When insanity works, but not the way you expect

Sometimes insanity works… but not the way you expect.

Consider the Napoleonic Wars. Men in orderly rank and file marching into battle with rifle and musket, to face volley fire from opposing rank and file of uniforms. Were the men marching insane? Would not a soldier’s chance of surviving be greatly increased by running away from the line of men firing at his formation? Undoubtedly, yes, it would. Would his own formation have a marginally lower chance of winning if he were to do so? Yes, again. If the man next to him ran away, would he increase his personal chances of survival, too? While decreasing, a bit more, the chance of failure for their side? Yes, absolutely, to both. It is crazy to stand and fight, if you can increase your chance of survival by running away. But if enough people on your side choose to run and survive that fight, you also doom your side to total defeat, and being hunted down by the victors and having your land, property, and women taken, because they were collectively crazy enough to stand and fight. It’s a fine line between disciplined and insane. Continue reading

Donations to charities

I’ve donated to numerous charities over the years. It’s difficult to say which I have donated the most to. One could add up all the money but there are some donations that aren’t measured in dollars.

I donated my eighth gallon to the Puget Sound Blood Center last night:

WP_20140602_003

I don’t know for certain but I think that if I were to add in the blood donated to the Red Cross I’d be close to the 10 gallon mark.

Quote of the day—Paul M. Barrett

A despairing parent gets wide latitude. But the NRA didn’t kill young Chris. Elliott Rodger did.

Paul M. Barrett
May 27, 2014
Santa Barbara Massacre Defies Gun Control, Mental Health Proposals: 4 Blunt Points
[That’s pretty much how I feel about the father of one of the victims as well. I’m not comfortable being critical of his inflammatory and erroneous statements when he is half-crazy with grief. If he keeps it up for a month or two then correcting him in a more firm manner becomes appropriate.—Joe]

Productivism

I sometimes read or hear of people complaining our society is plagued by (spit, spit) consumerism. This always sounded like some sort of epithet but didn’t really have much meaning to me. It was just a word that every “right thinking” person knew was a “bad thing”.

It wasn’t until I read this article that things started to jell in my mind. It was this paragraph that really connected with me:

Humans are not merely consumers. Every consumer is also a producer as well, and production is how we have improved our standards of living from the dawn of man till today. Every luxury, every great invention, every work of art, every modern convenience that we enjoy was the product of a mind – in some cases, of more than one. It then stands to reason that the more minds there are, the more innovations we will have as well. A reductio ad absudum reveals the obvious truth that a cure for cancer is more likely to emerge from a society of a billion people than from one of only a handful of individuals.

The problem I have with people that whine about consumerism is that they are only looking at one side of the picture. In order for consumers to exist there must be producers. In a free market there tends to be more production capacity than consumer capacity. And that excess capacity makes things more affordable and available to everyone.

Production and market competition yields tremendous benefits to society. Extended lifespans and higher quality of life are just the most obvious. Entertainment via Netflix, MTV, professional sports, and concerts might be considered frivolous and a waste but it is an improvement in the quality of life that is a result of our being able to produce more than what we need for survival. It is our excess production capacity that makes it possible to earn our food and shelter in fewer hours per week than it would have 1000 years ago. Back then a similar amount of effort, unless you were royalty, nobility, or politically connected, would have yielded death by malnutrition, disease, or exposure.

Yes, there must be physical limits to human growth on a single planet. But we don’t yet know what those limits are on this planet. The barriers to interplanetary travel and exo-planetary living are high. But from a simple available energy balance sheet (do the arithmetic on how many Joules of sunlight energy fall on a 40 acre field on a summer day, then extrapolate to the vastness of interplanetary space) it doesn’t seem farfetched to claim that human expansion beyond this planet is feasible.

Continued improvements in the human condition depend on increased production. In a free market producers must always produce goods desired by the consumers. Some of the products will seem frivolous but the net result has always been progress in improving the lives of people and more productivity per person. Moving society toward greater productivity will yield far greater benefits than discouraging consumption. Just look at the benefits of increased productivity of the last 1000 years.

When you hear someone use the word “consumerism” in a disparaging way demand they look at the requirements for it’s existence and consequences of it. And that is “productivism” and vast improvements in the human condition. Demand they tell you what they have against increases in productivity and improved quality of life.

Quote of the day—Cavebot

Holster your weapons, try not to think about your shitty job, try not to think about the meaninglessness within the cult of individualism, and try not to think about your tiny cock.

Cavebot
May 26, 2014
Stop Making Sense
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via email from Bob S.

