Friday, June 17, 2016

#MakeItStop -- please, make the stupid stop

The other day, I hammered out a blog on all the reasons why the stupidity around the Orlando shooting was stupid. It was an ISIS moron, he was NOT using an AR-15, an AR-15 is basically the same as your standard hunting rifle only it looks cooler.  You can't even believe the ways in which an AR-15 is really used.

Really, a word to the stupid: an AR-15 that look like an M4 is still an AR-15.

Everyone decided that a total gun ban would work, even though that the Paris attack happened in a country where guns ARE COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, EVEN FOR THE COPS.

But now? Thursday was the day where sanity completely went out the window. Talk of secret abolition of gun rights? Talk of getting rid of due process because it's a threat to security? Yes, really, I heard a Senator talk about that (Sen Joe Manchin, D-WV). Right after the other idiot talked about the AR-47.

Seriously, we went from a shadow ban on the second amendment to talk of suspending due process in the course of a week? This has reached the level of parody--if we were parodying the worst fear of every tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. Congrats, politicians, I'll be looking up the nearest gun store.

The stupid, precious, it burns us. We hates it. We hates it forever.

Also, yes, the second Amendment means individual people.  Even Penn and Teller can tell you that.

And apparently, shooter Omar Mateen was reported to the FBI by a gun shop because he was being shifted and asked about body armor. Last time I checked, coworkers even told the FBI that Mateen was a freaking psycho. A background check that goes back to grammar school insists that Mateen has always been nuts, and cheered the 9/11 attackers.

But let's talk about guns, not about terrorism.

Some idiots like to talk about Australia's gun grab. Here you go. This is how safe Australia is now. On the left is the usual spin. On the right is the truth.

No pun intended.

Oh, and did we mention that France's terrorist attack happened where guns were completely illegal? It's almost as though murderous terrorist bastards will break the law to get the required weapons. What a thought!

But hey, I'm certain there's some idiot out there saying "well, that's just Paris."

How about this?

Then of course, you have the morons boasting that "a gun wouldn't have stopped this!!!!!"

Except here's Michael Z. Williamson dissecting the entire argument. He goes on for a while, but I think this boils down to the following section.
The defensive shooter engages the hostile. The hostile must choose to ignore, take cover, or return fire.

If he chooses to ignore it, he remains a target and the odds of him being shot increase, and if he is shot, the engagement ends, and no further lives are lost. If this happens before he quits or runs out of ammo, it is a NET POSITIVE for the group..

If he takes cover, he is not shooting for a few moments, and in that few moments, more people can escape or formulate an attack. (Barstools can be as deadly as bullets, when thrown or swung.)  NET POSITIVE.

If he returns fire, anyone not in the cone near the defensive shooter is not being shot at. This is a NET POSITIVE for all those people, and a slight negative for those in the defender's immediate position.

It is possible the defender will hit a bystander in the process.  However, as he is deliberately choosing a single hostile target, the odds still improve for the remainder, and if the hostile is hit, the engagement stops. This is probably still a net positive.

The defender may be hit. Negative for him, but he accepted that risk. And in those few seconds, the fact is that more victims can escape or respond. This is still a NET POSITIVE for the GROUP.

Yes, the defender may decide his best course of action is to flee. If so...there is no negative nor positive for the group. They remain as they were.

But, this assumes an engagement takes place. Knowing certain areas contain a lot of defensive shooters, attackers tend to avoid them. NET POSITIVE for the group.
Gee, it's almost like shooters go where the guns aren't. Funny that.

And wasn't there an Uber driver who stopped a mass shooting back in April?

And aren't guns soooo much of a problem?

As I said yesterday: No. But let's have more of a breakdown.

Meanwhile, in another part of the universe -- also Florida -- the same place that hosted the Blind Sheikh, terrorist mastermind behind the first World Trade Center attack, decided that a homosexual British conservative was far too divisive and terrifying, and possibly hostile. Does anyone else see a problem here?

We won't even go into the little weakling reporter who went to a gun store, fired an AR-15, and claimed PTSD afterwards. He's a man with the appropriate name of Kuntzman. Can't even make this one up.

Even Larry had fun with him.

Who am I kidding, everyone did.

