It's like MST3K but for shitty Tabletop games.

Erin's got a review up of Traveller 5.

And yes, it really is that bad.

And with special guest commentary by McThag!

Not all Kahrs are the same.

So I was at the Indy 1500 early this Sunday (as part of a very busy, and strange day).

And I was able to spot something I had been looking for for along time.

It's the one on the right.

See my father was impressed with my PM45, and he had a P45 but he found that was a bit big. Amusingly the table I found it at was run by the same brick and mortar gun shop that I bought my PM45 at.  It's another one with night sights and since this one was used and got on gun-show Sunday I got a good deal on it.

I put it through its paces and am now getting ready to have my FFL ship it to my father's FFL down in Memphis.  It's a belated Christmas gift, or maybe an early birthday.

Then I noticed something.   Despite being the same model guns are not actually identical.

Again new one on the right

See that, the slide is just a hair shorter.

That same difference can be seen on the barrels too.

3-1/8" barrel on the left.  3" barrel on the right.

There's also a slight difference in the recoil spring size, some engraving on the side of the shorter barrel identifying the caliber that isn't on the longer barrel, and some slight changes on the side plate of the receiver.

Still,  there doesn't feel to be much difference between that extra eight of an inch.

Edit:  Checking the serial numbers I think the smaller one is older.  And might even be a first generation.  Or a "series A" variant.

Echo Sling and Swiss K31 and Windchime

A while ago I learned about the Swiss K31 straight pull. Now as a southpaw I got a thing for oddball bolt action guns. And then, a couple months back, I learned that Aim Surplus had some in stock.   The were out of the pre-war walnut stocks at the time, but I was happy to get a post-war beechwood  one.

At around the same time  Erin was running Jennifer's Evict Lyme raffle.  And one of the items were a couple Echo Slings made by Matt Rogers.

Now I managed to clean up pretty well when it came to getting prizes. One of other things that came was a custom wind chime made by Mark White of Rimfire Designs.  Sounds great and yes that is Joe on the windcatcher.

 

But back to the K31.   So I had that coming, and it didn't have a sling.   Amazingly I did win a sling!

First a couple things.  I'm rather tall and broad in the shoulder.   This means often a sling can be too short for me.  I also shoot left handed and most long guns have their furniture on the wrong side, which eats up more distance and can make things awkward.

So I'm used to kludging things out.

But the real nice part about these slings?  Plenty of material to work with, easy setup and very sturdy material.

I've had very good experience shooting with it and can't recommend them enough.

If you want to help Someone out *and* order some knitted geek swag.

You may have remembered those great Jayne hats from the Squeak or Treat raffle.

Well Evelyn Hively the maker of those wonderful hats  her siblings have gotten into a spot of trouble and she's looking to help them. 

And here's what's in the offering.

I am offering Dr. Who Scarves (there's a 100 dollar version and a 425 version which is a very accurate one, as per several hours of research), they are both full sized but take 2.5 months to make.   I am offering Ma Cobb hats (these are usually 30), Tardis themed hats (30), dolls, shawls, bags, afghans, normal scarves, baby gift sets, custom coats etc.
This is not a donation, but a loan that I am paying you back with knit and crocheted goods as fast as I can make them.  There's two ways to get ahold of me:1) On Facebook I am Jade Rose Zen.2) Etsy located here:https://www.etsy.com/shop/JadeRoseZen?ref=si_shop

Easy and good to order from.  And now your timing might be as good as mine, as she had just finished a large Jayne hat just before I talked with her.

Link from Erin who's been busy boosting the signal.

Cracked and Guns... who knows?

So Cracked has a new article up on trying to "bridge the divide" on the gun control debate.

What I find fascinating is that the writer tries to keep a neutral tone. And goes with a sort of "hey both sides are crazy and should totally agree to this."

But let's look at what he's actually saying.

