Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Quote of the Day: Weer'd II

Weer'd explains why he does his Gun Death metrics.

And what a world without guns really means.

In the middle and dark ages of time women were essentially property. Why? Because men are stronger than woman, and if a woman attempted to stand up to men they would lose. Weapons like knives, swords, clubs, and bows all required strength to effectively use. A woman, the elderly, or people of slight stature or strength simply couldn’t compete to violence. As Marko said: “The Gun is Civilization”. In martial arts competitions the competitors are divided up by sex and weight, simply because they can’t directly compete, no matter how skilled they are. Of course there are no referees or officials on the street that make sure attackers only fight their own weight and skill class, nor do they forbid GROUPS from attacking single targets. Now add in the gun. I’ve taken many people to the range for their first shots, young and old, big and small, male and female, their shooting skills with appropriate firearms is only a direct is only related to how well I can teach and how well they can pick up the shooting basics. If they have a good stance and grip, make a good sight picture, and exercise good trigger control they will ALL land shots in the black of an NRA slow-fire target.

Add in some repetition and they’ll be as competent shot as anybody else, and their physical capabilities will only be an issue when you really start pushing things outside the standard realm of defensive shootings. No, you generally won’t need a .44 Magnum or a .454 Casull to stop an attacker, a .38 Special or a 9×19 firearm will likely do as well as anything else, and with the current selections of firearms ANYBODY can get a gun that they can effectively conceal, carry, deploy and most importantly AFFORD. These guns will allow them to not only fend off more powerful attackers, but MULTIPLE attackers (even when you discount that many group attacks will scatter when a defensive weapon is produced, or one of the attackers is neutralized).

So effectively the gun neutralizes direct force as a tactic to be used. By eliminating lawful guns you foster “Might Equals Right”.

So this is why I run the “Gun Death” Files.

Well said. This' why I call the Antis part of a "New Aristocracy" or a "Neo Feudalism." They want the good old days.

As Joan Peterson showed earlier today, she's not against people carrying guns. She's against the common people carrying guns.

That's why the Antis love May Issue. It empowers the Baron's Sheriff to decide who can and cannot bear arms. Naturally the Baron's friends and sundry gentry count.

And sure local bandits will be armed, but the important thing is the common rabble can be kept disarmed, unless they fall under the patronage of a generous lord.

It really shows that the idea of liberty, of equality before the law, of fundamental god-given (or sapiency given) rights are all alien and hostile to them.

They feel that you should only be allowed to do X if you show fealty to the proper authority and while you grovel you convince the Lord that your need is worthy of his whims.

How dare a common laborer think he's entitled to carry the same weapons as a friend of the Lord-Mayor.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

The DNC doesn't think gun owners should be allowed to vote.

One of the critiques of Voter ID is that it will prevent certain people from voting. Namely those that don't have any state issue photo ID. Oddly enough there's a large crossover between people that oppose voter ID and those that oppose private firearms sales and shall issue carry let alone Constitutional Carry..

Funny that.

Well Donna Brazile, current vice Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and former campaign adviser for Bill Clinton tops that by out and out saying certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"In Texas, people with gun licenses will have an easier time voting. If people with guns are allowed a say, then we can skip the voting thing

— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) August 28, 2012"

Get that?

Note that unlike some states the Texas Concealed Handgun License is a full photo identification card.

How dare a State-issued photo-ID be a valid form of photo-ID!

And note that she's specifically angry that gun owners are allowed to vote in the first place.

In her world if you own a gun you should be bared from voting. And remember she's the Vice Chair or the Democratic National Committee.

I'll repeat that, one of the top people in the Democratic Party thinks that exercising a fundamental and enumerated right, something that millions of Americans do, should automatically exclude you from being eligible to vote.

Says it all don't it?

Monday, August 27, 2012

Quote of the Day: Weer'd

Commenting on his post about a "progressive" Professor who's idea of a "dialog" is canceling class, Weer'd says:

When you debate with your mind both parties hear new ideas and and everybody gets SMARTER. Sometimes one party hears a better argument they hadn’t considered and they concede, but concede knowing their smarter, wiser and better for it. The person that gives the winning argument feels more confident in their understanding of the topic and is also empowered. Everybody wins.

