Tag: linkery

KevinLeave a comment

Really, Really Late.

This is a gunblog, after all.

I’m out of town (again), so I’m afraid posting must be light – no 7,000-word essays & such. Perusing through the stuff I’ve missed over the past several days, I ran across this post at Say Uncle. Pictures of 10/22’s? Why yes, yes I do:


(Click for full size)

Say Uncle asks, “What, you don’t name yours?” In this case, yes.

When my wife saw it after I’d swapped out the stock and barrel and mounted the way too much scope, she said “THAT’S the cute little rifle I gave you for Father’s Day?? It’s technologically barbaric!”

Meet Conan the Borg.

He’s since received a Volquartsen trigger group that cost more than the original gun. You can see the extended magazine release there in front of the trigger guard.

I told her the day she gave it to me, “Oh, love – you don’t know what you just started!”

I was right.

More Misinformed Ignorance and Hyperbole

KevinLeave a comment

Checking Sitemeter’s referral log the other day, I came across a link to a piece at CommonDreams about guns in America. What a fascinating look into what passes for the minds of the really, really far Left. The piece itself has the normal talking-points and clichés:

Guns, and the violence their possessors inflict, have never been more prevalent in America. Gun crime has risen steeply over the past three years.

After declining precipitously for the previous ten. Note that no actual numbers are cited, and there are no links to any supporting data.

Since the killing of John F Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century.

Stipulating that this is accurate, I would note that it’s far, far less than the number of people killed by their own governments during the latter half of the 20th century.

The piece goes on, quoting Kellermann “statistics” and referencing Michael Bellisiles’ discredited “truthiness” from his book Arming America: Origins of a National Gun Culture – without, of course, actually citing them. At the end, however, the piece does make a bit of a concession:

In the meantime, the gun culture is so firmly entrenched and society so full of guns that there is little prospect of it retreating. Even those who advocate much tighter laws have long accepted defeat of the ideal of creating a society where guns are rare in public life, or even completely absent. ‘That notion is absurd. There is no way to de-gun America,’ said (University of Toledo Professor Brian Anse) Patrick.

Not that the fact that it’s absurd will actually stop people from trying.

But what I found was most interesting was the comments to the piece, some of which I’ll excerpt for your reading… enjoyment. (Yeah, that’s it. Enjoyment.)

The US gun culture is a terrible tragedy. Yet it seems to me that gun-toting Americans are more passionate over this issue than EVERY other issue we as a society must face. I have tried to speak peacefully with them, but have had to hold my tongue because they get very angry when their ownership is questioned, lest I become another of these frightening statistics. I give up. I do not know how to stem this tide. Like everything else, most gun-toting Americans have been brainwashed into thinking it provides them security (from criminals and the Government), when the reverse is true.
I should point out, however, that I own a gun, as I live and hike in a remote area with mountain lions and feral dogs. I pray that I never need to use it for I wish to never harm any creature. – “WTF”

So… guns don’t provide security, but this clown carries one… for security? Just not against criminals or the government. Right.

A country that was founded on and credited with violence will never give it up. This is a country where people LOVE to watch and experience violence from children watching violent cartoons and playing violent video games to adults watching violent shows and even the wars for oil. And what about all those toy weapons that happily get advertised in those sleazy commercials? And what about all those “get tough or get lost” attitudes teenagers end up growing with? We cannot blame just the guns but instead must learn to take control of our urge to be violent if we’re really going to be safer ever again. – “maxpayne”

Here’s an example of cranial-rectal inversion if I’ve ever seen one. It’s not our urge to be violent that makes us unsafe. As Trefor Thomas put it on Usenet so long ago, “To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated.” Here’s another case of someone unable to distinguish between “violent and predatory” and “violent, but protective.” They see only violence.

The president of NRA sums up the American societal values. He said that America takes pride in “god, gun and guts”. Most of the Republican presidential candidates were present in the function when he made this statement.

