 70.42 | 13.10 | 18.23 | 21.25 | 17.84 | |
| 11 | Meboe, Isabelle | U | RFPI | 72.71 | 11.16 | 20.63 | 20.26 | 20.66 | |
| 12 | Meisner, Matthew | U | RFPI | 131.20 | 11.88 | 36.36 | 37.68 | 45.28 | |
With Iron Sighted Pistol (ISP) combined with Production (because they are very close in equipment) I won with an average time per hit of 0.911 seconds. I would have come in second place had I been competing against the people with open class guns:
| ISP | |||||||||
| Final | Name | USPSA | Class | Division | Time | Stage 1 Go Fast | Stage 2 In And Out | Stage 3 Focus | Stage 4 Pitfall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Huffman, Joseph | U | ISP | 72.89 | 12.35 | 20.33 | 21.35 | 18.86 | |
| 2 | Miner, Brad | U | ISP | 101.74 | 19.84 | 26.27 | 31.17 | 24.46 | |
| 3 | Reeve, Tod | U | ISP | 140.16 | 13.80 | 40.63 | 45.23 | 40.50 | |
| PROD | |||||||||
| Final | Name | USPSA | Class | Division | Time | Stage 1 Go Fast | Stage 2 In And Out | Stage 3 Focus | Stage 4 Pitfall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Komatsu, Jeff | U | PROD | 79.52 | 13.36 | 22.94 | 19.95 | 23.27 | |
| 2 | Roe, Shawn | U | PROD | 79.97 | 14.09 | 20.42 | 23.55 | 21.91 | |
| 3 | Sulcer, Charles | U | PROD | 81.49 | 18.52 | 23.07 | 17.06 | 22.84 | |
| 4 | Mortell, Jeffery | U | PROD | 82.69 | 15.20 | 26.10 | 20.65 | 20.74 | |
| 5 | Pacczosa, Dan | A492542 | U | PROD | 87.77 | 10.95 | 30.11 | 24.05 | 22.66 |
| 6 | Meisner, Michael | A10203 | U | PROD | 91.39 | 14.16 | 26.31 | 28.11 | 22.81 |
| 7 | Meboe, Greg | U | PROD | 91.74 | 16.12 | 26.19 | 28.87 | 20.56 | |
| 8 | Larson, Bob | U | PROD | 100.27 | 17.09 | 26.76 | 27.08 | 29.34 | |
| 9 | McKenzie, Don | U | PROD | 104.46 | 15.41 | 27.83 | 34.10 | 27.12 | |
| 10 | Blackston, Rick | U | PROD | 108.86 | 18.48 | 29.62 | 28.17 | 32.59 | |
| 11 | White, Eric | U | PROD | 117.96 | 16.88 | 25.82 | 46.85 | 28.41 | |
| 12 | Wolfer, Cole | U | PROD | 130.14 | 25.09 | 32.57 | 42.13 | 30.35 | |
| 13 | Femino, Jason | U | PROD | 153.09 | 18.88 | 52.55 | 35.85 | 45.81 | |
Ry had an open class gun but no holster for it. When starting from the low ready with something other rim fire guns they add three seconds per string to your time. This was a huge penalty for him.
| OPN | |||||||||
| Final | Name | USPSA | Class | Division | Time | Stage 1 Go Fast | Stage 2 In And Out | Stage 3 Focus | Stage 4 Pitfall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rathjen, Michael | U | OPN | 59.44 | 10.74 | 15.79 | 18.35 | 14.56 | |
| 2 | Lai, Daniel | TY44166 | U | OPN | 80.72 | 14.13 | 21.28 | 24.72 | 20.59 |
| 3 | Kanter, Jeffrey | U | OPN | 100.39 | 15.58 | 34.94 | 27.87 | 22.00 | |
| 4 | Jones, Ry | U | OPN | 121.29 | 23.14 | 31.79 | 41.32 | 25.04 | |
For me, the difference between starting from the low ready and from a holster is 0.6 seconds or less. So… Let’s assume a holster would have slowed him down 1.0 seconds per string. With 16 strings for the match, we should subtract 32 seconds from his time to get a better idea of what his capability is. This would put him at about 89 seconds for the match with a much more competitive time.
I’ve had Dillon Precision presses for ~20 years. No idea how many rounds I’ve loaded, but I remember buying primers by the case several times. Not quite this level, but enough to give the anti-gunnies conniptions. The Square Deal B is my go-to press for pistol cartridges. I’ve not used it in a while, though, between work, kids, writing, and everything else.