When debating from the heart the people are PERSONALLY invested in it. If they concede their HEART was untrue and they are a broken person. The person arguing against them has an untrue heart in their eyes. Tempers often flare, feelings get hurt and the person who loses (or storms off) is heartbroken, and the “Winner”, having an empathic heart should feel a bit of guilt for hurting another person’s feelings.

I think he's spot on for that.

A good rule of thumb can be: Is the person you're arguing with capable of admitting that you might be right? Or is the issue at hand one that makes up a dear part of their cosmology, one where disagreement it is a sign of illness or deviancy?

For example, I just witnessed an abortion argument/rant and most everyone was arguing from emotion. Actually since this was about abortion it was textbook Lakoff.

It became a weird echo chamber as they didn't really have a pro-lifer to argue with (not for long anyway). But they demanded to know: How they could think that way? So I told 'em. I mean, the pro-life position isn't hard to grok. Very basic definition on personhood and thus murder.

Hell I didn’t even have a political dog in that fight, as I ain’t voting for Romney or Obama. And this from Penn Jillette is pretty close to my line of thinking on abortion. Which probably made things worse in their eyes. As I wasn't a "fanatic" and wasn't even arguing my own position.

Then they got angry and left. Because, well, they wanted an argument with "the enemy" not an explanation as to why the enemy thought the way they did. No, the enemy has to be a bunch of adulteress-stoning theocrats or baby-killin' monsters.

So, it came down to just me and some other guy having a rather nice chat about new developments in contraceptives. Like the male birth control pill and which barrier methods are better.

The whole thing was like a bunch of Austrian-School Economists getting mad because someone from the Stockholm-School is explaining the ideas behind the German Historical School to them. The Swed doesn't have a dog in the fight! He's just telling you why the Germans thought the way they did!


Well, it's that time of year when the apricots start falling.

This year I got a couple tarps staked out to help catch.

We'll see how well those work. I'm thinking I'll need to get more stakes to keep the wind from hitting the sides (the centers are weighted down nicely already).

No photos since my crappy camera finality gave up the ghost.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Does the goblin even need a gun for it to count as a "Mass Shooting"?

Well... given the "Mass" in the NYC "Mass Shooting" was all on the part of the cops...

The problem seems to be that the police have firearms that have been modified to make the trigger pulls much harder (which covers up poor gun handling with Negligent discharges, but does hell to aim). Poor training on the part of the cops. And poor accountability on police caused "collateral damage.

As Tirno on GBC points out tongue in cheek: "God damn it. At least this guy had the courtesy and care to make on fine handcrafted murder. It took the NYPD to turn it into a slipshod mass casualty event."

And that's exactly what happened. But the antis are screaming that this is a "mass shooting" even though the mass of fire is on the part of the "Only Ones."

And consider this. In their reporting yesterday the AP noted that the NYPD recently shot to death a "knife wielding man".

The mutant in the Empire State Building murder killed one man for revenge. He could have easily done it with a knife. Hey Gun Death!

He also could have been followed by the police, drawn his knife when confronted by them, and been shot by them... with the police missing and injuring people.

There you have it. Same deaths, same police response, same casualties. The only difference is that the only guns in the equation were in the hands of the police.

And I'm betting the Antis would still call it a "mass shooting".

As Daniels also on GBC notes: "So a guy with a knife then perpetrates a mass shooting?"

Based on the comments on this Mother Jones piece (Provided by Agripa in GBC) such as "If it gets media attention it's a mass killing, it seems to me. "

Also these "deep thinkers" simultaneously exonerate the police from any culpability with regards to the people they -you know- shot while also blaming all gun owners for the murderous actions of one man.

Yeah... it looks like Daniels is right about that.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Making a Mass Shooting.

So here's the story. (Which is subject to change as information comes in as the media's lazy or knowing biases and simple lack of reliable info are sorted out). We'll start with the AP.

It looks like a former fashion designer (or related in the field) killed his ex boss at the Empire State building. Then the "mass" shooting happened after the revenge killing, walked away, and was confronted by the police. He pulled out his gun (what looks to be a 1911), then the police shot him dead.