See Gun Grabbers should realize that not all gun owners are fat old white 'murrican!  men.  They should give up on their dreams of banning assault weapons because the bans are based on cosmetic features and are on guns that are hardly used in murders anyway.   They should also give up on magazine bans.  Oh and they should put facts before fear mongering and know what they're talking about.

Meanwhile gun nuts should admit that their Red Dawn fantasy camp dreams are just that.  That it's okay to own guns for fun.  Oh and gun people should calm down since no one's coming for your guns and that Universal Background checks are popular.

Note the difference?   Well the writer is telling the gun grabbers to give up and stop being ignorant and prejudiced.   Meanwhile the gun owners should be more honest about how nerdy their hobby is and calm down.

Maybe I've gotten the wrong impression, but it's funny how in an attempt to be "even handed" the writer basically writes off gun control's hole agenda of banning things.

See it's a compromise!


And note that the last two Gun Lover points aren't quite right.  Given that the President himself demanded an Assault Weapons Ban, and a magazine ban, and endorsed the states that passed said bans.  So that there isn't a federal ban on those guns owes more towards a lack of political power than presidential desire.  Is the idea of rushing to buy guns before they're made illegal really that crazy when there was a federal push with that exact goal and several states... did exactly that?

And amusingly for an article that denigrates gun control as being motivated by ignorance the writer doesn't actual define what Universal Background checks would entail, how they would function, or what they could ban.  Just that "Hey people like it when you say " making sure the dude buying a Glock doesn't have a restraining order or history of schizophrenia"

Because that's totally the same thing as making it illegal to loan your friend your hunting rifle.   Here's a dirty secret, when they say "expanding background checks" they don't mean expanding the check itself.

Quote of the Day.... Surprise Edition.

Okay let's start with the quote first.

When objects transcend from their objective description and function (e.g. a fork) and are elevated to the status of symbols, with subjective values assigned them (e.g. a firearm) they seem to enter a realm where logic is easily surrendered to emotion, and rationality is occluded by passion. From that point on, the management of such objects becomes less about what they objectively do, and more about how people emotionally relate to them as an idea. Good luck regulating emotions.

Hmmm.... someone talking about how too much emotions cloud judgement about firearms law?

Well, the reference to "management" might mean the person is for gun control.  However, the last line is pretty sarcastic about the folly of it.

Okay so it could go either way. I mean both the antis and gun rights people think the other side imbues guns with totemic powers and agency.

Hmm...  well  here's a hint.    This is in comment to a pro-gun control comic where in the last panel there literally is a gun whispering corruptive sweet nothings into the ear of an unwitting man.  And the narration outright blames the guns themselves.

Well, most gun law are passed in an emotional rush and are more about "feeling good" or "punishing the other" than stopping "crime".  Just look at how Assault Weapons are defined.   Is that logical and rational or just surrendering to emotion and passion?

Well for another hint, the comic was posted in Daily Kos.  Link from the always funny Tam

Hmmm so...   sarcastic trolling by a gunnie? Or gun grabber who is so deluded that they ended up coming out the other side as to be profound?


Sorry to announce that user gunnergoz is actually a died in the wool anti, complete with "interviews" with frothing evil righties clinging to their guns.

Well it's not exactly a Mr A story....

Sorry for not posting in a while.   Have had holiday stuff.

To make up for it here's a rambling story.

Interestingly, I don't have very many Mr. A stories.

It seems that given the immense failure of Obamacare, Mr. A has not been at his normal levels of progressive bravado.

It helps that Mr. A is very into programming and thus has a personal measure of how inept and "Faith Based Legislation" the ACA ended up being.

But I do have some stories of a mutual associate of ours.

Let's call this fellow Tom  (I may have mentioned him before, but I can't quite recall).

Tom is also a progressive.

Now while Mr. A is of the wanna-be Limonene Liberal social climber of the "professional" class,   Tom is more blue collar and of the "Eat the Rich"  style.