Anyway, when I went to assemble some 38 Special ammo today it wasn’t feeding primers reliably. Long story short, I call Dillon Precision’s tech support (they have a toll free number), get charged nothing, get my answer, and they are sending some replacement little plastic gizzies (technical term, that) which go on the end of the primer feed tube, mailed out tomorrow at no charge. He also told me how to clean the primer feed tube by pushing an alcohol-dipped Q-tip through it with the primer follower. That got quite a spectacular bit of corrosion / crud out of it, and it definitely feeds better, now. Not quite perfectly, but a great improvement.
Dillon presses are not the cheapest on the market, but I have never been disappointed by the presses or the technical support. As a former tech-support guy myself, I have high standards, and they meet them every time. If you plan on doing reloading, you can do much worse than Dillon.
Sometimes information can move in two different directions on the same communication link. This may mean you can utilize your enemies communication channel for your own purposes.
I received this via email:
Hey Joe,
I hope you don’t mind me contacting you. I came across a website through the magazine The Week. The website is called goodbyegunstocks.com. Their goal is to drive people to funds that contain little or no gun related stocks. I just used it to discover one of my funds was 0% gun stocks, I then proceeded to use the same website to find another fund that was more heavily invested in gun stocks and transferred a chunk of money to that one.
I don’t have the reach that bloggers like yourself have so I thought I would alert you to this. Wouldn’t it be great if we could co-opt this into a way to direct MORE money to gun friendly business?
Just a thought.
Thanks
Sam
@AdamPiersen @JoeHuffman @TANSTAAFL23 @MarkAWebster1 @NeLoNe79 @FShagW yes which is y I never date gun nuts. No little puny cocks for me 🙂
SusanBerman @TripleMinority
Tweeted on January 8, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a Tweet from Adam Pierson @AdamPiersen.—Joe]
I don’t know what the solution is, but historically speaking: resets that occur when that which cannot continue, doesn’t are messy. Very messy. Voting for either of the bifactional pro-State ruling parties is not going to help, because neither of them are dedicated to the ideals or ideas set out in our founding documents, or espoused by our founding fathers. They do not even seem to understand them.
Interesting times are afoot, and those that are easily offended are going to see what “going all the way to 11” really means before too many more years have passed.
Rolf Nelson
July 4, 2016
Happy 4th
[I could see this being a prophecy which comes true.—Joe]
They’ve got hate, and a holy mandate to build Utopia – on our corpses, if history is any guide. We’ve got a populace that knows something is wrong, but has been robbed of the education necessary to grasp exactly what and then reason themselves out of the problem by the same forces that are intent on building that Utopia. Instead, a significant portion voted for Donald Trump, mostly out of sheer frustration. Another example of pressing the “Fuck It” button.
This does not bode well for us.
Kevin Baker
July 4, 2016
Pressing the “Fuck It” Button
[Kevin and I have had private conversations on this, more than once, into the wee hours of the morning. I tend to think he is a bit too pessimistic and he thinks I am too optimistic.
I suspect we are getting scary close to finding out who is more nearly correct. Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.—Joe]
As I watched that first debate, and I heard Hillary Clinton answer the question about her enemies, my mouth dropped to the floor. I couldn’t believe what I had just heard from someone who wants to lead this country. She just called 5 million law-abiding Americans her enemy, and she was proud of it! Of all the atrocities going on in the world, we are what she sees as an enemy?
In this day and age, when we are constantly being lectured on “acceptance” and “tolerance” of people who don’t look or act like us, how is it acceptable for a presidential candidate to call out gun owners as enemies? This seems like textbook bullying tactics—maybe worse. Her comments segregate, demonize, blame, and suggest that we don’t have common sense if we disagree with what she and her anti-Second Amendment cronies define as “common-sense gun control.”
Dianna Muller
22-year Tulsa Police Department veteran and professional 3-gun world champion.
July 6, 2016
Hillary’s Enemies List: Dianna Muller
[Of course the NRA and gun owners are at the top of her enemies list. We are in a 5th or 6th Generation War. We must recognize this and respond accordingly or we will be defeated and probably handled just as leftist have treated their defeated enemies in the past.—Joe]
There is even a bot that wants to take your guns:
This application scrapes a website for recent gun crime in America. It’ll then post it to the provided twitter account. Please put an end to guns and an end to the violence.
H/T Say Uncle.
Oh, the irony. “A professor at the Southern State Community College (SSCC) in Ohio is currently under investigation for threatening to shoot up the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia and Washington lobbyists in order to increase support for anti-gun legislation.”
His FB post read, in part :
“Look, there’s only one solution. A bunch of us anti-gun types are going to have to arm ourselves, storm the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, VA, and make sure there are no survivors.