From the NY Times.

Detectives believe that Mr. Johnson had fired five shots at Mr. Ercolino and may have fired one shot at the police officers, the official said. There were two bullets left in the eight-round magazine of his gun so only one shot – the one apparently fired at the officers -- could have possibly hit one of the nine bystanders, the official said.

A man fires at most two rounds at the cops (he could have topped off his magazine after cambering the gun) the cops fire back and 9 more people get injured.

And some sources say he did not even fire his weapon at the police. That's not to say the police would not be justified in defending themselves. You point a gun at someone they can safely assume you want to kill them. That said, the cops are responsible for where their bullets went.

Either way, do the math on wounded victims versus bullets fired by the perp. Thankfully their injuries were minor, but apparently major enough to qualify as a "mass shooting".

And a textbook Only Ones preening: "There is no doubt that the situation would've been even more tragic except for the extraordinary acts of heroism . . "

Possible, though given the man had a specific target for vengeance. Killed said target, then retreated only to be corned by the police... who then proceed to hurt a bunch of people due to their sloppy shooting...

But remember, only police should have guns. As BenC notes in GBC chat: "They have to try to sell them as heroes. Otherwise they are the assholes who opened up into a crowd."

This is why a single murder is being spun into a "mass shooting".

Also this shows the insanity of a "high cap" magazine restriction. As the man already had a sub ten round round magazines, only fired 5 shots into his victim (hello revolver), and fired one shot at the police (hello flintlock).

Hell, he didn't even need a gun. You can kill a man with a knife easy, and if you draw it at the cops, they will shoot you. As mentioned in the AP article about the shooting too.

The gunfire came less than two weeks after a knife-wielding man was shot dead by police near Times Square, another tourist-saturated part of the city. Authorities say police shot 51-year-old Darrius Kennedy after he lunged at officers with a kitchen knife Aug. 12. Kennedy was smoking marijuana in Times Square on a Saturday afternoon when officers first approached, police said. It was the beginning of an encounter that would stretch for seven crowded blocks.

But there's two more reasons for the "mass shooting" label. First it happened Empire State Building, New York City. That's catnip for the media mavens and types.

They'll ignore murders and shootings when it doesn't suit them. Like in, another gun free city, Chicago.

Nineteen people were shot in attacks across the South and West sides between about 5:20 p.m. Thursday and 1:30 a.m. Friday - including 13 people during a single 30-minute period - according to the Chicago Police Department.

But that doesn't fire up celebrities on twitter does it?

Which brings me to the third reason this story is being pushed out. The antis are trying to make a parade of mass shootings, one after the other.

Details regarding this morning’s tragic Empire State Building shooting are still emerging. The blood isn’t even dry, but as always, that’s not stopping the opportunistic gun control ghouls like Mayor Bloomberg from politicizing the shooting.

A 41-year-old is dead, several more people are injured, and shameless Smarter Than You™ celebrities are more than happy to build their gun-grabbing case on the backs of the victims. As Twitchy already reported, Kim Kardashian is calling for Americans to “rethink gun laws.” And actor Jim Carrey wants to “revise” the Second Amendment.

The CSGV is already calling it a mass shooting apparently.

Nevermind that if the news reporting is remotely accurate that means they think any shooting where a person kills another person and fires at least five rounds counts as a "mass" shooting.

Nevermind that in NYC the only people that can legally own let alone carry a handgun are agents of the state and the well heeled and famous like -well- Carrey and Kardashian.

Nevermind that New York already has an assault weapons ban, and has "closed the gunshow loophole" and is run by "common sense" politicians. Hell the head of MAIG is Bloomberg.

Nevermind that it's looking like the police themselves that turned this from a single murder into a "mass shooting".

Thursday, August 23, 2012

The problem with Prohibition is that they didn't give enough lead time!

At least that's what Tasmanian politicians think.

Their idea is to make it illegal for anyone born after 2000 to buy tobacco products.


