Problems with The Blade Shop

A couple months ago I suggested people buy their “assault knife” now because of proposed regulations that might make many folding pocket knives illegal.

I posted that I had just made my bulk purchase from The Blade Shop. In the comments people reported there were many people who had delivery and customer service problems with that particular outlet. I received my knives within a few days and thought that they had gotten their act together and that there was no need to be concerned.

That was two months ago.

Today I received this email from reader Ben:

I have read your blog for a long time now and very much appreciate your knowledgeable writing on firearms and explosives.

Several months ago you posted a snippet about how you picked up several knives from a place called The Blade Shop. Since I was in the market, I took your suggestion for the place to buy the knifes. I ended up ordering $165 in knives from them. It is now two months later and I have not receive anything except excuses.

After several weeks of not having received anything, including a status update on merchandise being back ordered I emailed them asking what was going on. They responded that one of the items was on back order and it would be a couple of weeks. After that deadline had come and gone I asked again. They said that item was still on back order. I asked to be refunded the money for that particular knife and send the rest on their merry way. The person at the other end said that they were going to refund the money and ship the others, but that it would take 10-14 days for the refund to go through. Now three weeks later I don’t have a refund or any knifes.

I will be calling my credit card company today and asking for them to reverse the charges. They have a 2 month policy, thankfully I am a few days inside of that.

Please spread the word that at least some people are having difficult with this particular shop.

Thank you,

Ben

Rats.

Sorry about that.

Quote of the day–Sebastian

They used to say that the difference between conservatives and liberals were that conservatives thought liberals were stupid, and liberals thought conservatives were evil. Now it would seem they think conservatives are terrorists.

Sebastian
August 24, 2009
The Media’s Shallow Understanding
[I suspect it isn’t really “shallow understanding”. It’s about attempting to demonize in any way possible those who oppose their agenda. People believe what they want to believe and anything that supports their belief system will be latched onto with far less fact checking than if it contradicted their belief system. I’ve been guilty of this too. But there have also been times when I thought (borrowing a literary tool from Say Uncle), “Self, this is too good to be true. You better check this out.” And nearly every time it was too good to be true.

In the case of the present day “militia movement” I can’t help but remember in the mid-90s I knew the names of several different militias both in the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the country. I read about them, by name, in the paper and heard about them in the social circles I communicated with. I saw their displays at gun shows. I occasionally even talked to member of militias. This time? The only “militia movement” I have heard about all traces back to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

I think it’s too good to be true for the left and they latched onto it without checking into it. Someone should check it out and, if my hunch is correct, slap them down. With appropriate timing and proper location it could be a good political tool.–Joe]

Data reduction

On Friday my officemate told me Kris had just stopped by and left something for me. I found a damaged Pocket PC with a note on it asking that I do an Idaho Stress Test on it. I contacted Kris via IM for more details. The screen had been damaged and was completely non-functional. There was company sensitive data on the device which needed to be destroyed and Kris wanted me to do this for him.

On Saturday daughter Kimberly and I went to the Boomershoot site and, among other things, destroyed the data for Kris. I also had a hard disk that was in similar need of “data reduction” and we deleted the data on both items at the same time.

Tomorrow I’ll deliver the pieces Kim and I found to Kris but for the rest of you here are a few pictures assembled into a video:

Quote of the day–Tamara K.

Looks like Jackson Pollack threw up in here.

Tamara K.
August 24, 2008
Referring to all the previous use of Simunitions in the Blackwater 360 degree shoothouse.
[I want to do the “Blackwater thing” with all the gun bloggers again. That was really fun.–Joe]

Crap for brains

Ry says, “facepalm“. There are other phrases that could be used to describe the act of giving your attacker the ammunition to shoot at you with:

