Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘guns’ Category

Yet another “responsible gun owner” shoots his nuts off. A headline that repeats on a regular basis.

This dude’s first mistake was in buying a Hi-Point 9mm pistol. From a review, talking about its accuracy: “Should you try to fire toward your opponent and hope the round doesn’t stray into a crowd, and that the loud noise scares away your attacker? Or do you just drop the magazine and throw the thing at them? If you have a pretty good arm, I wouldn’t discount the second option. It might be your best bet.”

Accompanied by a bench test sheet showing that if you shoot for his head, you’re more likely to hit his testacles. I have never seen a bench test so terrible as what this reviewer got from the Hi-Point 9mm. This wasn’t a pattern. This was random chance that he hit the target at all — at nearly point blank range, with a pistol sighted in on the target in a bench vise!

Makes you wonder if this dude was trying to commit suicide, and managed to hit his balls instead :).

– Badtux the Snarky Gun Penguin

Read Full Post »

Cops in Vallejo shoot and kill dude who was sleeping in his car with a gun in his lap. He startled when they knocked on the window with a flashlight, reached for the gun, and they ventilated him.

Look. This is California, about 20 miles north of me. It’s illegal to openly display a pistol in the passenger compartment of a vehicle in the state of California, period. I mean, I own guns. I like guns. And I know damn well that the only legal way to carry a firearm in a vehicle in the state of California is in the cargo area in a locked container, with the ammunition locked up separately. That’s the law. Anybody sitting in his car with a pistol on his lap in the state of California is either a moron, or up to no good. And cops aren’t going to assume moron, because that could get them shot.

Cops have three priorities:

  1. The safety of the general public, and of bystanders, is priority #1 above all else.
  2. The safety of the police officer is priority #2. A dead police officer cannot protect the general public and bystanders from criminals.
  3. The safety of criminals is last. Criminals who may pose a threat to the officer, bystanders, or the general public are maybe even lower than last. Their safety barely even nudges the needle off the ground floor on the list of a police officer’s priorities.

So why didn’t they try to wake him from far away with a loudspeaker? A multitude of reasons:

  1. Loudspeakers attract bystanders. The last thing you want if an encounter turns into a gunfight is bystanders.
  2. Cops are, frankly, bad aims. If things go sideways, cops are trained to be as close to the perp as possible without being close enough to be disarmed so that they have a greater chance of hitting the perp rather than a bystander. If you’re that close to the perp already, you might as well just knock on the window with a flashlight in one hand and your service weapon in the other, because if he startles awake and starts shooting, that’s where you want to be anyhow.
  3. You want to be close also so you can see whether he’s reaching for the gun. The last thing you want is for the perp to jump out of the car and start shooting. You want to shoot and kill him *before* he starts shooting. Simply putting his hand on the gun is enough reason because at that point he becomes a threat to the safety of the officer and the safety of the public. See #1 and #2 on the priority list.

Frankly, unless something else comes out, this is a righteous shoot. A criminal was sitting in a car with an illegal gun on his lap, reached towards that gun when he was woken up by the cop tapping on the window, and was killed for his trouble. Good riddance to bad rubbish. If he didn’t want to be shot, he shouldn’t have been violating California law by openly carrying a weapon in the passenger compartment of his car. Call it suicide by cop if you want. Because that’s basically what it was, what he did.

This is reality. It’s not nice, but it is what it is. This was a righteous shoot under both policy and law. The moment he reached for that gun, any requirement that the cops consider his safety vaporized in the wind. I understand that this dude’s family doesn’t want to hear that their kid was a criminal and was shot while committing a crime, but that’s what happened here. It was illegal for that gun to be in that dude’s lap in that car in the state of California, he was committing a crime, and thus was a criminal. And when a criminal makes a move that poses a threat to the police or bystanders, the well-being of that criminal simply isn’t a consideration anymore — the only thing that becomes important then is to end the threat to the public and the officers. Period. Regardless of any nonsense that left-wing loons come up with about what the cops should have done in some bizarro world where unicorns poop rainbows and cotton candy grows on trees.