And their upper house supported this prohibition by inches unanimously. So how do they justify it? With a mix of patronizing nanny statism and a gob of "We're not coming after your smokes" that would make the Anti-Gun people blush.

They explain that they're not prohibiting anyone who can currently smoke from smoking. They just criminalize any new smokers. Exactly like pre-ban and post ban magazines or pre-86 and post-86 machine guns.

What ever happened to "get your laws" off my body? Or is a person's health an aspect of national interest now?

Nice equal rights there too. As it's a naked discrimination based on age. What a great way to show the capriciousness of governmental banning. In 2020 there will be a 20 year old that can legally smoke and a 19 year old that cannot. Or in 2040 when it will be a 40 year old and a 39 year old.

A state that feels comfortable, unanimous, and morally righteous in such ineffective, discriminatory, and callous abuses of power is one quite predisposed to more... rash actions, if it's in the greater good.

As Gay Cynic in GBC notes: "After all, you don't want to treat citizens like adults capable of making their own choices..."

But hey, it's for the Children! And yes by 2040 those "children" will be as old as 39. But come on, we all know the government sees the common rabble as children, at best.

And nothing bad ever comes of prohibition.

Let's make Medical care as Universal as Public Schools!

Up in Canada.

There are two tiers of men with advanced prostate cancer in Ontario: Those who get access to a remarkable drug through private insurance, and those who get a death sentence.

The grim news is often delivered at the London Regional Cancer Program to men whose shoulders sag and jaws drop when told Ontario’s Health Ministry has for 15 months refused to pay for a medication covered by every other Canadian province.

“There’s shock, fury and dismay,” said oncologist Kylea Potvin. “Everyone thinks we have this wonderful universal health care system, but this is absolutely not the case. We’ve increasingly become a two-tier health care system where if you have money, you have access.” . . .

Now note this is exactly the kind of situation progressives like Mr. A propose. Sure he rants about the evils of a "mix and match, public and private" medical care. But when pushed he goes right to the socialism for needs, capitalism for wants and that medical care should be like public schools, where everyone can get something for "free" and if you want more you can pay more.

Well there's his dream right there.

Via Glenn Reynolds who notes on why the government mandarins just don't give prostate cancer victims the same priority as others: "(1) They’re men, and nobody cares as much if men die. (2) On average, they’re past their earning years and if they die earlier it helps the pension problem. And men who live too long are just a burden on society anyway."

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

I got nothin'

Had an early day. The plumber came and found out that the problems with my half-bath are because when the room was converted from a laundry room into a bathroom in the remodeling, the pipes weren't actually expanded.

And that's just special. Thank goodness I rent. Having to get that mess up to code would be a problem. That said the leaks were fixed and the bathroom is back to functionality.

On the upside a co-worker did get some extra peppers from his garden and I've decided to use the extra time today to cook chili.

Also I have a bit of spew from Mr. A (semi-apologia for Putin re Pussy Riot justified by his open, nay proud, hatred of Christianity). I suppose I could note how he's one shade off from an Anti-Semite or an Islamaphobe, or how he's happy to hate people that believe in a different cosmology than him, while simultaneously patting himself on the back on his enlightenment but... meh. That much should all be obvious enough.

AH well, the weather's nice enough, ahd this should be a good batch of chili.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

A picture is worth a thousand words.

And this one sums up the President brilliantly.

Yes, it's real. And really it was bound to happen given angles and reflectivity.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Math: Told you so.

So the meme of “Paul Ryan represents Obama’s most horrifying nightmare: math” has already reached Lol Cat level.

Well, it doesn't take a genius to look at various budgets and programs and realize that X+Y = Fail.

But there are a lot of people that depend on keeping the illusion going.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Sophisticated as Hell an example

So Spear of JayG's Handgonne was also doing some correspondence with Stingray of AtomicNerds.

It seems Stingray took a bit of umbrage at the lack of familiarity and decided to reply in a textbook, no... triumphant, example of Sophisticated as Hell.

Hats off to all around.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Learning about the Red Queen's Race...

Look at the following charts on US education spending and results.

Here and Here.

A couple points.

The US is number 1 in per student education spending. Some lists have us as 2 or 3 behind Switzerland and the like.