  • Dummer than dirt.
  • Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
  • Not the coldest ice cube in the tray.
  • Not the greenest tree in the Forest.
  • A few bricks shy of a load.
  • Head whistles when the wind blows.
  • A few clowns short of a circus.
  • A few fries short of a Happy Meal.
  • An experiment in Artificial Stupidity.
  • A few beers short of a six-pack.
  • Dumber than a box of hair.
  • A few peas short of a casserole.
  • The wheel’s spinning, but the hamster’s dead.
  • Has an IQ of 2, but it takes 3 to grunt.
  • Couldn’t pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.
  • He fell out of the Stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.
  • An intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
  • As smart as bait.
  • Chimney’s clogged.
  • Forgot to pay his brain bill.
  • His antenna doesn’t pick up all the channels.
  • His belt doesn’t go through all the loops.
  • If he had another brain, it would be lonely.
  • No grain in the silo.
  • Receiver is off the hook.
  • Too much yardage between the goal posts.

Quote of the day–Chuck Bloom

As a strong supporter of the country’s National Parks System, I just don’t see a logical reason why anyone would want to carry a concealed weapon into such naturally beautiful places like Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Redwoods, Crater Lake, Grand Teton or any of the national parks.

Is someone seriously afraid of being accosted or robbed by Old Faithful or El Capitan? Are there criminals hiding out in the Petrified Forest?

These places should be off limits to such practices because of the presence of children. Just because you have the right to pack heat on a vacation doesn’t mean you should.

Chuck Bloom
Plano, Texas
… but what about the children?
August 21, 2009
[A extraordinary clear example of scrambled thinking on the gun issue. Perhaps the reason he doesn’t see a logical reason for carrying a gun in the national parks is because he is severely logic impaired.

What does being “a strong supporter of the country’s National Parks System” or their natural beauty have to do with concluding there is no “logical reason” to carry a concealed weapon?

Even his straw-men of “being accosted or robbed by Old Faithful or El Capitan” is extraordinarily weak.

Criminal do their thing where they have the opportunity, means, and high probability of accomplishing their goal. If their thing involves robbing or hurting people the remote location and disarmed status of their victims in the remote parks can be good hunting grounds. One does not have life insurance for only when their risk is high, such as when traveling by car. They have life insurance for all occasions. And so it is with carrying defensive tools. If you knew you were going to be attacked you wouldn’t go there. But you don’t know so you carry defensive tools wherever and whenever you can. And not all of the threats are human:


Sign in Glacier National Park


Bear in Glacier National Park.

And finally, “because of the presence of children”? Come on, can any anti-gun person offer a plausible defense for that statement? Do children not need to be defended against violent attacks? Is it better to let them be injured or killed than for them to see a bear get shot? Is it better for them to see their mother raped and/or killed than to see the attacker stopped in his tracks by a gun in the hands of his or her parents?

I actually did use my gun while hiking through a state park with my kids several years ago. There was a rattlesnake near the edge of the trail. It was a threat both to us and other hikers that perhaps would not have seen and avoided it. From a safe distance I put a 9mm FMJ bullet through it’s head. The kids did not seem to have suffered any short or long term adverse effects from the use of the gun in their presence. They even seemed relieved after the threat was neutralized.–Joe]

Projection or imagined telepathy?

As pointed out by others MSNBC cropped the video of the black guy with a rifle at the Obama protest down enough to not show his skin color. Then they talked about gun owners being white racists against Obama.

I have to wonder what the basis for that belief was and why they would put effort into falsifying the evidence to fit their, obviously, false beliefs. Do they think they have some sort of telepathy such they can read the minds of others? Or is it as Say Uncle pointed out:

So, you were assigning stereotypes to a broad group of people? Supposedly trying to address bigotry in this country while being bigoted yourself seems to lessen your point. It’s OK, they’re only gun owners.

Although there are a people who believe they have telepathic powers I believe projection is far more common and all the evidence appears to fit that diagnosis.

Projection is very common in the anti-gun camp and it’s one of the first thing you should look for when you encounter an anti-gun person. Do they say they are afraid of what someone might do if they carried a gun while at a school/church/restaurant/wherever? The evidence is overwhelming that people with guns in those places do nearly exactly the same things that other people without guns do in those places. It’s actually their fear of what they might do if they had a gun in those places. Never mind that a police officer with a gun in the same location is just fine for nearly all of these people–disregarding the fact that police officers accidently shoot innocent people at a much higher rate than private citizens do.