Seriously, all of the anti-gun people need to step back, take a deep breath, and try not to cry into your non-alcoholic, vegan approved fake milk. Try going out to a gun range, and firing off a few rounds. And if you don't listen to the range master, at least try not to deafen yourself or shoot yourself in the foot. And eat some bacon while you're at it.

Other links:
A former Navy SEAL defends the AR-15.


  1. How about smaller clips like 8 or 10 would that help or hurt. If as a shooter on a rampage has to reload more often victims might stand a fighting chance. As opposed to 15 or 30+ bullet drum size.

    1. You are way out of your league. Give up now.

    2. Because it would make no difference, (and they're magazines, not clips, please learn about firearms). You can change a ten round magazine just as fast as a thirty, and to be honest, if you can't ban drugs, do you really think you can ban 20 or 30 round magazines? Hell, you can MAKE THEM rather easily.
      Magazine limits, like gun bans, only hurt the law abiding. They do not affect the terrorists.

    3. Eric Harris used a rifle which was designed to comply with the assault weapons ban, and carried ten-round magazines at Columbine. He fired 96 rounds. The Virginia Tech shooter used handguns with ten and fifteen-round magazines. During and after the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, it became clear that magazine size has no effect on gun crimes.

  2. How about smaller clips like 8 or 10 would that help or hurt. If as a shooter on a rampage has to reload more often victims might stand a fighting chance. As opposed to 15 or 30+ bullet drum size.

  3. So what should we do about this? What is your solution?

    1. Switzerland's solution: arm everyone, and train them in the proper usage of a firearm. Look at their crime rates. They're quite low.

  4. Hi! I'm sure I'm not really invited -- after all, your title calls me stupid and you gather your tribe around with prejudiced "burns" like references to those who disagree with you being into "non-alcoholic, vegan approved fake milk", which I assume is bad because they don't meet your manliness criteria. Though I generally do prefer my milk non-alcoholic (because... alcoholic milk? That just means you let it go bad in your fridge again, dude).

    That said, I was a competition marksman and have fired more than my share of guns. Handguns of various calibers, mostly, some bolt action rifles, and so on.

    Here's the thing: you throw around self-righteous accusations that others twist or misinterpret data, and then you go and make gigantic leaps of logic yourself. For example, your map of handgun ownership and crime rates. Let's pick out a country with high correlation, according to your data: Germany (where I grew up and competed at the gun range). You immediately infer, just from those two numbers, that higher gun ownership lessens crime. This is an incredibly superficial and untenable causation argument. Here's why.

    In Germany, guns are strictly regulated. They are reserved for three activities: competition, hunting, and collecting (rare). Each of these requires a separate license, training, proof of need, etc. High fees, long lead times. None of them allow anything like an assault rifle.

    And none of those -- let me repeat: NONE OF THOSE let you bring your gun to a supermarket, night club, public gathering, or anything like that. Public carry permits are for professionals only (police mostly). So the gun ownership rate there has NOTHING to do with preventing crime. Even when you transport your gun, say to the gun range, you are required by law to bring unloaded weapons in locked containers, and any ammo in SEPARATE locked containers. Not exactly something that's handy when a crime goes down.

    So PLEASE let us have gun control just like in Germany. Obviously it works. Agreed? :)

    1. No. Because you haven't actually read the footnotes, didn't address the MZW or Correia arguments, or the crime and gun statistics, and you took my jokes seriously.

      So, please, ignore rights, the second amendment, and follow laws that have nothing with the US constitution.

      So, no, I'm not taking you seriously because you ignore and dismiss the facts I do use, and the footnotes I do cite.

      If you start by not taking me seriously, I'll be happy to not take you seriously.

    2. Also, you're still trying to frame it as a gun control problem, not a terrorist problem. So, double go screw yourself.

    3. How about we don't? Besides, why would you want to settle on just Germany's gun law when you could move there and experience all it's greatness first hand? Then you don't have to settle for freedoms like we have here in the US.

    4. How well did it work for all those women assaulted and raped on new years? Not very well, did it?

    5. Yes, let's NOT have a German gun laws. They just had their own shootout.

      What do you say to that, moron?


Please, by all means, leave a message below. I welcome any and all comments. However, language that could not make it to network television will result in your comment being deleted. I don';t like saying it, but prior events have shown me that I need to. Thanks.