I get crème brulee because it is the only thing you can order in a polite restaurant that is assembled with a blowtorch.
Ry Jones
August 10, 2012
[This QOTD was first posted as a Tweet.
Yesterday after work we had dinner at 13 Coins and Ry told me this as he was about to order dessert.
That Ry owns a flame thrower and makes the fireballs for Boomershoot should provide additional context.—Joe]
Just shoot yourself. The modern man doesn’t need to hunt, he has all he wants and can obtain anything without hunting or any other stupid sick barbaric medieval method. What the fuck do you know about nature? You’re just talking shit to give a “logical” explanation why you hunt, it’s all bullshit ! Cut the crap with the nice, civilized outspoken person, ’cause you’re not ! You deserve to be considered trash, you an hypocrite, people like you don’t need respect, you deserve all the swears in the world because you understand just one law, the fist in the jaw law ! Any anti-hunting or animal right argument isn’t ever good for you, you just know that one thing, that you’re the center of the world and for that you’re nothing,you’re just a waste of oxygen !
Kiki
August 10, 20112
Comment to More Attacks on Sport Shooters & Hunters
[Remember it’s in their nature for liberals to be violent.
I also have to wonder if Kiki thinks butchering animals at the slaughterhouse is somehow less barbaric than in the field. And that they want hunters dead but animals in the wild to be left unmanaged would seem to be further evidence they regard hunters as not only subhuman but even below animals in regard to respect for their lives and rights.
That’s some pretty sick stuff right there. And it’s a very good reminder of why the right to keep an bear arms is so important. People like that have no inhibitions about committing genocide.—Joe]
Liberals would like us to believe we don’t have stricter gun control laws because politicians are putty in the hands of the National Rifle Association. In fact, most pols are exquisitely attuned to popular opinion. The reason neither Democrats or Republicans aren’t pushing for gun control is that voters don’t want it. Democracy can be a stubborn thing.
Jennifer Rubin
August 8, 2012
Thumbs down on gun control
[Rubin is correct but doesn’t go far enough. Many Liberals do not understand that facts and even reality can be a stubborn thing.—Joe]
I almost bought one of those MechTech carbine conversions for my Glock 20 once. “Cool– a 10 mm carbine!” (Hat Tip Uncle)
But then I thought; What would I do with it? If my Glock is in carbine config, I don’t have it as a carry pistol. Do I carry another pistol in a smaller caliber? Do I get another pistol? But in the latter case I’ve spent enough I could get another puspose-built carbine like an AR, an M1 Carbine, used Ruger Deerfield etc. for the same money or even less. And come to think of it a 44 Mag levergun would be pretty nice, or an old Marlin Camp.
At this stage I have so many guns, and each one is this on-going program (load selection or load development, sight configuration, magazine and ammo inventory, on and on) so each one demands a certain amount of time. On the other hand, what is cool and fun is cool and fun, so I never stop thinking of that next cool gun or that next cool caliber.
You can’t make gun owners the target if you want to change the conversation. You can’t even make guns the target. The desired end result of any gun control advocate is less gun violence. In other words, less crime. That’s what you’re really fighting against. Saying you’re against guns actually distracts people from that message, and in fact invites many people to resist.
Drew Magary
August 7, 2012
Why Gun Control Isn’t Working
[What he is saying is mostly correct. What he apparently doesn’t understand is that “less gun violence” is not synonymous with “less crime”. Smart anti-gun people know that and very carefully avoid talking about less crime. The carefully chosen words they use betrays their knowledge that they are not anti-crime but rather are anti-gun and/or anti-gun owner, or just plain want to control other people.
If gun control resulted in less crime then answering Just One Question would be easy. But it has never been done in a way that would bring a smile to the gun control activist (see here for details). Magary needs to spend sometime investigating the facts before expressing his opinions. He isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.—Joe]
New shooter Maggie had been to the range only once before. On Saturday daughter Kim, her boyfriend Jacob, Barron and I showed her how we make Boomerite and then let her shoot about 15 or 20 seven inch targets.
