Quote of the Day–Robb Allen (08/30/2012)

One place I refuse to debate anti-gun people in is Twitter. The problem is that it’s a terrible format for discussion enough as it is, but watching the anti’s try to argue in < 140 characters means their stupidity is condensed. Trust me folks, you don’t want to get that shit on you, it stains.

Robb AllenWeapons grade stupid

August 30, 2012


[I have been getting into it with the fools on twitter a lot more recently, mainly because the stupidity is just unbelievable.  Today’s shining example from the short bus:

image

This is well after I tweeted this at him:

image

He then sent this a short bit later which appears to have gone down the memory hole as a deleted tweet.  But here’s a related tweet that will show you what he was basically saying.

image

That’s right folks, he played the victim card.  Not only did he play it, but he claimed the status so fervently that we were automatically unable to comprehend what he was talking about.  Not only were we unable to comprehend, but we were informed that any one who could actually claim victim status would agree with his point of view.  That deleted tweet was him claiming that there were no victims of gun violence that were against gun control.  I really wish I had saved it because Linoge and I both called him on it and it appears it promptly went down the memory hole.

This whole conversation is a bit broken up within twitter, but another entertaining bit was the following:

image

Overall it degraded from there and it became quite obvious that his understanding and mastery of the English language was non-existent.  In case you don’t know, here is the definitions of fetishism:

A fetish (derived from the French fétiche; which comes from the Portuguese feitiço; and this in turn from Latin facticius, "artificial" and facere, "to make") is an object believed to have supernatural powers, or in particular, a man-made object that has power over others. Essentially, fetishism is the emic attribution of inherent value or powers to an object.

This is a glimpse inside the head of those who want disarm the law abiding so that predators may roam free and unhindered.  As Robb said, it’s concentrated and stains.  Be careful while handling it, but by all means show everyone what these people really are.* –B

*And most certainly stop if you feel your IQ beginning to drop.  It is suspected you can do permanent damage.]

The Correct Statement Regarding Most Things in the Real World…

I’ve been in internal training this week and will be for the remainder of the week.  Now while this is listed as “internal” training, it’s merely a class dedicated to company employees for this presentation.  Normally this class is given to our customers and people who use our products in the power system.

I got home tonight and saw the following on twitter and proceeded to laugh hysterically.

image

Now you may not know why I started laughing hysterically so let me explain.  You see 99.9% of the time when there is a question involving protection on a power system the correct answer begins with the following statement.

Well that depends…

For instance when protecting a transmission line, the type of protection used will depend specifically on the characteristics of the system involved.  Numerous assumptions must be made in order to create the correct solution.

In this case, the number of bullets required to stop an assailant, the correct answer is, “well that depends…”

  • What caliber was the assailant shot with?
  • What type of bullet were they shot with?
  • Where did the bullet strike the assailant?

All of these are critical for determining the number of shots required.  If it always took 2-3 shots, I doubt the .22 LR would kills as many people as it does merely by accidental discharge.  The fact is a lot of the lethality of a bullet is whether or not it connects with a major blood supply source or organ.  Penetration is what determines if a bullet is able to achieve access to a lethal area.

So, the correct answer regarding the number of shots to take down an attacker is, “It depends”.  And honestly, when it comes to modern pistol cartridges, the arguments are mainly pointless.

Zero Tolerance is Really Zero Brains

Via A Girl comes this wonderful bit of idiocy.

A Nebraska preschool is asking a three-year-old deaf boy to change his name because it violates the school board’s weapons policy.

Hunter Spanjer signs his first name by making what looks like shooting gestures with both hands. He crosses his fingers when he does it – a modification to show it’s his proper name.

Think about that.  They are so intolerant of people and cultures they are insisting that a deaf child change his name.  This is what our opponents are like.  They don’t hate guns, they hate us.  They hate our culture, they to destroy it.

Speaking of zero brains was this wonderful individual on twitter today:

image

 

Remember my rant yesterday?  Yup, he was another delusional individual of from that bunch.  How delusional?  You’ll be glad to know that JayG does not have a series on defensive gun uses.  Evidently none of those incidents were justified use of a firearm.  (Remember read bottom up)

image

Note that bottom tweet links to JayG’s DGC.  I then also link to this story about a man defending a police officer with a firearm.  To which he has no reply and starts stating how he wants to make all guns disappear.  Because some how that’s going to stop violent criminals from being violent?