So in this case the media representatives feel, without a factual basis, badly toward gun owners. They then search for something that could justify their bad feelings. Racism is an easy “hook to hang their hat on” since there once was a great deal of racism against people of color in this country and President Obama has the necessary pigmentation to be a target of white racists. But it’s the feelings of the media that drove the conclusion that someone else must be racists rather than the evidence of racism that drove their feelings.

This can be generalized to freedom in general. People are afraid of making their own decisions and they attempt restrict others decisions via some “wiser” authority with the justification being that someone else might make a bad decision–regardless of the fact that government “one size fits all” decisions for nearly everything cost more and are less effective than private solutions. Hence because of their feelings of fear of their own decision making ability drove the demands that others not make decisions for themselves rather than actual fear of others making their own decisions.

I suppose another psychological model that could be applied is one of stress reduction. It’s more stressful to believe that you are bigoted than to falsify the evidence to indicate someone else is bigoted.

In the case of the generalized freedom issue the stress reduction model works there too. It’s impossible to predict the future in any detail so having someone else to blame for making the wrong decision relieves the stress of making the, possibly wrong, decision yourself–even if the situation of nearly everyone is worse than if they made their own decisions. It appears to be more stressful for many people to see a disparity of outcomes than for everyone to have the same bad outcome. As a friend, Susan K., told me many years ago there are people who would rather everyone earns $1.00/hour than for the minimum wage in a truly free market (no government imposed minimum wage) to be $100/hour if there were other people earning $10,000/hour. I found this hard to believe but I’m now convinced it is true as long as there is some method by which the person desiring this sort of outcome can put some sort of whitewash, such as using phrases such as “social justice”, over the ugly truth.

As a side note I’ve heard it said that Bill Gates earned, on the average, about $100/second or $360K/hour while at Microsoft. This may have contributed to the great pressure put on Microsoft by the U.S. Justice Department during the 1990s and the European Union legal action that continues to this day.

Human psychology is a strange thing. What we call rational thought and socialization is only a very thin veneer over something far, far different which it pokes its ugly head through the veneer far more frequently than we realize.

Quote of the day–Larry Pratt

There are those who don’t like Americans owning guns at all, let alone carrying them about. They can be counted on to run about squawking like Chicken Little that the sky is falling – a calamity brought about by the presence of an armed citizen in public. We are warned that: “Somebody might grab the gun and do something bad! The armed citizen will intimidate others! Tempers will flare and blood will run in the streets!”

These are the same alarms that are sounded when any measure designed to facilitate citizens keeping and bearing arms is advanced. And the alarms are always false. One would think that consistently being wrong would be embarrassing, but one would be wrong about those who assume that common citizens are untrustworthy and dangerous.

Larry Pratt
August 20, 2009
He Had a Gun and Nothing Happened
[Embarrassing? They have no shame, how could they be embarrassed? Their minds are locked into the reality of an alternate universe, sort of a Mirror, Mirror like place. And even though their concepts and assumptions are demonstrably false here they try to take over our universe. If we could just get Spock to transport them swap them back with their counterparts in the other universe things would be so much better.–Joe]

That was kinda cool but…

Late last night I got a link from Instapundit to my Did we just win? post. Early this morning I got a link to the same post from Say Uncle. A little bit later the same post was linked by Michael Bane.

Reynolds and Uncle were characteristically brief but Bane said something that was almost embarrassing to me:

Joe Huffman of The View From North Central Idaho and the majordomo of the Boomershoots has emerged as an important voice in the gun blogosphere, and I think today’s column shows why…

I didn’t think the post was all that strong. I was pushing the envelope with it. I really was overstating things some. I knew it, but figured I could put up a plausible defense of it if I really had to.

But regardless of how shaky the ground I was on something on the order of 7000 (adding a “fudge factor” for the RSS readers which don’t show up on Sitemeter) people read it in a single day. The day isn’t quite over yet and here are the numbers compared to a typical day of about 600 visits:

I’ve spoke about gun rights before crowds of 500 to 700 before. That was a little intimidating but I was very well prepared and confidant of my material. But a crowd of 7000?