Her very first shot with a rifle was at a Boomerite target. It was a hit:
Try getting a smile like that at an “anti-gun range”.
My position is absolute. I want less, not more gun control. I’m not going to compromise or work with them on any issue unless the other side gets me in a position where the only choices are bad and worse.
Sebastian
August 7, 2012
A Defense of Absolutism
[I think there might be some exceptions to this position but generally he gets it right.
Our opponents do not have our best interest or even the interests of society at heart. Some of them openly admit that they will push for more gun control as long as there are still even one accident or crime committed which involved a gun. There is no trade-offs in their world view. They view the private possession of guns as evil. There is no negotiating with people that “think” like that. If they cannot even discuss the costs of gun control there is no point in even talking with them. They must be politically destroyed.—Joe]
Every choice is a trade-off. “You want armor to be light,
effective, and cheap. Pick any two.” So, sometimes you have to figure out what
are the most critical limiting factors, and go from there.
An ideal gun is light weight, accurate, shoots flat, hits
hard, has little recoil and comfortable ergonomics, has long barrel life, is reliable,
is low maintenance, has inexpensive and light weight ammo, and is easy to
operate… Yaahhh…. Riiiight…..
Back to reality.
The bullet does the work – everything else is just delivery
system. So, to stop a person or other living target (or set off a boomer), the bullet needs enough energy when it hits to do the job. Launching
the bullet imparts the energy into the bullet, and that causes recoil, requires
a gun, etc. Generally speaking, the greater the muzzle energy, the more the
recoil, the more wear on the gun, the greater the cartridge weight required, the
higher the chamber pressure, the more difficulty there is in noise suppression,
etc. So, an ideal cartridge would have some maximum tolerable muzzle energy,
and a minimum retained energy out to some desirable range.
What should those three numbers be? It depends on the
application. For the moment, I’ll consider military rifle cartridges (and perhaps Boomershoot guns). Maybe a
future essay will consider other applications.
If you generate much more than about 2000 ft·lb
of ME, a lot of smaller or less experiences shooters may have a problem flinching
or bruising from significant use, unless well trained and given sufficient
practice. Also, at closer range most bullets with more than 2000 ft·lb
will just waste an increasing percentage of their energy beyond the target,
after full penetration, on the backstop. (For comparison, 2000 ft·lb
is a typical muzzle energy for a .243 Winchester). Much less than about 400 ft·lb
is getting into a very marginal area for stopping power, cover or body armor penetration,
etc. (around 400 ft·lb is a typical 9 mm or 45 ACP round ME). For most
shooters, anything beyond a thousand yards is problematic for all sorts of
reasons, but out to that range an argument can be made, especially in places
like Afghanistan or Iraq, or in farm country with large fields, where distances
are long.
Challenge Summary: Muzzle energy less than 2000 ft·lb, greatest possible retained energy at
1000 yards, preferably at least 400 ft·lb.
It’s easy to find cartridges with less than 2000 ft·lb
muzzle energy. The problem is that most of them in larger calibers (30 cal and
up) are relatively fat, light, low BC bullets, or slow heavy ones that have a
trajectory like a rainbow and a time-of-flight measured in cups of coffee. The
smaller calibers (like .223), bullets are too light to carry much energy for
the distance, and start having severe wind problems at significant ranges. (For
comparison, a 5.56 NATO 77 gr bullet has a bit less than 1400 ft·lb
ME, and a 7.62 NATO 175 gr bullet has about 2600 ft·lb ME.)
It’s also easy to find cartridges that retain at least 400
ft·lb
at 1000 yd: just GO BIG. Heavy bullet, big brass, lots of powder, good to go.
But that generates more recoil, higher pressures, needs heavier guns, has
heavier ammo, more recoil, shorter barrel life, and so-forth.