– Badtux the Law Penguin
Hmm, contrast this with the prior post if you think I knee-jerk defend cops!

Read Full Post »

A science fiction writer of my acquaintance claimed that he was an anarcho-capitalist. I pointed out that he was ignoring the central problem of anarchy theory. And that central problem of anarchy theory is the problem of power.

“Pure” anarchism wants to remove anything in society that could be possibly a source of power. Unfortunately people have inherent power due to their physical abilities, and thus inherent differences in power, a large man skilled in fighting has much more power than a small woman not skilled at fighting. Add in weapons and weapons skills and character traits like sociopathy and ruthlessness (a ruthless sociopath will always win a gunfight, because he’ll just shoot you in the back without a thought before you even know you’re in a gunfight), and clearly there must be power structures to regulate all of this, otherwise you have the most ruthless and vicious sociopaths ruling everything at gunpoint. Anarchists do a lot of hand-waving about voluntary self defense associations yada yada, but that’s not what has ever happened. Instead you get warlordism, rule by the most ruthless and vicious sociopaths ruling everything at gunpoint, because the ruthless sociopaths are the ones willing to shoot their way through innocents to get to the top.

Now, add in capitalism, which is yet another source of power — power grows from the barrel of a gun, as Mao put it, and capital buys lots of guns — and the need for power structures to regulate everything becomes even more dire. Now, what is that power structure going to look like? The only way to do it without rule of gun (which leads to atrocity since only the most ruthless and vicious win that leadership contest) is to get buy-in from the majority of the people, i.e., democracy. At which point you no longer have anarchism, since people then vote for things that will make more comfortable for themselves and their neighbors and relatives — as they should, since that’s sort of the whole point of a society.

All of which is just a long way of saying that pure anarcho-capitalism cannot work as a system because it would end up with warlordism, like in Somalia or Afghanistan. And since warlords get their power by being vicious sociopaths, it’s generally not a happy fun time for the population involved. Capitalism is good because it is the best way we have of creating wealth, and wealth is good for people and for a society (both Dan and I know the former from personal experience), but it is also a source of power, and like all sources of power has to be regulated. At that point the anarcho is gone, and what you have is just capitalism.

– Badtux the Capitalist Penguin

Read Full Post »

Carl Hiaasen’s younger brother was gunned down in Annapolis, Maryland today along with four others executed for the crime of being a journalist.

Unknown is whether the killer was a MAGAt, spurred into violence by his fascist overlords in the White House and elsewhere. It would not be the first time that fascists attacked newspapers. Their campaign was largely successful in Weimar Germany — of all of Germany’s newspapers, only one single newspaper, the Munich Post, dared to oppose Hitler directly. The rest of Germany’s press, cowed by the brownshirts / MAGAts, tried to be “fair” to the Nazis. For their trouble their reporters and editors ended up in the exact same concentration camps as the reporters and editors of the Munich Post. Appeasement, it turns out, is a rather ineffective tactic for dealing with fascists. As is civility.

Let us hope that our own newspapers have learned that lesson. I’m not holding my breath though.

– Badtux the News Penguin

Read Full Post »

I have to laugh at the ammosexual boobs who think the Viet Cong guerrillas won the Vietnam War and thus this proves that unorganized peasants with AK-47’s can defeat the US Army. They didn’t. They were totally destroyed as an effective fighting force in 1968 when the North Vietnamese deliberately sent them all into battle as a distraction against regular U.S. Army units.

All fighting after that was by regular units of the North Vietnamese Army vs regular units of the U.S. Army and Army of the Republic of Vietnam. The NVA were armed with artillery and tanks and surface to air missiles but had trouble moving these into South Vietnam when they infiltrated units into South Vietnam, thus the illusion that the US was fighting a bunch of peasants armed with light weapons. But they weren’t. It was just that U.S. bombing made it hard to move the heavy weaponry into South Vietnam. Once the U.S. left the war and quit bombing, it turned into conventional warfare between conventional army units of the North Vietnamese Army and the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam. It was regular units of the North Vietnamese Army backed by Soviet-provided tanks and Soviet-provided artillery, surface-to-air missiles, and other such heavy weapons who conquered South Vietnam, not some random civilians with AK-47’s.