I ask again, why are these people so insistent on disarming and preventing citizens from obtaining arms?  It’s like they need us disarmed so they can more effectively redistribute our wealth without our consent.

I keep trying to restrain this comment but I can’t any more.  After Amy’s comment I think it makes perfect sense.

The reason Beta Males support gun control is because the only way they can effectively attempt to reproduce is by means that would usually result in a case of lead poisoning.

I state the above because often anti-gunners talk as if it is going to be me shooting them.  That I am going to shoot them at any point.  As I have said though, in the words of Malcolm Reynolds:

If I ever do kill you, you’ll be awake, you’ll be facing me, and you’ll be armed.

The solution to not getting shot by law abiding citizens is simple.  Don’t try and victimize them.  Don’t steal, wrong, defraud, assault, rape, or otherwise attempt to do harm me or my family and my gun is going to stay right in it’s holster where it belongs.  Get it?!

The real kicker though is this bit of PSH:

image

Why I Get Angry…

Recently I had an individual engage me in debate on twitter and he couldn’t understand why I felt like I was being victimized for him saying firearms should be taken from law-abiding citizens.

Today I stumbled across something that put it oh so well. (Emphasis mine).

There is a perception that a gun will turn a sane man, or woman, into a crazed, trigger-happy criminal, or that a gun is a gross over-reaction to the threat of rape. I contend that the gun is a great equalizer. Why do only criminals, police and nut-cases get to have guns? Do we, the potential victims, not get access to these same implements, so that we might properly defend ourselves? In fact, might we have these tools so we no longer have to be victims? Maybe we can take some action in preserving our own safety instead of just staying in well-lit areas and hoping for the best.

The other side of this debate doesn’t seem to understand that they are forcing potential victims to have to be complicit in their own attack.  The arguments are “for the greater good”, often because they think that crime merely exists because of the firearm.  First it assumes that the limitation on access will have an effect on criminal access to arms.  That’s impossible and history in both England and Australia both have proven that. Also it ignores the truth about collective punishment and responsibility.

Further, how do you effectively ban something that can be made from simple materials available at Home Depot and soon will not need much more than the ability to hit print?  What effect does gun control accomplish other than provide methods to prevent the law-abiding from carrying defensive arms?

Honestly, those who support gun control, answer the question, criminals and crazy people can obtain a weapon if they so feel like it, what good do gun laws do?  If someone is intent on killing someone else, they have numerous weapons to substitute even if they cannot get a firearm.  I also love how some people call for “reasonable restrictions on firearms” and then compare it to cars as if they are some how more regulated.

So, let me get this straight:

I could continue but why bother?  The fact is there is law after law that does nothing to stop criminals, but does everything possible to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining effective arms for their own defense.  The idea that cars are some how more regulated than firearms is false.  While they are “registered” that is done as a tax measure as the vehicle is considered titled property.  Further obtaining a license is simple and easy and it is recognized in all 50 states.  I am required by law to muffle my vehicle, however the law prevents me from muffling my firearms.  My license is recognized in all 50 states without question while my CPL is not.  My vehicle is required to meet a minimum standard of safety requirements, read headlights, tail lights, blinkers, seat belts, but the remainder of the car can be left up to my imagination.  Further if I buy an old car frame, some of the safety requirements are lifted.

The fact is, guns are extremely heavily regulated and it is the law-abiding who is on the short end of the stick.  It is the law-abiding who’s access is restricted.  Think I’m pulling your leg?  Let’s as some members of a gang in Chicago (h/t Sebastian).

Another source of stolen guns is “the freights,” Chris said.

He was talking about the freight trains parked on easy-to-access rail yards on the South Side.

“You bust the lock,” he said. “Once you get in there, you may get the wrong thing. You may get shoes or something. You feel me? But you keep trying. We tried it before and we know what kind of containers they in. They’re carrying all type of handguns — in crates.”

Consider that, with my comments from above.  Then consider how hard it is for a law-abiding citizen to get a firearm within the City of Chicago, even post Heller and McDonald.

You can not look at these facts and then tell me with a straight face that gun control has anything to do with “public safety”.  The public is in no way safer disarmed while the criminals are still able to obtain weapons.  You cannot stop them.