It kinda cool that 7000 people in one day read at least a sentence or two of something I wrote. But it’s also kinda…well different. I grew up on a farm and went to two room grade school nearby that had eight grades for a total of about 30 kids. I didn’t have a lot of social contact until I went to a high school where I was in the biggest class ever (the record still holds) which was 125 graduating seniors. The entire town of Orofino, at it’s peak, was only about 3500 people. Yet, twice that many people in a single day read what I wrote and a well known (in some circles) T.V. personality says I’m “an important voice in the gun blogosphere”. Wow. As Sebastian said while I was writing this, I’m just another guy with an opinion.

I think maybe I should be more careful of what I write.

iPhone killer

If you ever heard me say I was working on an iPhone killer this wasn’t what I meant:

I wouldn’t do that.

I would perform an Idaho Stress Test instead.

Quote of the day–Rick Perlstein

Carrying a gun to a political meeting is an obscenity. Anyone who does it, even if they are within their legal rights, should be ashamed. Our founders fought a revolution (and, yes, took up arms) to build a society where political disputes are not settled through force or intimidation–and that’s the only purpose of bringing a weapon to a political discussion: to intimidate.

It is utterly unacceptable, and every politician should have the guts to say so.

Rick Perlstein
August 18, 2009
Outlook: In America, Crazy Is a Pre-existing Condition
‘ … the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy …’

[Just so you know what they think of you.

I wonder what he thinks of the White House response–that open carry at political events is no big deal. Does he think President Obama has no guts?

I think he may have just had the wind sucked out of his sails.–Joe]

Did we just win?

We’ve known for several years (see posts here, here, here, and here) that we were winning on the gun control battlefield. The expiration of the “assault weapon” ban and the Heller decision were just the two best known battles. There were thousands, perhaps millions if you count the wins of the hearts and minds of neighbors, friends, relatives, and co-workers.

I recognize open carry is on the path to victory but I figured it would be in the form of open carry at picnics, highway litter cleanup, and maybe as an organization at parades. People need to be desensitized to gun ownership. And concealed carry just doesn’t help that much. When and how we do that desensitization can matter a great deal.

I’ve been open carrying in a few circumstances for a couple months now (here and here). There has been no obvious notice taken and certainly no adverse effects have occurred. Yet, had anyone asked my advice about open carry at a political protest about the nationalization of health care I would have told them I didn’t see any good could come out of it. Obviously these people didn’t ask for my advice or take similar advice from someone else.

In my opinion these people took a huge risk. They were throwing the dice in a game that affected tens of millions of people in this country. I’m not exactly risk adverse, after all I play with explosives for the fun of it and even have my children help make the explosives. But I wouldn’t have taken the risk they did.

And what happened? It’s as if we had been slowly advancing against the enemy. We were a little surprised to win the battle on carry in National Parks and we almost won a battle for nationwide reciprocity we couldn’t have imagined even coming up for a vote had we thought about it after the election last November. But the enemy was still putting up resistance and we thought they were still formidable opponents. Then they collapsed. The White House (or Red Shed as a commenter recently called it) said it was no big deal to open carry. Public opinion is affected by statements from the White House. Having the most anti-gun administration in U.S. history say it’s no big deal to open carry is huge.

We knew recent poll results showed us winning. But I thought that would take time to translate into our enemies fleeing before us. But it appears now that the brave actions of a few open carry advocates broke through the empty shell of the anti-gun organizations and there are going to be a lot of Sad Pandas tonight and people looking at their bottles of cheap rum.

Now, more than ever, we have a chance to push these bigots into political extinction. When they are on the run they have their backs to us and cannot organize and put up effective resistance. We need to acquire the proper state of mind and pound them as hard as we can as fast as we can. There are still pockets of resistance in New Jersey, Chicago, California, etc. but we may have just won the war.