On multiple occasions he's gone into rhetoric revolution and class warfare.  And I always needle him by asking "Oh? And will this be the one time the bastards at the vanguard *don't* put the useful idiots against the wall and enrich themselves while grinding the poor worse than even the previous regime?"

Here's an example of Tom's thinking.  He describes this as a very influential moment in his life. As a student he had an ethics class.  There was an exam with the bonus question of "Is Teacher X your favorite teacher?"

The teacher expected everyone to answer Yes.  And got angry when Tom answered No. And he was the only student to not get the extra credit

"I think all of the important things I learned from there were things they didn't intend to teach. There are two sets of rules, one for the rich one for the poor. Never trust anyone in authority, especially when they say they looking out for your best interests."

Keep in mind.  This is a progressive with faith in the state.  Sure he's suspect of evil corporations and their profits, but take a giant corporate monopoly that can throw you in prison and... well maybe you can get some gravy out of it...

Further, he's very suspicious of the police, and wary of police power.   Totally sensible.

Save for one blind-spot.  Tom is also anti-gun. Not in the way that he'd do anything about it, but he doesn't like guns and sees May Issue as being sensible.

Yes, let's connect the dots.

The guy that bemoans "two sets of rules"  and the power of the police, supports laws that empower the police to literally keep the poor disarmed while allowing the rich to carry guns.

Then again Tom isn't alone in having bizarre political views.   Mr. A, as mentioned before, hates Feminists, Greens, and Blood-Dancing Gun Grabbers (Mr. A says they're as bad as pro-lifers, a big ding in his book) despite him being a big Champagne Socialist.

Mr. A is no pro-gunner, he just sees the Gun Grabbers having counter-productive tactics.  For example Mr. A also supports May Issue because "There are some people that the police just know are scumbags even if they don't have enough proof to charge 'em."

Party of the little guy!

Now onto the next story.    Tom has a second job as a convenience store clerk (He's also made jokes about guns and getting shot, but OTOH notes that at least one of his co-workers carries on the job).

And working a convenience store does introduce you to many of the...  low points of society.

Tom's particular bane is when people go in for lotto tickets, specifically those who get scratchers and spend hours on them and are clearly addicted.

Recently, Tom was talking about how disheartening it was that people who were "mentally retarded" would come in and buy cigarettes and lotto tickets.

To which Mr. A snarked "Land of the FREE!"

(I should note that Tom is a former smoker and isn't against people smoking.  And Mr. A smokes pot and is a legalization advocate of that)

This is where I came in and asked: "Well, what would you do about it?"

And Mr. A replied. "Well I'd ban the use of accelerants in cigarettes."

Accelerants are the chemicals in cigarettes that keep a cigarettes burning even when no one is puffing on it.  Unlike pipes and cigars which will go out if you put them down.

To which I went "Well, what does that have to do with Tom's problem?"

And Mr. A then got huffy on how the tobacco companies profit off of these things (unlike his pot suppliers)  and how the accelerants make the smokes more harmful to inhale and are just a fire hazard and do you want people to burn?

And I replied: "Well, those latter points are a could be an argument for banning the addition of those chemicals and one I might be convinced on. But, again, what does that have to do with Tom's problem?"

And Mr. A eventually admitted that the problem Tom pointed out "People who are deemed* to not be of full mental capacity being able to buy harmful products" is not one that is easily solvable.

*Deemed by who?   And doesn't that sound a lot like literacy tests for voting?

I mention this because of how familiar it is.

Person 1 has Complaint X

Person A presents Plan Y.

Plan Y would not solve Complaint X  or even address it.

This is pointed out.  Person A gets angry and defensive.

Oh, as a bonus.  I asked Mr. A that given it was bad for big tobacco to profit off of their addictive product is it not also bad for the government to profit, by a larger margin, from the tax revenue on said smokes?

Or what about the lotto tickets.  That's entirely government profit.  And in progressive terms a direct manipulation of people with poor judgment or an inborn addiction.

But see, that's okay... for some reason.