I find it revealing that he makes reference to “the cult of individualism”. One might infer that he has a preference for the cult of collectivism. I would have thought that the hundreds of millions of dead in the last century because of that cult would be enough to dissuade most from that particular line of thinking.—Joe]

It’s a fine line…

Between “manly men doing manly things,” and “hold my beer and watch this.”

Continue reading

New shooter report

My former apartment manager, Mila, and I used to talk about guns and stuff. She was very interested but her boyfriend was really opposed to it and so she never took me up on my offers to take her to the range. I moved last September and hadn’t had any contact with her since then. But one of the last things I told her was to let me know if she ever wanted to go shooting. She had broke up with the guy and gotten back together a few times so I wasn’t too surprised when last week she sent me a text message asking if I was still into guns and if I would take her and her new boyfriend, Tim, shooting.

Of course.

Her new boyfriend is “really into guns” and even gave her son a 9mm handgun for his 13th birthday. He hasn’t had but just the most fundamental safety training and he was all for her getting some training from someone with formal training experience. So the three of us went to the range today.

I spent a few minutes with a plastic training gun to teach grip, stanch, sight picture, and the safety rules. Then we went into the range and started with a semi-auto .22. She had problems with the sight alignment and was shooting high and to the left, but with a pretty good group. I let her shoot a couple magazines and then worked with her on sight picture. On the second target things started clicking for her and she did well:

WP_20140601_001

WP_20140601_003
Then it was on to the .22 revolver.
WP_20140601_004
And then the STI Eagle in .40 S&W.
WP_20140601_006
She liked the .40 the best.

She was very enthusiastic and kept saying again and again how much fun this was. She said she wants to get a gun now and that she has a girl friend that has a gun and that I need to go to the range with both of them and teach her too.

Her boyfriend was in the booth next to us and was shooting his .45. He is cross-eye dominate and we talked about how to deal with that. He tried shooting weak handed, moving his head over to get better alignment, and just closing his dominate eye. Closing the dominate eye worked best for him. He also had numerous rounds that failed to fire. He showed me the cartridges and they had very light primer strikes. I suggested that the next time he cleans the gun that he clean and lubricate the firing pin and firing pin channel and then try it again.

We then went out to lunch. I invited Barb and she met us and we all had lunch together.

This is how we win the culture war. The anti-gun people don’t have anything to compete with what we have to offer.

Quote of the day—Hans vlasveld

No private individual must not be in possession of ANY gun ever, only those who are to protect us and are trained, with very few exceptions like rifles only (always locked up and registered for hunting & large farms that can prove they are needed to protect their cattle or.? So, absolutely no guns will mean a drastically reduced deaths. Any one who thinks contrary does not respect life. Period! Is mentally disturbed & a murderer!!!

Hans vlasveld
May 29, 2014
Comment to 7 Lies We Need to Stop Telling About Gun Control in America
[Got that? If anyone doesn’t think as he does about the right to keep and bear arms they are mentally disturbed and a murderer.

So what do you suppose he thinks should be done with us? It’s got to be one of the psych ward, prison, or execution, right? So, is he going to be taking point on the visit to my house?—Joe]

History of the >10 mag

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy there is a post about the history of magazines with greater than ten rounds capacity. Very short version: The 9th Circuit court has a case challenging the greater than ten round magazine ban, called Fyock v. Sunnyvale. David Kopel co-authored an amicus brief that gives the history of such things. Many interesting factoids for gun hardware geeks to appreciate, and many things for gun-rights people in general. Many things I knew, many more I didn’t. Worth a read.

It’s another good case to watch.

On sex offender registries

Interesting:

California’s registry isn’t practical. Amanda Agan, a postdoctoral fellow in economics at Princeton studied sex offender registries at The University of Chicago. She explained her findings to NPR’s On the Media in 2011. She compared multiple studies, across multiple types of registries, including ones like California’s, and found that when the information is public, the pattern of recidivism (which means committing a crime again) was discouraging.

When they were in a public registry there was “a slight increase in how much they recidivated,” although “a slight deterrent effect for first-time offenders. But as the registry size grows, it seems like that recidivism effects swamps the first-time registrant effect. And so, we get kind of an overall increase in sex crimes.” Are you getting this? Sex crimes increased.

Again we find that if the government gets involved in preventive measures they make things worse.

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

As anyone who has gone through the process to legally obtain a firearm in Massachusetts knows, there is no dearth of existing laws that regulate the sale, purchase and transfer of firearms. The question should be what gun control laws should be repealed, NOT enacted.

NRA-ILA
May 30, 2014
Massachusetts: House Speaker Introduces Sweeping Gun Control Legislation
[Emphasis in the original.

“The question that should be” asked is applicable to all the states as well as the Federal Government.