The US is low to middle in results. Spending a lot more than other countries have to spend for the same result.

And finally... US per student education spending keeps going up, to little or no improvement.

So soaring costs to tread water at the same mediocre results.

Yes, I can see why Mr. A things this is a model for the nation's medical system. Though in the US you can send you kids to a private school, if you don't mind paying for public too (vouchers are evil!), which sadly, is more "liberal" than the proposed medical takeovers.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

How dare you try to help! That's what the government is for!

So in Philly a woman is facing a 600 dollar a day fine.

Her crime? Feeding needy children.

Remember this next time a liberal screams about how charity doesn't work and is a smokescreen. Gee it's almost like the State is actively trying to crush competing methods of helping those in need.

Jay G has more.

You see, this is a private charity. This is exactly what we mean when we say that the government is not there to take care of you.This is a church set up to help the poor - something they've been doing for hundreds if not thousands of years. And yet, because the government hates competition, they're hitting her with ridiculous fines to try and stop her from feeding hungry kids.

You know something? If this had happened in Mitt Romney's Massachusetts, I bet it would have been front page news three days running. Since it's happening in Democratically controlled Phillie; not a peep. This is exactly the kind of thing that you think they'd want to happen - after all, it is "for the children"... Yet because her house isn't zoned properly (WTF? Is there a "free lunch" zone?), someone dimed her out to the local warlords. Really. Someone ratted her out to the authorities because she was feeding hungry kids.

But you know what? When you give a hungry kid a lunch, their parents don't get dependent on the government and therefore more likely to vote for whoever's in power. They are not beholden to one party or another to receive this food; they simply show up and eat.

The Progressive idea of charity is taking money from someone else at gunpoint then doling it out to a captive population with the implicit threat of "vote for us or else." So of course they have to remove any competing means of support.

And note, despite keeping strict paperwork and having bi-weekly visits from a state inspector, the woman in question is still being punished... for feeding needy children.

Man, wonder what the statists think of Langar, guess they'll be going after the Sikhs next. And the soup kitchens. Until they all are subject to "common sense" regulation.

Though the Sikhs are in enough hot water in the eyes of the progs. Just consider the Kirpan.

Speaking of Langar, Sean D. Sorrentino celebrates "diversity" with some very staunch American Patriots. And read Sean's comment in his own post for more information on the Kirpran.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Redshirts and SF Debris...

So I've been watching the scifi reviews on SF Debris

The guy has a good style and an interesting perspective onto the plot, behind the scenes, and symbolism of the various shows.

But I was struck by how got awful the various Star Trek series were. Especially Voyager.

This meshed quite well with Scalzi's latest book: Redshirts.

Ensign Andrew Dahl has just been assigned to the Universal Union Capital Ship Intrepid, flagship of the Universal Union since the year 2456. It’s a prestige posting, and Andrew is thrilled all the more to be assigned to the ship’s Xenobiology laboratory.

Life couldn’t be better…until Andrew begins to pick up on the fact that (1) every Away Mission involves some kind of lethal confrontation with alien forces, (2) the ship’s captain, its chief science officer, and the handsome Lieutenant Kerensky always survive these confrontations, and (3) at least one low-ranked crew member is, sadly, always killed.

Reading the book while watching these reviews, especially Voyager's Latent Image serve as great examples of the creative failures that are technobabble and killing of bit characters for increased drama.

The voyager episode I link is particularly blatant about it, but that vast majority of the episodes all work that way.

And while Scalzi's satire has elements from the whole of the Star Trek franchise (such as being the fleet flagship), scifi geeks should be able to readily recall the Voyager's ship class.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Now that's Testing and Evaluation.

Aviation week has a short piece on the 4477th Test & Evaluation Squadron

A very interesting read on what it was like to fly and test "procured" Russian aircraft, complete with stuff like the "BOMB EXPLODE" switch, the superior abilities of inferiority made Russian flares, and the near miracles done by the maintenance staff.

They had to keep planes flying with no support documentation, no plans, and no supply chain.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Well that was refreshing II

After a month of what was basically a drought, we had two days of rain.

