FB claims they blocked me for 24 hours for posting something with nudity. My guess they couldn’t deal with this. That definitely confirms the need to post most of my work on a server I control and only use FB as an incidental distribution channel.
Incidentally, FB also disabled my ability to respond to private messages. That’s definitely a malicious move, and one that makes the need to find a better social media venue more pressing. WeWe didn’t impress me with their attempts at functionality, nor has G+…
No time to unfold the stock or to put on pants 🙂
Recent edit of an older portrait.
Mosin with a 3.5x PU scope.
A model and a makeup artist
I’d like a show of hands:
- Who would prefer NSFW images and texts here, mixed with politics, firearms and other topics?
- Who would prefer I start a separate blog where things you can’t unsee would show up?
Made from the finest porcelain.
Posted in humor, rifle, weapon
Currently, I am using “Gallery 2”, old unsupported software. I’d like to migrate to something newer, ideally while retaining the old gallery to keep all the links from my blog correct. Any recommendations?
A lot of the shooters I deal with are slightly built, young and relatively inexperienced with firearms. When they go beyond .22, it helps to teach them on relatively quiet and low-kick guns. That’s where the 380ACP carbine comes in handy, likewise Aguila Mini Shells. More than .22, they would also serve the secondary role of being useful defensive tools in case of need.
Range learning goes a lot better, with less flinching, if the student doesn’t end up with bruises. Full-power ammunition can be used once techniques have been honed on lighter loads.
Assuming an ideal spherical teenager in vacuum…ok, let’s not. Let’s use this very specific 12 year old in a hypothetical situation of being threatened by something human-like. From the perspective of the predator, which of her weapons would pose the greatest threat to the attacker?
- Two throwing knives
- Glock 41
Now, let’s further assume a very well informed goblin who has done his homework on the girl. It knows that she’s fairly experienced with the throwing knives, untrained with the sword and minimally trained with the pistol.
Despite the relative lack of experience with the firearm, she would most likely be considered the hardest prey with it in hand. “She just might get lucky.” With the throwing knives, she has two tries and there’s a possibility that the foe could deflect them or not be incapacitated quickly enough. With the sword, there’s a possibility that she would strike out from inexperience and be disarmed or knocked out. With the pistol…it’s possible to rush her but, with adequate situational awareness, she would have fourteen tries at stopping the foe, starting at considerable range. The power of the hit would be only slightly related to the defender’s strength and agility.
I am not suggesting that pistols are magic wands. They require training for full effectiveness. But even a very slightly trained person would have more of a chance with one in hand than most criminals would find sporting. Guns give credibility to the manifested intent to fight back. That would be true even if she was holding a .22 instead of a .45 — nobody likes getting shot, not even a little bit.
I use P22 quite a bit when training people with small hands. In suppressed form, it eventually gunks up and has to be cleaned. Re-assembly used to be a pain because of the recoil assembly design. Not anymore! Now it’s about as uncomplicated as a Glock.
Desert Tech Covert .308 with 3-17x US Optics scope. Short, handy and effective up to the limit of the cartridge range. People look like this after shooting it.
The person, incidentally, is a talented photographer in her own right. She works mainly in the Salt Lake City area, with a dual specialization of people and firearms.
US has numerous state level prohibitions on alcohol before the national one was enacted. I wondered how people stood for those and didn’t shoot the culprits out of hand. Then, a thought occurred to me that explained how prohibitions of all kind endure.
Two parties benefit from prohibitions, politicians for the graft and the criminals for smuggling. Both groups are used to using violence to enforce their interests, and neither wants the prohibition to end. Prohibiting something is the quickest way for criminals and politicians acting in de-facto cooperation to capture an existing industry.
Of the people affected by prohibitions, the vast majority is inconvenienced on a practical level and just wants continued access. That serves the politicians and the criminals just fine, that where much of their money comes from. The minority opposed to prohibitions on ethical grounds seldom takes direct actions because they are non-violent by nature, and because killing the individuals responsible wouldn’t change laws for the better.
This holds on prohibitions on alcohol, drugs, tobacco and other consumables. It also holds for prohibitions on most technologies because few realize what they are missing. That does not hold for prohibitions on weapons though. Unlike all other goods, weapons are the main tool by which enforcement of a prohibition can be challenged. One doesn’t fight the ban on drugs with cocaine or pot, nor on alcohol with whiskey or wine. But a prohibition on rifles can be fought with rifles. And that’s there the “fight, flight or submit” decision fork may be resolved in favor of fight. Giving up means much reduced future opportunity to resist and, unlike recreational drugs, booze or other optional goods, weapons are in the same category as water and food — it’s possible to live without them, but not for very long or very well. And definitely not at all free.
I am getting an upgraded IR camera, so my Canon EOS REBEL T3 will be available. Selling it with a second battery and charger, $275 for everything, plus shipping cost from zip code 37076. Example of B&W image (it will also produce color):
Imagine a farm animal, like a steer, that only exists because it was bred and raised to be slaughtered for meat and leather. Is it better (by whatever definition of “better” you have) for it to have lived or to have never been born at all? Is it any worse to be killed and made into steaks and shoes than to die of old age diseases and become worm food?
Imagine a congenitally deaf and blind puppy? It can still enjoy life, but people who keep it wouldn’t have room for a healthy puppy they’d keep otherwise. What’s better, for the deaf and blind puppy to have a life, or for a healthy one? Or would those two lives be equivalently good, by whatever definition we use.