This action might also require coordinated hits at remote sites, like Washington lobbyists.
Then and only then will we see some legislative action on assault weapons.”
Not sure how someone with this tenuous a grasp of reality manages to become an adjunct prof, but there you have it. And while I’m sure that if he did do that, he might see some action on weapons, but I’m not so sure it would be legislative.
Don’t ever let them tell you nobody wants to take your guns.
The truth is quite simple. IslamoNazi ideology is spreading like a cancer across the globe. The only way to defeat this scourge is on the battlefield, and through effective counter propaganda.
America accomplished these twin goals in World War II — by reducing Germany and Japan to ashes. Half-measures are doomed to failure. The only language radical Islam understands is the language of brute power.
And apparently, the only language the Democrats understand is Orwellian Newspeak.
Robert J. Avrech
June 21, 2016
Democrats Believe Orlando Massacre is America’s Fault
[While I agree with most of this there is a difference between WW II and now. We are now in a 4th generation style war which is primarily composed of violent non-state actors instead of nation states. Our response to the asymmetric war we are in must be different than that of WW II. My hypothesis is that the best response will involve an increase in the non-state actors on our side as well as our traditional military forces. My vision of our non-state actors are private citizens able and willing to deliver firepower to the enemy in the first few seconds of an attack.
Defenseless innocent people are an invitation to attack. Politicians who disarm people via “gun-free zones” should be considered guilty of treason in the time of war and treated as such.—Joe]
I was reviewing a research paper today and found some interesting stuff. For background I present part of their conclusion:
Seventy-nine percent (220/279) of the femicide victims aged 18 to 50 years and 70% of the 307 total femicide cases were physically abused before their deaths by the same intimate partner who killed them, in comparison with 10% of the pool of eligible control women. Thus, our first premise, that physical violence against the victim is the primary risk factor for intimate partner femicide, was upheld. The purpose of this study, however, was to determine the risk factors that, over and above previous intimate partner violence, are associated with femicide within a sample of battered women. Our analysis demonstrated that a combination of the most commonly identified risk factors for homicide, in conjunction with characteristics specific to violent intimate relationships, predicted intimate partner femicide risks.
Now, pulling some selected data from the body of the report we get some very interesting, at least to me, information.
Given that a woman was in a physically abusive relationship, the next highest risk factor was the abusers employment status. If the abuser was unemployed the Odds Ratio (OR) was 5.09 that he would murder her compared to someone who was employed in the population of abusers. But if he had a college education (vs. a high school education) the OR dropped to 0.31 (over three times less likely to murder than someone who only had a high school education).
If the abuser used illicit drugs the OR = 4.76. Excessive alcohol use was not associated with an increased risk.
If they lived apart and the female “had sole access to a firearm”* the OR dropped to 0.22. Yes, as expected, if a woman has access to a gun she is four to five times less likely to be murdered by her abusive intimate partner who does not live with her than if she doesn’t have access to a gun.
If the abuser has access to a gun then the OR is 7.59.
If the abuser had threatening behaviors and stalking was involved the OR were as follows:
Guess which statistic Mother Jones magazine pulled from this paper for “Myth #7: Guns make women safer.” I’ll give you a hint. It wasn’t the one which showed a woman was four to five times less likely to be murdered if she has access to a gun.
They said:
A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
This doesn’t tell the story that the woman is already in a physically abusive relationship. And it leaves out the part about her having access to a gun increases her safety by a large factor.
As usual, they have to lie to have any hope of winning.
* I’m not exactly sure what “sole” access means in this context. My best guess is that it means that the abuse victim has access to a gun and the abuser does not.
From John F. on Facebook:
Grandma Hillary has a new opportunity for a campaign slogan: “Incompetence bordering on criminal.“
Well, she might, using different words claim something like that. It actually was significantly over the border. She was well into illegal alien territory. I just wish we could “deport” her to Leavenworth.
I always find it ironic when people say we should limit the ammunition capacity of the guns we use against criminals and tyrants to the same capacity as those we use for hunting. We limit the capacity of hunting guns in order to ensure that we have game to hunt in the future. Are they trying to ensure we will always have criminals and tyrants?
Bill Twist
July 5, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Paul Joslin
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Doing something blatantly illegal and getting away with it is a badge of honor among thieves. I am reminded of “Guilty as hell, free as a bird”.
If you thought she was going to be prosecuted for this, you haven’t been paying attention.
The FBI is not recommending charges be brought against Hillary. But it’s still pretty damning:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
…
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Can someone who is that careless with the security of our country be trusted in any position of government? Well, I might give consideration to her taking a position of a toilet scrubber in a public park.