Guns takes pride of place in the American family values;
Weapons of mass destruction takes the pride of place in American foreign policy (Again America has stood first in the sales of weapons in 2006);
That means VIOLENCE takes the pride of place in the American value system;
Violence takes the pride of place in American Religion;
USA = UNITED STATES OF ARMAGEDDON – “gandhi”

But don’t question his patriotism!

People always thought I was such a twit because I would not allow my daughter’s to play with water pistols or those imitation cowboy-type pistols you load with caps. I did not want them thinking that a pretend toy, in reality, if real murders people.
I would ask parents, if my kids were going to be in their home, if they had guns in the home. Some would get very irate at this question I posed, pissed off neighbor or dead daughter, Hmmmmm, I really could not have cared less if they thought of it as an insult.
I live in a burb of Philly, my brother lives in town, and I am in town 3-4 days a week. You have to know which parts of Philadelphia has that high incidence of murder. N. Philly, certain parts of W. Philly and S. Philly past a certain block, K & A, Germantown and more. It is not the entire city of Philadelphia. I am not saying that it is okay for the increase in murders to be happening here, just have to know where to avoid. Like any other city.
Americans are gun crazy, I have never understood this phenomenon. I do not understand hunting, murdering these animals. It sickens me that the NRA weilds so much power in this country. – “Turce”

That’s because you’re a twit, Turce. You can identify the “dangerous” sections of Philly, but believe that if your daughter visits a home in which there is a gun, she’ll end up dead?

I never felt the need to own a gun or to protect myself from my neighbors. Never until until the Fascists coup. Are we safer yet? – “whatfools”

No comment!

I don’t want to have to use my .22. And I don’t see why people need assault-type rifles that would stop a rhinoceros, or punch holes through armor plate. – “Moonshadow”

More misinformed ignorance and hyperbole.

You can read the whole thing yourselves, but here’s the best comment in the whole thing:

Some unpleasant facts need to be considered:
• The natural state of mankind is tribal war. The strong will always dominate the weak if they can get away with it. This is historically true, and remains true to this day unless I have missed some subtle evolutionary sea change.
• Civilization is an artifice. The society of gentle souls who people this blog live in a happy, orderly, sheltered society carefully crafted over centuries of European jurisprudence, maintained by standing armies and policemen with glocks. But the peaceable kingdom is not the default reality among our fellow hominids. In most parts of the world you’d be insane to give up your guns. Lethal power both protects and oppresses us. I don’t like this, I just think it is true in the sublunary world.
• American society, inasmuch as both cops and robbers are living out their cowboy fantasies, is a potentially very dangerous place. The fabric of our society is a card house of non-existent money which could collapse at any time, leaving us unprepared to repel the innumerable people who today have blood issues with us.
When everybody in the world throws their guns into a big pile, I’ll be there. Until then, distasteful as it may be, I’m reluctant to give up my corporate share of lethal power.

WTF: I also live in a remote place. I decided some time ago not to be afraid of animals. The last animal I killed was in 1957 and it still makes me sick to remember it. I think the official advice about mountain lions is to chat them up. I can vouch for the effectiveness and educational value of this from personal experience. – voxclamantis

It would appear that vox is, in fact, a resident of Oracle, AZ – a town about 45 minutes North of Tucson. His real name is, ironically enough, Michael Moore. He may be a “progressive,” but at least he actually looks at the real world. At least on this topic.

No, wait! HERE’s the best comment in the thread:

Absolutely no guns at home. Only military and police can carry guns. Period. – “Bolondvero”

Because we can trust the military and the police, right? Bolondvero? Meet “whatfools.” I think you two ought to get to know one another.

I thought CommonDreams.org was a progressive web site?

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day.

As for the United States being Imperialist, to quote the immortal, you keep using that word but I don’t think it means what you think it means. I don’t think the Roman, Chinese, British, etc. Empires would have ever reached the size they did if they poured money INTO the conquered provinces.

If we’re Imperialist, well, rejoice, we suck at it on a scale never seen before in history.

From a comment by “Treefrog” to a truly excellent post by Mark Danziger, “Armed Liberal,” at WindsofChange.net: Patriotism Rears its Head Again. Highly recommended; both it and the comment thread.

KevinLeave a comment

Do It Again, Only HARDER!.