So yes, when you go off spouting your mouth about how gun control would help the world, yes I take it personally and yes I will call you on it.  Because the day may come where my wife, my daughter, my son, any of my friends, and lastly even myself may have to call upon my firearm to defend ourselves or our families.  And no one has any business telling me, my family, or my friends what tools we should or shouldn’t be using to defend ourselves.  Firearms and this community do something no other tool or group can.

Most importantly, the act of shooting and owning a gun has a profound impact on the way most women see themselves and the world around them. Shooting a gun is empowering, energizing, stress-relieving and confidence-building. In my experience, women who shoot walk taller and apologize less. They are also sensitive, caring and protective of their loved ones. Women who carry guns have already decided that their lives and their bodies are valuable enough to protect.

To which Mom With A Gun adds the following:

To this I would add only that the above is doubly true if you’ve already been a victim of rape or other violence and you’re trying to reclaim your sense of empowerment, energy, confidence and competence. For twenty years after I was raped, I became meek, submissive, withdrawn, terrified. The worst thing my rapist took from me on that terrible July afternoon was my sense that I was worth defending, that I was worth fighting for. That I was worth the space I took up in the world. That I was anything other than prey.

To which we then look at the comments made by A Girl about this community and the start contrast to our opponents.

You, you who hate guns, you gave me nothing.

No hope.

No tools.

All that was offered me was a life of fear, of resentment, of bitterness, of dependance…

The gun community has offered me hope and strength, and courage.

They have taught me to have belief in myself.

They have asked nothing of me in return and, yet, I would give them my life.

Funny thing is, they would never ask me to.

This is where I belong.

These are my people.

So yes I take it personal, yes I get angry, and yes the mere suggestion is an insult and a disgrace to humanity.  Only a cold-blooded animal would wish real victims to continue suffering after an attack.  We see how each side of this debate treats victims of violence.  One wants to rebuild them, make them stronger, and faster, because we have the technology.  The other side would rather bury their heads in the sand and use the force of government to make everyone else do it too.

*For those who don’t know, a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and pistol grip are actually safety features.

  • A barrel shroud protects the user from burns from the hot metal of the barrel.
  • The collapsible stock allows the weapon to be easily modified to properly fit the shooter, especially handy when you regularly deal with new shooters of different sizes.  The wrong size can result in injury to the face and shoulders.
  • The pistol grip allows disabled shooters to more easily and effectively hold and use a weapon and depending on the disability prevents injury.

Another Compare and Contrast

via Uncle comes this story.

There were two big developments Monday in the case of a motorist who was shot and killed along Greenwell Springs Road Friday after a fight with a police officer.  Investigators say an autopsy shows the deadly bullet was fired by a bystander, not the officer.  Police also announced that no charges would be filed in the case, either against the police officer involved or the bystander who fired the fatal shot into the head of George Temple.

The other kicker is the following:

According to Col. Greg Phares, "[Mr. Stevens] orders Mr. Temple to stop and get off the officer.  The verbal commands are ignored and Mr. Stevens fires four shots, all of which struck Mr. Temple."

There is also this assessment of the NYPD shooting from the Balloon Goes Up.  If you haven’t read it yet, I suggest you do.  Of significance is the behavior of Officer 1 versus Officer 2.  It gets better though because Joe found something I saw a while ago but couldn’t remember where I found it.

A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.

Sit back and let that sink and and absorb into your brain.  Remember that one of the arguments against concealed carry is that lawful carriers are more likely to shoot innocent bystanders.  The problem is the facts do not support this and there is a serious reason why.

Sit back for a second and think about your job, odds are your job provides you extra training from time to time relevant to your specific field.  For instance I once or twice a year attend classes specifically on power systems and power protection, paid for by my employer.  I am also regularly evaluated on my performance, including my ability to apply skills as well as learn new ones.  That said, while I do occasionally study power system material on my free time, that is a rare occurrence.  I do often study up on software design, as well as write my own applications.  I went into software and EE because I love the subject, so studying it doesn’t really bug me as it’s something I enjoy… That is until I start getting a headache from trying to follow some of the math.