Retaining energy argues that only high ballistic coefficient
bullets will likely manage to meet this challenge. A 6.5mm mid-weight bullet
with a high BC, like a Lapua 123 gr Scenar (BC of .547) launched at moderate
velocities, can be loaded to have both a ME less than 2000 ft·lb,
and have more than 400 ft·lb
at 1000 yards. One of the few current cartridges that meet this challenge is
the 6.5mm Grendel. It still has 372 ft·lb at 1000 meters in a factory loading, shot from a mid-length barrel. For
comparison, at 1000 yards, a 5.56 NATO 77 gr bullet has less than 200 ft·lb
of energy (similar to a .32 Auto), and a 7.62 NATO 175 gr has retained a bit
under 600 ft·lb
energy (similar to a typical 40 S&W shot from a 5” barrel). Also note that for reliable boomer detonation, a velocity of at least 1500 fps is generally required, and a typical 6.5 Grendel round is still moving faster than that at 700 yards (unless you are using a fairly short barrel).
The 6.5 mm cartridges have an excellent reputation with
hunters, as well as target shooters, and smokeless powder 6.5mm cartridges have
been around for well over a century, so there are a wide range of bullets
available for loading your own for any particular application you might have.
Ponder, think, consider, contemplate….
I heard a call to a talk show late last night (sorry, I don’t know who’s show). The caller had this great, revolutionary idea– instead of using gasoline or fuel oil, we should use a computer program to move the pistons in an engine. Engines are computer-controlled to some degree already you see, so why not go all the way? He said he’d been thinking about this for a long time and it had been bugging him– why, it’s so obvious.
If a person can think that, what can’t be believed? It is said that Kim Il of North Korea hit some fantastic score in golf the first time out, that when he was born a new star appeared in the sky to mark the event, and that he doesn’t urinate or deficate.
Yes; public education has a purpose, and to some degree it’s working.
The host set him straight, recommending a book; “Physics for Future Presidents” I think it was. How about just plain old, basic physics? That would be nice, but all Democrats and most Republicans would always lose if we knew that it’s impossible to get something from nothing.
The manuals for some of the percussion guns suggest loading with a rather small powder charge, saying that anything more is just “showing off” (never mind that these replicas were originally designed for a full cylinder of powder and ball, else the cylinders would be shorter to save steel and weight).
By that reasoning, I suppose anything more powerful than a 22 Short is purely showing off. For that matter, using a gun at all is showing off. You should use a bow. But maybe that’s showing off, so you should use a slingshot. No doubt using a slingshot could be seen as showing off, so you should use a spear, but come to think of it that could be showing off, so use your bare hands. Someone using theior bare hands for something that would betterbe done with a gun is certainly showing off– no question.
The only proper choice then, if we follow this line of reasoning, is to never do anything, but that, for sure and for certain, is showing off your piety your restraint or your modesty. I hate it when people like to flaunt their modesty all over the place. Show offs!
“Freedom is on the march” – in our movie theaters now – not Ay-rak. It’s the “American exceptionalism”! If compared with the rest of the FIRST & SECOND WORLDS, where selling ammunition on the internet – like “only” 6000 rounds + assault weapons to the general population is considered INSANITY. Here is it “intended for hunting – shooting a duck”? haha. Sitting ducks? ….like sitting ducks in movie theaters? 36 acts of mass violence in 30 yrs will not deter bloodthirsty NRA money addicts who preach freedom on the outside and profit on the inside as they sell WMD to men with small brains and penises who need to be compensated by owning their big guns to make them feel like real men – and at which cost? How many more deaths does this “freedom”/insanity cost?
Lila Newark
August 1, 2012
Comment to NRA Enabled Bullets-by-Mail Used by Colorado Shooting Suspect.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
If I could make sense of it I might have considered discussed threat modeling, attack surfaces, and other security analysis methods. But it is clear Newark cannot focus their own thoughts for more than a few seconds let alone grasp the thoughts expressed by someone else.
As I tried to make sense of this rambling rant I kept thinking, “Are there some meds they should be taking?”—Joe]
For our country to meet the requirements of the Constitution, the people do not need to be armed with neither automatic weapons nor handguns. Shoulder-fired guns will meet all Constitutional requirements, and make the people safer than they have been in years.