Say Uncle points to another Laura Washington piece on gun control. It seems Ms. Washington wants to “energize the base,” since in her previous jeremiad she stated that she wanted to “get organized and shove tougher gun policies right down their throats.”

One of those throats, obviously, would be mine. Now she wants to “pry open those cold dead hands.”

Guess whose?

Say Uncle has done a masterful job fisking her op-ed (and I’ll get back to that), and Ahab has some things to say about it, as does Sebastian, and Countertop, and Alphecca. Since Ms. Washington states in her current piece, “Whenever I write about the plague of gun violence, I get a huge blowback from the gun lovers of America,” I thought I’d do my part as well.

Before I do that, though, allow me to bask in the pleasure that Ms. Washington took what I told her in my first email to her, and wrote an op-ed from it. I wrote previously:

Ms. Washington, you note in your piece: “(I)t seems the gun control advocates have been outmatched. Abigail Spangler acknowledges as much. Spangler is the founder of ProtestEasyGuns.com, a Virginia-based group that has been spearheading a slew of anti-gun protests around the nation.

“Gun control activists, she wrote me, ‘are TRYING HARD but they are seriously affected in state after state by lack of funding and contributions.” She recently met, she says, with the leader of Virginia’s only gun control group. “He says they may not even be able to afford any lobbyist at all soon in Virginia!'”

Ms. Washington, the citizenry will offer an opinion to anyone. Opinions are free. But activism costs money – and the anti-gun side has shown that the hearts and wallets of the general public are not really into it. Ask any hundred random people on the street if they favor stricter gun laws and most likely the majority will say “yes.” Ask them what the current gun laws are, and they won’t be able to tell you. Gun rights activists can. The gun control side of the argument has been supported for decades with money from foundations, perhaps the largest contributor being the Joyce Foundation. Look them up. Those of us who believe in the right to arms are the true grass-rooters, and there are far more of us than the mere four million that the NRA claims as members. As someone once put it so pithily: “Poor Lefties; they’ve been playing on astroturf so long that they don’t know grassroots even when fed a mouthful of divot.”

In the current piece she writes:

Through organizing, the Internet, and plunking down plenty of cold hard cash, the gun lobby has proven it is ready for primetime. Meanwhile, its opponents are languishing in the wee-hours of late-night local cable.

Right. The Violence Policy Center, the Brady Center, IANSA, the Second Amendment Research Center of Ohio State University, the Harvard School of Public Health, the…. Well, you get the idea.

Gun control advocates should piggyback on the success of online activist groups like MoveOn.org and MeetUp.com. These efforts have raised millions to promote political candidates and the antiwar movement. The money is there. Barack Obama, for one, has raised over $17 million on the Internet. Marches and protests are fine, but it is imperative to devise a response that is sophisticated and symmetrical to the gun lobby’s tactics.

She realizes her side needs money, but I don’t think she knows the mailing address for her grant application to the Joyce Foundation.

ANYWAY, back to Say Uncle’s fisk. In it, he uses one of my favorite “Uncleisms” – “Gun control is what you do instead of something.”

Ms. Washington makes two statements that I think are crucial to understand about the topic, but that almost no one on either side ever addresses. To wit:

The gun army, made up almost exclusively of white men from suburban and rural areas….

and:

According to a recent report by the U.S. Justice Department, nearly half the people murdered in the United States in 2005 were black. Most lived in cities and were felled by guns. While blacks make up about 13 percent of the nation’s population, they comprised 49 percent of all murder victims.

I am reminded of the truth of the first point every time I go to the range. While Zendo Deb, Denise, Tam, Bitter, KeeWee, Breda, and hundreds if not thousands of women, not to mention black men like Kenn Blanchard and Walter Williams, are members of the “gun army,” the overwhelming majority of us are white males, mostly suburban or rural.

But very nearly half of the victims and perpetrators of violent crime are less than 13% of the population. A very identifiable less than 13%.

Young. Urban. Black. Males.

In fact, the level of violence committed by and upon this tiny demographic skews America’s violent crime rates markedly, as I pointed out in Questions from the Audience? back in January of last year.