Many officers however carry a gun because it is a part of the job.  They attend merely the mandatory training and leave it at that.  Luckily for a majority of officers this is not a problem until such time as they require the use of that skill.  Officer Doughnut though doesn’t want to spend his own money and off time practicing a skill with something he doesn’t inherently enjoy.  There is no incentive for him to do that.  Unlike me, where I love to shoot, it is my choice to carry a firearm, and I love learning new skills.  I have no problem spending my own money or time on such an endeavor, many within this culture have no problem with that.

We do have a problem with mandatory training requirements because as a wise man once told me, “You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.”  Officers of the law are no exception to this rule.  Just because they went into law enforcement doesn’t mean they enjoy firearms.

This closing comment from Ron in his article on the Empire State Building shooting I think drives the point home sufficiently well.

But that is the power of video’s like this! It allows us, with a clear head, to review the actions that occurred and learn from them. If you don’t think about how you are going to respond and just think you will rise the occasion, you are wrong.  You will default to your level of training.

The Empire State Building shooting is a chance for us to learn what went wrong and what we need to do better.  On both sides of the fence.

A Compare and Contrast Exercise

Lets look at exhibit A:

The results?  15 rounds, 9 innocent bystanders wounded.

Exhibit B:

Result, no innocent bystanders shot, 2 perps wounded and found in the hospital.

So can someone please explain to me again why concealed carriers are so dangerous?  Especially given the following information:

–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

I really should spend some time aggregating the stats for the number of innocent people shot by officers during an engagement versus the number of innocents shot by a concealed carrier while defending themselves.  I hate spending my time doing that because I already know the answer and I know there was a study on it, my Google fu just can’t find it again.  I have a feeling though it may be buried and I will probably end up doing it.

Intrepid readers, if you find it, please let me know!

ESS And Boomershoot 2012…

It went up without me even noticing it! 

Guns and explosives, not to mention Shelly and Anette.  Why haven’t you hit play yet!?

I mentioned how much I liked ESS Eyewear back here.  The video title makes me wonder where volumes 1-4 are though.

Quote of the Day – @JeremyAllan (8/24/2012)

@barronbarnett @linoge_wotc I want her disarmed, yep. I don’t want her to be prey.

@JeremyAllanTweet
August 24, 2012


[Those two statements are mutually exclusive and I tried multiple analogies.  He also couldn’t understand how group punishment wouldn’t serve any purpose and is unfair.

That “conversation” on twitter was long and drawn out in the end three things were blatantly obvious.

First he suffers from Peterson Syndrome.  He would gladly have a higher overall crime rate for fewer “gun deaths”.

Second he cannot comprehend that disarming the law-abiding public makes them prey.  To most illustrate this point here was his final tweets:

@GunFreeZone @barronbarnett @linoge_wotc I truly hope you’re never in a position where you would feel the need to use your guns for defense.

@GunFreeZone @barronbarnett @linoge_wotc Because I don’t wish you or any of your loved ones harm. The opposite. Rather, prosperity.

Yet he admits he would prefer my wife who has a physical disability to be disarmed unable to effectively defend herself.  How can you be prosperous when you’re dead because you weren’t able to effectively defend yourself?

This also completely ignores the analogy I made for group punishment for alcohol and holding everyone who drinks responsible for the actions of others.  He dodged the question at first.  Then when he came back around, he said he would give it up if the law told him to.  Except history says that prohibition doesn’t work and any attempts to outlaw “insert noun here” always fail.  His solution was to say that didn’t matter and my argument was invalid.

Lastly he lives in a world of complete denial.  How warped is his denial, I linked to the Harvard study I talked about yesterday.  This was his response:

@barronbarnett @linoge_wotc @dthurstonHarvard is not infallible. This is propaganda.

When presented with facts and evidence, that has been peer-reviewed mind you, his response is to dismiss it as propaganda.  When someone is so ready and willing to dismiss any facts brought before them without a second thought what else is there?

I will add that throughout that entire debate, Linoge, Miguel, and I were the only ones backing our statements with examples and evidence.

All they offered was that guns should be banned and that would solve the problem.  What they don’t realize is that option has been examined, and the conclusions have been proven false, and the adults in the room have moved on in the conversation.  Their solution is to bring new people to the debate to scream for the same old thing as if some how doing it again, this time only harder will work.

I have some bad news to our opponents though.  No matter how badly you outlaw guns, people will have them.  Especially when it’s as easy as pressing the print button.  The debate is over, we’re merely still here because you’re currently grieving. -B]