Update: This post just got linked to by Glenn Reynolds. I would like to suggest my new visitors also look at some of my other posts:

Thanks visiting.

Quote of the day–Brannon P. Denning and Glenn H. Reynolds

The Fulton case demonstrates an important consequence of Heller’s individual right holding: the normalization of firearms possession. In the past sometimes treated as a deviant act, something not to be permitted without the indulgence of the sovereign, firearms possession is now something contemplated by the Constitution–something not deviant, but normal, with the burden shifting from those who would possess firearms to those who would deny their possession. This burden-shift may turn out to be the most consequential result of Heller, at least in the day-to-day work of state and federal courts.

Brannon P. Denning
Glenn H. Reynolds
August 1, 2009
Heller, High Water(mark)? Lower Courts and the New Right to Keep and Bear Arms
[I wouldn’t normally quote the same person (or people) two or more days in a row. But this is a special day and this quote is very applicable because of this and other indicators that open carry of firearms is being accepted. If open carry of firearms is accepted then that means firearms ownership in general is more acceptable.

See also my post from last night and this followup post.–Joe]

I’m in a daze

I read the headline and article before seeing Dave Hardy’s blog post and I’ve been wandering around my underground bunker doing a few household chores and I tried to get my mind around what this means.

I’m not sure I would necessarily agree with Dave, but I can’t say that I disagree when he says, “Time for Brady Campaign employees to circulate resumes” in response to the Washington Post running a headline that says, “White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events“.

Maybe after I sleep on it overnight I’ll have something of my own to say.

Interesting goal

This surprised me:

He added that the Orange County couple’s ultimate goal is an initiative to divide California into two states – one of which would recognize the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to marry.

I’ve heard, many times, that most of California, geographically, is pro-gun. If they could just get rid of the big population centers the place would be politically tolerable. It seems both sides (I acknowledge not all gays are anti-gun, but there is a strong correlation) want a divorce.

California having such a huge population has a large influence on great number of things nationwide. Presidential elections might be the most obvious but there are thousands of other things as well. The contents of school books, safety standards, air pollution standards, and even gun laws that first show up in California have a nasty habit of spreading to other states. If there were two states where their used to be only one that influence would diminish.

I wonder what we can do to encourage such a separation.

Gun ‘buy backs’ and destruction

I received an email from Rob B. that articulated some half-congealed thoughts of my own:

I consider it a “sin” to destroy operable items. This goes for the weapons destroyed and the Cash for Klunkers victims.

Certainly there is the occasional firearm that needs to be removed from circulation due to poor and irreparable condition or unsafe design or modifications. Certainly there are vehicles which are much the same.

This isn’t about that.

This is about materials made by the labor of man, which cost some fraction of man’s treasure to obtain being destroyed because they are unpopular.

This is roughly equivalent to burning books.

Destroying something made by the labor of an individual (or group of them) destroys some small portion of life, for that person (or group) spent their time and energy (life) making it.

Destroying anything useful diminishes the overall value pool.

This is not good, particularly when done for light, transitory or fallacious reasons.

Simply put, this is wrong.

Rob

Sebastian has a different opinion:

My only moral problem with the programs is that it entices people to turn in items that have significant historical value, which are then destroyed and lost for history. If anti-gun groups and big city politicians want to raise the market floor on junk guns, I have no real problem. It’s their money, and I’d rather than dump it into worthless, feel good programs like this than actually use it to challenge gun rights.

Sebastian is a little ambiguous about who’s money is involved that he is okay with. If it’s anti-gun groups, then I don’t have much problem with it–other than that articulated by Rob. But if it’s tax payer money then I do have a problem with it. This would be a lot like tax money, paid by blacks, being used for schools that teach blacks are inferior and should not be allowed to hold public office or vote. Or tax money used to buy and destroy private libraries and churches. It is the government taking money from you to enforce a restriction on your specific enumerated rights.