Harveydad
July 27, 2012
Comment to Candidates Cower on Gun Control
[Harveydad has a long way to go before becoming a scholar on the gun issue. He currently couldn’t even qualify as a student in good standing.
Whether automatic weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment is not entirely clear at this point. But the handgun issue is exceedingly clear. Just read the Heller vs. D.C. decision.
Neither handgun nor automatic weapon bans has ever, anytime, anyplace, made people safer.—Joe]
Take your feelings and go bang your head against a wall– we’re having a serious conversation here.
Lyle @ UltiMAK
August 3, 2012
Comment to Quote of the day—Charles Garcia in response to a comment from mikeb302000.
[Runner up QOTD is from Linoge in the same thread in response to the same troll.
I would like to add that if mikeb302000 were bang his head against the wall he probably would notice it feels good to stop. That would not mean it was a good thing to do in the first place.—Joe]
What made Milton Friedman so famous was not just that he was
smart, but that he had a way with words that made his views on market economics
so clear and easy to understand (often using pithy quotes), and once understood
they are very hard to argue against. Here is my attempt at a useful pithy
quote:
Regulations are a
force of destruction. A business seeks to provide a product or service for
a price. Anything that drives up costs must be passed on to customers, or taken
out of profits. No profit, no business. If you are running a business, a
regulator can fine you, imprison you, or shut you down. All of those reduce your
productivity, meaning it destroys value.
Defensive actions in an effort to ensure compliance, such as hiring a CPA to
make sure the accounting is done right, hiring ANY sort of P to make sure Q is done
in accordance with the law that no normal person can know all of, destroys
productivity. Any decision to not
pursue a productive action because regulations will kick in forcing other
actions that will make the whole thing profitless or worse, is the corrosive
destruction of regulation.
That is where we are today. Regulations restrict, suppress,
repress, confine, compel, confuse, hold back – so many regulations that
business is stifled, dragged down, and killed. Why?
Cronyism – business with “friends in high places” shutting
out less connected folks who could provide a better deal, by “helping”
legislators write the regulations to favor them.
Protectionism – companies seeking regulations to block
others in the same business, or to block entry into the business by “grandfathering”
all the existing businesses.
Regulations as a business weapon – in too many places, it’s
not the company with the best product, or best price, but the best legal
departments to sue competitors, win.
When a company says the highest
ROI of any business investment is lobbying
congress, it’s time to start cutting back on the number of laws and
regulations.
But, perhaps worst of all, Legal and OK get confused – Too many companies are so buried in regulations that
they get to the point where if the lawyers say something is legal to do, they assume it must be OK to do; they no longer have their conscious
constraining their actions, but only the technical letter of the law, and there
is a HUGE pressure to keep the business alive and profitable (kids, mortgage,
etc). This erodes and destroys two essential components of a free market
economy and a free society: trust and respect. So, not only does many regulations
destroy businesses, they destroy people and any culture of freedom and enterprise they have.
To be sure, some regulations are
needed – but I’m pretty sure we are well past the point of the necessary
minimum to ensure an operational economy and thriving culture.
No politician, including the most powerful man in the free world, wants to pull the trigger on solving the complex issue of gun control. The odds of political survival after such a move are worse than those in a game of Russian roulette.
Charles Garcia
August 2, 2012
Politicians hammered by the NRA
[And no politician, including the most powerful man in the free world, wants to pull the trigger on solving the complex issues of speech, freedom of association, or religion control either. So what’s his point?
Is he saying he isn’t capable of understanding the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right? In 2008 the U.S. Supreme court ruled guns in common use are protected. Earlier rulings said firearms used by the military are protected. Garcia needs to either 1) Advocate for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment and get swept into the dustbin of history; or 2) Find a cure for his ignorance problem.—Joe]
In my home county. The report said “shrapnel” but that term doesn’t quite apply here. “Shrapnel” consists of separate metal fragments, usually balls, placed around an explosive weapon for the purpose of increasing lethality, not to be confused with shell fragments or secondary projectiles. The differences in this case being “purpose” and “weapon”.