Of the simple answers the most correct one is, “All of them.”—Joe]

Barb’s daughter made the Huffingtonpost

Reentering the U.S. After a Year Abroad: Responsible Intentions by Maddy Lisaius.

Be gentle in the comments.

The motivation for evil

is evil.

Quote of the day—Scott Martelle

As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out ban. Beyond the histrionics of the gun lobby, there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture. They exist for one purpose: to kill.

Scott Martelle
May 28, 2014
You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.
[H/T to Sebastian.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns. This is from the Los Angles Times’ Opinion Staff.

He dismisses the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with:

One can hope that the court will someday go further than its recognition that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right and determine that rampant gun ownership is a public safety threat. And that Congress will push legislation that recognizes that the heavy societal costs of gun ownership outweigh any 2nd Amendment pretense to the right to own guns.

He dismisses self-defense with:

Impossible to measure because of a lack of trustworthy data.

This is even though his cited source, Paul Barrett, says the lower limit on estimated defensive gun use in the U.S. is about 100,000/year which exceeds the murders by a factor of ten.

It is apparently beyond his ability to accept the realities of the Supreme Court ruling that firearm in common use, and handguns in particular are protected. This is in the ruling he linked to! Then after realizing numbers and simple arithmetic are apparently beyond his grasp we could suggest he look to the “success” of banning things which have far less benefit and probably more harm, such as recreational drugs. How did the prohibition of alcohol work out? And the continuing ban of hardcore recreational drugs? Maybe he would like to extend the bans of those things harmful to other things such as tobacco? How does he think that would turn out? We already have a large black market in cigarettes because of the high taxes on them.

But we shouldn’t bother speculating. He obviously has crap for brains and is incapable of extrapolating past the end of his nose.—Joe]

This could be interesting

Seattle police are suing the DOJ, The City of Seattle, Seattle Mayor, Seattle Chief of Police, and others about restrictions on their use of force and the right of self-defense protected by the Second Amendment:

When a police officer is confronted with threatening behavior, he or she has the fundamental, individual right of self-defense under the Second Amendment, consistent with every other citizen, to protect himself or herself, and others, from apparent and immediate harm. As the Court has long recognized, the rules that define and determine self-defense are of universal application and are not affected by the character of a person’s employment.

This could be far more interesting than one might first guess. If the courts accept this argument then not only is the right to carry in public by private citizens bolstered but the rights of people to carry while at work is given support as well.

H/T to Dave Workman. See also the Seattle PI article.

Quote of the day—Janey Rountree

There is no question it will be the smartest, toughest regulation on gun stores in the country. It’s designed to prevent gun trafficking and illegal sales in these stores.

Janey Rountree
Chicago mayor’s deputy chief of staff for public safety
May 28, 2014
Chicago mayor pushes plan requiring all gun sales to be videotaped
[I don’t care what it is “designed to prevent”. I care about results. The city of Chicago could pass a law requiring chastity belts for all women which was “designed to prevent” prostitution and unwanted pregnancy but that doesn’t mean it would achieve the desired goal or be constitutional.

For decades the city banned handguns and yet the cops confiscated about 7,000 guns a year. So how is the plan for videotaping the sales, limiting sales to about 0.5% of the city’s geographic area, and limiting sales to one per month per buyer going to be measurably better than the way gun stores are regulated in the more free states?

If they think it will be so successful then why don’t they place the same restrictions on alcohol and tobacco sales to prevent them from getting in the hands of minors. Or the sales of illegal recreational drugs? Oh, yeah. Those are even more tightly regulated yet any high school dropout can get anything they want within a few minutes, 24/7, from all the “unlicensed” drug dealers.

This law is not “smart”. It’s crap for brains stupid. It’s unconstitutional. And those that voted for it should be prosecuted.—Joe]

Did they think this through?

I find this scary as well as ironic:

A committee chaired by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff has come up with a three phase plan to “all but do away with cash transactions in Israel”.

This represents a severe failure of the Jews in the Attic Test—by a Jewish nation.

The REAL reason for the extinction

The problem is obvious. You can have hunters from all periods of human history, and all periods in the future, all hunting dinosaurs. With only a few hunters from a given time paying exorbitant prices for their dinosaur safaris, that still could add up to billions and billions of hunters. Surely you see the problem.

Tam knows, but she’s not letting on.

Empirical evidence

Yesterday I drove across about 150 miles of nearly straight road through a boring desert in central and eastern Washington. I was able to empirically determine my alertness level was better while listening to the works of Van Halen over that of Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn.

This Land is Mine

…or, the Middle East Explained.

Pop quiz – how many of them can you identify with reasonable certainty, or at least recognize that you knew them for sure at one point?