The myth that the Viet Kong won the Vietnam War is an old one and a deep one, fed by stupid newspapermen and stupid movies and racism on the part of Army grunts over the course of decades. But in the end, it took tanks and artillery and other heavy weaponry to win the war for North Vietnam — not a buncha peasants armed with AK-47’s. All that the peasants ever managed to do was become dead bodies. Which is all that would happen if the ammosexuals decided to take on the U.S. Army, too.

– Badtux the Military Penguin

Read Full Post »

So, ho hum, another school shooting today. Ten people died, mostly kids, as usual. The shooter did the deed with guns his father had just left sitting around the house — a shotgun and a .38 revolver. Which was quite legal for his father to do in the state of Texas, which has no gun storage laws requiring guns to be secured if they’re not on your person or being used.

So, as we hit an average of one school shooting per week (U S A! U S A! MAGA! YAY!), the solution that the NRA-backed politicos are talking about is…. reducing the number of doors at schools?

Uhm, wut?

Well, gosh, they have a point, I guess. If a school has *no* doors, then it’s perfectly safe! Oh, how are the kids going to get into the school? Well, we just set up Star Trek style transporter booths outside the schools and teleport the kids into the school building. But only the organic parts of the kids get transported. No clothing that guns could be hidden in, and, of course, no guns. Once they arrive, naked as the day they were born, they are issued hospital gowns and then crayons, paper, and books (crayons because we can’t issue pens and pencils, why, some kid might put another kid’s eyes out!). At the end of the day they are teleported back to the booth they arrived from, where they are reunited with their clothing and get to go home where they then get to study with their at-home copy of their books.

Or we could enact strict gun controls like every other civilized country, which have had zero school shootings this year. But that’s far less practical than teleporter beams, apparently.

So it goes.

– Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Read Full Post »

Again.

Spree shooter armed with an AR-15 style rifle shoots up a Waffle House.

Most murders are pretty easy to solve because they’re either before a lot of witnesses or they’re between people known to each other. Most murders are an abusive husband killing a wife, a gang banger killing a rival gang member, a drunken man outside a bar lying in wait for another drunken man that he feels wronged him, a neighbor shooting another neighbor who he feels wronged him. Those kinds of murders, which are spur of the moment murders for the most part, are on the decline as the population ages and the new generation of young men isn’t so touchy about their masculinity that they’ll just gun down anybody they think threatens their masculinity. Thus the overall murder rate is going down.

These spree shooting murders, however, are on the rise. The frightening thing about these is that they’re not avoidable. You can avoid being shot by your neighbor if you just ignore your neighbor’s meth lab rather than call the cops on it every other day. You can avoid being shot by your abusive husband by, well, just not going for the “bad boys” like so many women do (even women who should know better seem to go for the “bad boys” when they’re young, and find out that, well, living with those boys is dangerous). You can avoid being shot by a drunken bar-goer by not going to bars where that kind of thing happens. But if someone decides to shoot random strangers at the Waffle House where you’re eating breakfast, there’s no way to avoid that.

That’s why these spree shootings scare the bleep out of people despite the decrease in the murder rate — sure, murders are declining, but this *specific* class of murder, where a stranger just murders strangers for no reason at all, just keep going up and up and up. And scared people demand action. Sooner or later, the NRA’s ability to head off those demands is going to fail, and you’re going to see draconian gun laws that basically outlaw everything but single-shot shotguns and bolt action rifles. You’d think that, given this, the NRA would be floating some realistic proposals to do something about this increase of spree shooters. Instead, they just keep whining about mental health — even though it’d be unconstitutional to force people to accept mental health treatment (the Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to be as crazy as they want to be) and so their whining about mental health isn’t a solution to anything at all.

— Badtux the Murder Penguin

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »