Sunday, May 3, 2015

And once again mass stupidity brings me back into bloggin...

So I was out sick for a while and then just... stopped posting.

But then   Cracked decided to post an article entitled:  6 Reasons (Beyond Racism) Why Cops Keep Killing People

And yes,  reason #4. More Gun Freedom = More Police Shootings.


That's right!  In an article that's about cops killing unarmed citizens, the solution they present is "Let's make the citizens even more unarmed!"

What I love is they cite Canada as being such an epic gun control place.

Meanwhile, Germany and Australia had six cop-related deaths, and some people in Canada are currently scandalized that they've been averaging an estimated 25 deaths a year. Even accounting for population, and even if we go with the FBI's conservative (read: bullshit) statistic of 400 or so killings a year, US cops are still insanely prolific in this area. So what's the difference? It's not like these other countries don't have crime, racism, or police corruption -- shit, Europe probably invented those things.

Uh...   Cracked.  Canada's got a population of 35 million.  Oh wait, why normalize for population.  Or mention that Canada's got 30 guns per 100 residents.

Oh!  But they do mention the Canadian gun registry...  but not that was repealed.

But more importantly, they've also had troubles with guns. Like America, most of the countries we mentioned have had big gun massacres in the past 25 years. Unlike America, they've actually done something about it. In Australia, for example, 35 people were killed by a mentally ill gunman in 1996, and they reacted by immediately passing stricter laws that forced gun owners to surrender some types of firearms. We'll remind you that this is a country where saying "But what if a giant crocodile shows up in my living room?!" isn't bullshit.

Now do note this guy screaming "We have to DO something!"  immediately before this was hemming and hawing about mandating body cameras for the police.

And then the writer goes into a general aside for several paragraphs about how great gun control is (not even in relation to the police). And how the US is getting more violent (which it isn't  but hey he's on a roll...)

And then ends the section with this gem.

 English bobbies can afford to go on patrol with basically no means of self-defense except tasers and those pointy hats, but American cops are trained to be afraid of us because we might have guns. And obviously we can't just get rid of our guns now, because they are dang cool and awes-- uh, protection. We need them for protection, yeah. Lord knows the cops aren't going to help you in an emergency; they're too busy shooting people who might have guns.

So remember!   If you think you need protection from someone being violent you're just a paranoid.

But the state*totally* needs to take your guns away, because then all these cops who, thanks to 9/11 and drugs, are on a literal war mentality (item #3) and have no accountability (item #1)  will be extra nice to you!

That's right,  disarm so those paranoid cops who think they're in a war and have no accountability won't consider you a threat.   (Unless they think you have an illegal gun, because those will totally be gone).

So the author is framing the police as a paramilitary occupying force that can do whatever they want,  and his idea is to disarm the victims.

It's funny that the writer took such pains to deflect the whole "cops are racist" because if you remembered the disproportionate issue with regard to minorities then his gun control screed is basically...  "We need to ban guns for black people because cops keep thinking black people have illegal guns!  What? That's racist.  Fine   then ban guns for everyone!  That way those racist cops won't have to think."


Oh,  and as a bonus item #2 talks about how cops are trained to kill instead of wound.  Interestingly the writer points out that, contrary to Hollywood, is sensible.    And then he goes on about how cops think they'll need to shoot someone with switchblade.  Now he might be mocking the cops for being paranoid or think that's a legit fear.  Still either way...  doesn't that point out that cops will kill people even if guns were banned?

Heck, it's not like there was recent protests due to an officer shooting a man who he knew was disarmed.  Or that such incidents haven't happened (justified or no).

Note...  this is the guy who was just going on about how there needs to be mass gun control (specifically citing  handgun bans and registration and confiscation)  to make the police less "jumpy".


Though the real bonus comes from the first line... "In the time it took us to research and write this article, a man named Freddie Gray went from living anonymously in Baltimore, to lying comatose"

Wait...  wasn't Mr. Gray arrested because cops enforcing were Maryland's knife control laws?

Never-mind that Mr. Gray was killed... not in the split second of the cops confronting the man, never-mind that the cops were able to put him into custody.  Never-mind that the mortal injuries received had nothing to do with any firearms.  Never-mind that Maryland has more gun control at the level of the countries he stated.

Nope!  The answer clearly is: Cops get machine guns,  the proles shouldn't even have pocket knives.

Yeah... you can see why the fractal stupidity of this required me to post.



Monday, April 20, 2015

Well.... Mr. A is certianly *not* ready for Hillary.

Totally umprompted and just dropped into quite conversation...  Mr A gives this link:

 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32358268

Yes yes, it's about yet another book on Hillary scandals and dark money.
And then after a  few minutes of no one paying attention... follows up with

it'd be awfully nice if that train jumped the tracks early, made space for someone who didn't vote to invade iraq

Well....  that's not... angry eliminationist rhetoric.  Wait... it is. But it's okay because he's got the right politics.  I'd make a joke about "that's sexist" but to be honest... Mr. A is pretty sexist.

And yes, I know he's talking metaphorically with her campaign as at rain and hoping that a sufficient scandal will get rid of her.  And not actually wishing harm to her.

What's funny is there hasn't been a defense of Hillary from anyone else, only a sneering at  writers of the book calling them "breitbart and townhall writers..."


Maybe Roger L Simon is right when he says: "None of my liberal friends like to talk politics anymore.  They have nothing to say and it’s obvious why."

Course... this doesn't mean they won't line up and vote for her.    Do note that Mr. A's primary ire is not Hillary's actions themselves just that she is a sub-optimal candidate in his view.


Oh.... and I really should do a post on Taurus, now that I'm starting to feel better gain.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Movie History! Uh... Spooky Movie History.

Via Cracked.  Let's go into the crazy that is old pioneering movies.


Thursday, April 9, 2015

"Truly one of the most mechanically unusual pistols I have ever seen."

So... the weirdness *starts* with a gas actuated blow forward slide.

And no, it has a bolt that goes backwards.

This really is one of the most esoteric designs.  And shows the crazy creativity that came out of this period in firearms development.

As a bonus,  when your mag goes empty the gun spits it out.

Monday, April 6, 2015

The State Has a Monopoly on Force...

Or not.  I mean you don't have to obey,  you can always go to jail.  And being put in a facility where most all of your rights are removed isn't force at all!

Yeah... that's Sally Kohn's defense for public accommodation laws.




*sighs*   Look, when you say "there oughta be a law"  well...  that means you want armed men to take people away who flaunt said law.  If that makes you uncomfortable then maybe the law your advocating for isn't a wise idea?

And to use Sally Kohn's example... is she aware of what would happen if someone refused to buckle up in the officer's presence?   And then tried to drive away?  Or even got out of the car and walked off?  The cop won't just shrug and let you rabbit off.

Or maybe you act all peaceful, take the ticket, smile and buckle up.  And then you don't pay it.  And then you ignore the summons to court.  What does Sally Kohn think happens next?

And that rational is a really, really bad way to defend a law because....


Look, you want to defend public accommodation laws,  or maybe argue for expanding them because, while they've got flaws, they're's some loopholes that make them worse.  Go ahead.  You can make a good argument for that.   One can even make arguments against conscious exceptions.

But really  don't argue that laws aren't important because they're not really enforced.



Via Ace, who links to another bit of dumb.  (See its' the Right Wing's fault that Rolling Stone  got rolled and went all in on a story that turned out to be false.)


Friday, April 3, 2015