No, Young Grasshopper– If you’re going to blow up something with your exploding target, put the explosive target in front of it, so the fragments fly back and away from you and any spectators, then make sure there is ample backstop because fragments, especially from a ductile metal like mild steel or copper, have been known to accelerate to some major percentage of the explosion velocity (or so I was told by those who claim to know). This guy was airlifted to hospital in serious condition. Estimated distance from target; 50 yards. Some mistakes are painful. And expensive. I bet he won’t make that particular one again.
Ry and I once detonated a teeny weeny Boomerite target in front of an extra heavy railroad tie plate (nearly an inch thick, IIRC), and that plate flew 75 yards (back and away from us – we were thinking a little bit at least) after being severely bent. Maybe Ry could fill in some detail on that one.
We have a national crisis on our hands. Chicago has a crisis on its hands. We have to do everything we can do to prevent tragedy from happening.
Dan Gross
Head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
August 1, 2012
Quinn wants to ban assault rifles
[Chicago has a crisis on its hands because they prohibit people from using the best available tools to defend themselves and the government there is incredibly corrupt.
We have to do everything we can do to prevent tragedy? Then:
Dan Gross is some combination of delusional, evil, ignorant, and/or incredibly stupid. That a news publication would quote him and not mock him is evidence of that organization’s complicity in evil.—Joe]
Central bankers present themselves as Masters of the Universe. They are, but only in their own little Theater of the Absurd. In the real world, they are as clueless as any other mortals about the unintended consequences of their actions and the speed with which the corrupted, unsustainable financial Status Quo will decay and die.
The only attribute they possess in abundance is hubris. Their claims to godhood are comical when viewed in their little Theater of the Absurd, but they become tragic when the consequences of their actions play out in the real world.
Their job, such as it is, is to deflate a tottering system based on phantom assets slowly enough that it doesn’t implode. Stripped of mumbo-jumbo, their strategy to accomplish this is to inflate other phantom assets to replace the phantom assets that are falling to zero.
All their promises, preening and posturing boil down to patting their breast pocket and speaking vaguely about a “secret plan” to end the crisis without bringing down the system that spawned the crisis as a consequence of its very nature.
There is no secret plan, of course, and no secret financial weapons; all they really have is artifice and the hubris to present artifice as reality.
charles hugh smith
July 31, 2012
The Central Banking Theater of the Absurd
Emphasis in the original.
[In the history books and in stories from my parents I heard of bankers and brokers in 1929 jumping out the windows of tall buildings and utilizing “Smith & Wesson” retirement plans. I don’t hear of that sort of thing these days even though by many measures the financial situation is just as bad or worse as in The Great Depression.
I keep wondering if the reason for the difference is that we have different types of people in the banks and positions of power this time around. The sociopaths don’t care and the Marxists intend for our system to fail.
What I don’t think they understand is that when people get hungry enough they will figure out the reason for the failure of the system, have nothing to lose by going after those responsible, there will be no place to hide, and retirement, in whatever form, will be forced upon those who destroyed the greatest economic and political system the world has ever known.—Joe]
If you think you need a gun at the place you are planning to eat, you either need v!agra for your obvious issues, or a new place to eat.
…
Basically, what I’m saying is I assume anyone running around with a gun in this day and age is compensating for a tiny dick.
…
I understand some men worry about this, but I think they should consult a doctor, not run around with a penis extender.
…
Dragging a gun to a play date, mall, or restaurant makes you instantly suspect. … Maybe we should bring a ruler and demand an inspection?
Liana Brooks
July 19, 2012
On Twitter here, here, here, and here.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
H/T to Linoge.—Joe]
I hadn’t thought of it this way before (even though he used my video to demonstrate his point) but he’s correct.
Why Magazine Limits Don’t Improve Security:
This video demonstrates what a practiced shooter can do with lower capacity magazines in short order. It should be quite clear that a high magazine capacity ban will do nothing to prevent a shooter of this skill level from wreaking significant havoc. Therefore, a high capacity magazine ban is nothing short of false sense of security– security theater.