But whose throats does Ms. Washington want to shove “tough new gun policies” down? Whose “cold dead hands” does she want to pry open, in the apparent belief it will somehow affect the problem she herself identifies?

If you misidentify the problem, it’s no surprise that you misidentify the solution, but it’s more than a little exasperating when the other side points right at a crucial datum, and continues to make the same error. It leads one to suspect either a logical disconnect, or an ulterior motive.

“Gun control is what you do instead of something” indeed.

KevinLeave a comment

Another Debate (That I’m Supposedly Terrified Of).

Yesterday Say Uncle linked to a rather hysterical (as in PSH, not ROFL) piece by someone who is, shall we say, rabidly anti-gun. Having lost two family members in separate incidents, his hatred of the tools of violence is understandable, but he’s extended that hatred out to those of us who defend the right to arms as well.

One of the posters defenders is also a blogger, and has written an invitation to debate at his blog, Unique Like Everybody. Now we just need to work out the logistics of how to do this; either trade posts at each other’s sites, or (I would prefer) post everything at both sites. I prefer to keep a record of the exchange, after The Fabulous Baker Boys debate disappeared.

JHupp, the poster at Unique Like Everybody appears to be a reasonable, intelligent person. While I doubt either of us will change our positions much, these discussions aren’t really aimed at that. They’re aimed at the audience of fence-sitters, the people who don’t have much knowledge of the topic, but who want to know more so that they can make up their own minds.

I hope he’s serious. It’s been a while since I’ve had this opportunity.

Women and Wars

KevinLeave a comment

At the Emmy Awards apparently Sally Field said something stupid. Rachel Lucas has (for Rachel) a rather long and worthy comment on it. Please go forthwith and read.

Back already?

I was reminded of a discussion I’ve had several times with my wife, who works at a children’s shelter, and has also worked in call centers doing international long-distance service, and roadside assistance, with many, many people, often from different cultures. She’s told me on more than one occasion that she prefers dealing with boys at the shelter and schools for the same reason she disliked working with women at the call centers: women compete. Pettily. Viciously. Constantly. They form cliques for the purpose of deliberately excluding others. They are simply mean and nasty to other women for no discernible reason. Boys tend to cooperate.

Quoth Rachel:

It starts in about 4th grade, when girls start engaging in what can only be called a war of attrition via emotional abuse. They form evil little cliques and set about utterly destroying each other’s self-esteem and pride.

—

Then you move on to the nightmare-scape called junior high school, where the females carefully hone their craft and the sabotage is raised to a whole new level of hate… Sneaky and manipulative. At least when boys pick on you, it’s all out in the open. Girls? Oh god no. They use subterfuge and reconnaissance. Girls will pretend to be your best friend just to discover your weaknesses, which they’ll then employ to bring you down.

One of the books I read last year was Norah Vincent’s Self-Made Man. Ms. Vincent, a lesbian author, dressed herself up with the proper clothing and make-up and passed herself off as a man in numerous situations, some of them long-term. Her first foray into being a man was joining a bowling league. She was quite surprised at some of the things she discovered, based on her lifelong experience of being female.

Girls can be a lot nastier than boys when it comes to someone who stands in the way of something they want. They know where to hit where it’ll hurt the most, and their aim is laser precise. I went to a tennis camp in New Jersey that catered largely to rich princesses and their male counterparts. Most of them couldn’t really play tennis on more than a country-club level. Their parents had sent them there to get rid of them. They just stood around most of the time posing for one another, showing off their tans. But I’d had a lot of private coaching in tennis by that time, and my strokes were fairly impressive for my age. I took tennis pretty seriously.

As for posing, I looked like I’d been raised by wolverines.

The instructors used to videotape each of us playing, so that they could go over the tapes with us and evaluate our techniques. One day, my particular class of about twenty girls was standing around the television watching the tape, and the instructor was deconstructing my serve. He’d had a lot of negative things to say about most of the other girl’s serves, but when it came to mine he’d raved unconditionally, playing my portion of the tape over and over again in slow motion.