We have long known the anti-gun people won’t win any prizes for their logic skills and destroying guns is just one more example. If there were a limited supply such as moon rocks or members of an endangered species then firearm destruction would have some significance from a reduction of supply standpoint. But guns aren’t like that. The best they can hope for is to raise the price on used guns, but $50 or $100 as a market floor just doesn’t do anything significant other than increase the likelihood that someone will get into the business of stealing guns (a “no questions asked” market for stolen goods reduces the total risk).

So one has to conclude the gun-buy backs are advocated by people that have one or more of the following characteristics:

  • Willing to use tax money to demonize and restrict the exercise of a specific enumerated right
  • Irrational
  • Desirous of increased theft of firearms

Did I miss any?

Stimulus package

I normally probably wouldn’t have posted this. But after completing New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America it’s particularly relevant. The work programs of the 1930s were used as political tools to not only get votes but to punish those that weren’t “good Democrats” (I’m increasingly of the opinion that is an oxymoronic phrase).

In some cases when you called the phone number to get a Federal job the call went to the local Democratic headquarters. To get the job you had to be interviewed by them and demonstrate your party loyalty. In some cases up to 3% of your pay had to be given to the party.

Take your blood pressure meds then read the book.

Via email from Joe D.

When the Feds delivered the stimulus package they probably didn’t think that “package” would be interpreted in this manner.

Quote of the day–Brannon P. Denning and Glenn H. Reynolds

Political scientists and law professors alike have written extensively on signaling and agenda-setting by the Supreme Court. Despite being dicta—the issues mentioned were not before the Court and were not necessary to resolve those that were before it—the Heller safe harbor seems to us to have been a clear signal, clearer perhaps than any sent in Lopez, that lower courts should not declare open season on any and all federal gun laws. It seems to us that the lower courts have certainly heeded this signal.

Brannon P. Denning
Glenn H. Reynolds
August 1, 2009
Heller, High Water(mark)? Lower Courts and the New Right to Keep and Bear Arms pages 15-16.
[H/T to Say Uncle.

That’s the bad news, which I already knew even from my limited legal viewpoint. There is good news in part III of the paper. Much of it was new to me.–Joe]

Sweaty sex

It’s not exactly a research paper with lots of data but it is a plausible hypothesis:

One of the most intimate forms of loving, it’s far from unsexy. When it comes to excreting buckets of moisture from your skin, wetter can be better. While many would wrinkle their noses at the notion of an antiperspirant meltdown, the action it can inspire captures sexy in its most animalistic form.

So who would’ve thought sweaty sex could be sexy and good for you? There are a number of benefits to working up a sweat; provided you both have a clean bill of health and you stay hydrated.

Sweaty sex:

— Means more calories and fat are being burned during a vigorous sex session;
— Allows for more slithery sex as your bodies slide all over one another;
— Makes for a body suctioning effect that enhances feelings of “we’re one” during sex;
— Offers new sensations that appease our need for variety, like salty kisses;
— Puts a twist in your routine as it taps into your inner instinct of raw, uninhibited sex;
— Can have the two of you resembling the wet sleekness of “Sports Illustrated” swimsuit models, with slicked back hair or shiny skin;
— Releases more of our natural scents, particularly those around the groin, which can be an aphrodisiac, even if on a subconscious level.

I’ll put it on Dr. Joe’s list of things that need further first hand (so to speak) research.

I’d tell you which blogger this reminds me of because she very recently mentioned both sex and a sweaty experience on her blog–but then I would have to kill myself.

Quote of the day–Cameron Hopkins

Will more .38 Supers show up next year? Is the .45ACP now obsolete? In a nut shell, no. The .45 will continue to dominate. The cost of shooting a .38 Super loaded to make major caliber are astronomical. The brass is only good for one loading due to the pressures that swell the web. The beating the gun takes drastically reduces gun life compared to that of a .45.

Cameron Hopkins
American Handgunner
May/June 1985, p. 54
[FYI, nearly 25 years after writing the above Hopkins is still writing.

Just another reminder for myself.

It’s risky to make predictions. I do it anyway and I’m reckless enough to sometimes put the predictions in writing. You would think that seeing the colossal failures of others that do this would be warning enough–but apparently it is not.–Joe]