That made for a cool day today, and a nice early evening with a slight breeze.

Ideal to go out onto the patio and enjoy a nice whiskey, a good cigar and some steak.

I'm not bad at grilling, but my father can still out do me. Even with leftover steak.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Open Source Guns or the Liberator Mk II

The Wiki Weapon, an idea to open source and share designs for 3D printable firearms. Where information freedom meets self defense freedom.

Borepatch says it well:

Freedom is by its very nature, Open Source. Personally, I find rich irony in seeing how people who back in the day thought themselves to be True Revolutionaries are horrified when they see something truly revolutionary. I'm not sure that I'd every want to shoot one, but the idea that I could if I really needed to.

And yes this contrasts with Google's view on arms and the global distribution therein here.

Via JayG who notes what this means for the world and the antis

The ramifications of this project are staggering, and will most likely outpace legislation. Owning a 3D printer and a CAD program is hardly "constructive possession, and it's hard to see how having plans for a pistol - even with the CAD program and printer - would constitute same, even for a prohibited person. Being able to quickly, cheaply, and easily produce firearms by the thousand - tens of thousands, or maybe even hundreds - may very well be the lever that forces us to reckon with the person that misuses the tool rather than the tool itself.

This project makes real what we on the pro-rights side have been saying for decades: Any person bent on ill intent can get a firearm at any time. Those that will do harm will not be stopped by any laws made by men; at the very best they might be delayed. Putting artificial barriers to firearm ownership only hurts those that need not be regulated - the good people - and allows the evil people to thrive.

Knowing that anyone, at any time, anywhere, might have a simple gun on their person is fantastic protection from goblins - and out-of-control governments.

Also the "ironic" part if this technology is that countries and states that actually respect gun rights would find this technology to be a minor disruption. As the general citizen can already purchase and carry a firearm.

Those states where the general public cannot however....

But this shows the core idea that liberty is liberty.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Google Going after your guns?

Maybe. Maybe.

Google tracking the "global arms trade"

Just check out that first paragraph: a direct comparison of violent deaths and civilian held arms.

And then the direct comparison of the illicit arms trade and the legitimate arms trade.

Also... look at this head desk:

You can see, for example, that the scale of the global trade in ammunition rivals the scale of trade in actual weapons, an insight underexplored by policymakers today in conflict prevention and resolution.

Really? You didn't realize that such arms needed ammunition? And that's gotta be purchased and shipped too? Especially if, you know, the weapons are going to be used? Confidence inspiring.

And yeah google's global reach. Not ominous at all. I guess this is the good kind of "corporate money" being spent to influence governments.

Given all this BS, and the other Google crap, I should move to a different service.

Monday, August 6, 2012

The Kriss Smile is very real.

Welp, something came in last night. Something I'd been wroking towards but had been keeping under wraps.


I had decided to go with the pistol version of the Kriss. And then took the sight off of a previous weapon.

Compared to the Kriss my AR45 pistol feels bulky, clunky, and slow. The AR45 having a 9 inch barrel might be more accurate. But the Kriss is, despite the price, acutally very simple. Being a very robust blowback design.

And I just got back from the range. Put a hundred Sellier & Bellot through it and fifty of my handloads. Didn't have any faults. Very low recoil and very accurate. Here's the target from my first outing with it:

Both the irons and the sights that came with it work very well. That target is from 25 yards to 5 yards. And both the 13 round magazines and the 25 round magazines worked without a hitch. The whole gun preformed very well. The trigger takes a bit getting used to, having that long transfer bar to the reversed hammer. I will say that the charging handle is a bit hard with the spring pressure, but that's mostly the manual of arms.

The Kriss is a bit of a strange weapon to get used to. The controls are very accessible, even for a southpaw but they are placed in odd spots. One real nice thing is the charging handle has a press check feature which is really convenient.

And the Kriss also has a compartment inside the grip where you can put spare batteries and other odds and ends.

As for the Kriss grin, that grew as I got comfortable with the weapon. And by the last 25 when I was shooting steel pepper poppers it was ear to ear.