One of the prettiest girls in the group, no doubt exasperated by the repetition, said, loudly enough for everyone to hear: “Well, I’d rather look the way I do and serve the way I do than serve the way she does and look the way she does.”

Now that’s female competitiveness at its finest.

But with these guys and with other male athletes I’ve known it was an entirely different conflict….

These guys’ attentions were like that: fatherly. And it really surprised me coming from members of opposing teams, since this was, after all, a money league. But they seemed to have a competitive stake in my doing well and in helping me do well, as if beating a man who wasn’t at his best wasn’t satisfying. They wanted you to be good and then they wanted to beat you on their own merits.

Here’s one excerpt from that chapter that popped immediately to mind when I read Rachel’s rant, and that drew me to pick up the book and write this post:

So much of what happens emotionally between men isn’t spoken aloud, and so the outsider, especially the female outsider who is used to emotional life being overt and spoken (often over-spoken), tends to assume that what isn’t said isn’t there. But it is there, and when you’re inside it, it’s as if you’re suddenly hearing sounds only dogs can hear.

I remember one night when I plugged into that subtext for the first time. A few lanes over, one of the guys was having a particularly hot game. I’d been oblivious to what was happening, mourning my own playing too much to watch anyone else. It was Jim’s turn, and I noticed that he wasn’t bowling. Instead he was sitting down in one of the laneside chairs, just waiting. Usually this happened when there was a problem with the lane; a stuck pin or a mis-set rack. But the pins were fine. I kept watching him, wondering why he wasn’t stepping up to the line.

Then I noticed that all the other bowlers had sat down as well. Nobody was taking his turn. It was as if somebody had blown a whistle, only nobody had. Nobody had said anything. Everyone had just stopped and stepped back, like in a barracks when an officer enters the room.

Then I realized that there was one guy stepping up to the lane. It was a guy who was having a great game. I looked up at the board and saw that he’d had strikes in every frame, and now he was on the tenth and final frame, in which you get three throws if you strike or spare in the first two. He’d have to throw three strikes in a row on this one to earn a perfect score, and somehow everyone in that hall had felt the moment of grace descend and had bowed out accordingly. Everyone, of course, except me.

It was a beautiful moment, totally still and reverent, a bunch of guys instinctively paying their respects to the superior athleticism of another guy.

The guy stepped up to the line and threw three strikes, one after the other, each one met by mounting applause, then silence and stillness again, then on the final strike, an eruption, and every single guy in that room, including me, surrounded that player and moved in to shake his hand or pat him on the back. It was almost mystical, that telepathic intimacy and the communal joy that succeeded it, crystalline in its perfection. The moment said everything all at once about how tacitly attuned men are to each other, and how much of this women miss when they look from the outside in.

One of the clichés of war movies (or other conflict-oriented media) is the character who relishes having an opponent “worthy of them.” Patton relished besting Rommel, for instance, because Rommel was the acknowledged best at what he did. But when the competition is over between men, at least in most cases, it’s over, and they can set aside the conflict. The end of the Civil War is perhaps the strongest example of this.

But women? From what I have seen, Sally Field might be right. If women ran the world there wouldn’t be any more goddamned wars.

Because the first one would end in a scorched-earth policy that neither side would survive. And it would start over something petty.

I can strongly recommend Self-Made Man. It’s a damned interesting read.

UPDATE: Dr. Helen has an opinion on Ms. Field’s comment, too.

KevinLeave a comment

On the Differences Between “Liberals” and “Conservatives.” Again.

A reader sent me an email on this LATimes piece (use BugMeNot to bypass the registration requirement). It seems that some New York University and UCLA researchers devised an experiment to test to see if liberals and conservatives used their brains differently. You read the piece and consider it for yourself. I’ve already been there and done that.

Back when I was writing for Themestream.com (long defunct) I “fisked” a piece written by another contributor (long before “fisk” was even a verb!) That contributor was Marriah Star, though when I first posted a copy of my piece on this blog I made him just an anonymous self-confessed liberal.

If you’re interested in what I wrote back then, it’s still available: Liberal v. Conservative: Both are Necessary