So yes, Robb Allen is right. The Kriss Smile is real.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

The Mysteries of Mr A

So Mr A was laughing at bumperstickers he saw at work.

And most of the ones he was mocking were the eye-rolling family values tripe. Odd that he didn't mention any of the ones pointing out fiscal irresponsibility.

But then he ended with this bit. The one he thought was the most funny:

Haha here's a good one:
Democrats Think The Glass is Half Full
Republicans Think The Glass is Theirs

I didn't get to ask him about it. So I'm left wondering if he thinks it's good because he agrees with it, or if he thinks it shows how dumb republicans are.

Either way it shows a collectivist bent. Where the idea of a Republican daring to claim ownership is noteworthy to him.

Mind this is from a man that despite being in the "wealthy" tax bracket steadfastly refuses to voluntarily pay his far share, and then brags about how once tax rates are raised on "the rich" he'll hire the best accountants to minimize what he pays.

Because it's not your glass, it's the people's glass. Unless you bought the glass with your own money and support the Public Glass Mandate, then it's okay to have your own glass.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Rampages, Math, and what You can do about it

Everyone else has been linking it, and I might as well get in.

Davi Barker does a good survey of shooting rampages and compares the number of victims in attacks stopped by the police versus those stopped by a regular citizens.

With 14 incidents stopped by police with a total of 200 dead that’s an average of about 14.3. With 15 incidents stopped by civilians and 35 dead that’s an average of 2.3.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not even in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 10 of the 15 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives.

Important lessons there. One: by the time the police get there there's good odds that the attacker will be dead by his own hand or have simply stopped. Two: Fighting back is better than freezing and dying. No matter how you're armed, it will help. Three: Carry your damn guns.

Go to the link. Read it all.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

If you live in the Houston area do not do go Tactical Firearms in Katy Texas

The proprietor Jeremy Alcede has decided that selling out your rights is worth trying to goose his bottom line.

Jeremy Alcede of Tactical Firearms, Katy, TX has decided that a ban of online ammo sales is just peachy with him. After all if that happens people will have to buy from him.

I think anyone from the west of Houston can easily find another place to take their business.

Link from Tam who advises you to spread the word.

Fauxcahontas Barbie: Math is Hard!

Actually, Elizabeth warren thinks math is very easy.

Step 1: US be more like China
Step 2: 1 Trillion more every year in "infrastructure" spending.
Step 3: Profit Err, betterment for the proletariat and the noble servants of the masses.

Yes, once again we have a progressive complaining as to why the US can't be more like China. And that's in an ad designed to make you want to vote for her!

The NY Sun does some deconstruction.
The first problem is mathematical. U.S. gross domestic product is about $15 trillion a year. Increasing infrastructure “investment” to the 9% Chinese level that Ms. Warren cites would mean an additional $1 trillion a year in government spending. That’s an immense spending increase. To put it in context, the entire federal government spent about $3.6 trillion in 2011, on revenues of about $2.3 trillion.

Where would this money come from? Not tax increases, right? Ms. Warren has already reportedly promised nearly a trillion dollar tax increase, spread over ten years, by raising the estate tax, imposing the Buffett Rule, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those earning $250,000 a year or more. But that money, she has said, would go toward deficit reduction. If Ms. Warren really wants to spend $1 trillion a year more on infrastructure, she’d need to eliminate all national defense spending ($705 billion) or all Social Security spending ($730 billion) and then find another more than quarter trillion dollars. Or else she’d have to go on the biggest borrowing or taxing binge in American history.

Double the amount the US is in the hole every year? Sounds about right!

China is able to spend so much on infrastructure because it’s an un-free country. It lacks the rule of law that lets American community groups wage legal and political battles against big government projects. Ms. Warren may protest that when she’s talking about “infrastructure” she mainly means maintaining existing roads and bridges, not building brand new projects that flatten urban neighborhoods or destroy scenic rivers. But that’s not what’s happening in China.

Remember that. In their own words, the Progressives wish the US were more totalitarian, they wish the State had even more power and less accountability. They see themselves as, at best, wise rules over a slack-jawed populace in need of constant control and uniform messaging, lest their baser urges get the better of them.