Saturday, October 01, 2016

Don't give an inch

The second amendment's rhetorical kill shot, in pictures:

From top left to bottom right: Baltimore, Charlotte, Ferguson,
Dallas (dead cops), Milwaukee, NYC (dead cops)

The police can't--or more precisely, won't--even protect themselves or their stuff. Why the hell would you rely on them to protect you?

If you're a husband and/or a father, it's a dereliction of your duty as provider and protector to outsource the physical safety of your family to an apathetic state that isn't able to protect you and wouldn't care to do so even if it could.

11 comments:

hooter tooter said...

Yeah, I've been reloading ammo for years, and but just a few hundred for each range trip. This year I've start reloading in quantity.

Zorro said...

With reference to hooter tooter's comment, I used to reload 12-guage shotgun for my Dad, who was State champion trap shooter in 1971.

With Obambi making lead a forbidden material, bullets get scarce. I think I'll get myself a Smith 586 .357 Mag and reload, using old fishing sinkers and bullets I rake out of shooting ranges, smelt them down, and prep for the next BLM assault.

This country is turning into a shithole.

Anonymous said...

No one can say he hasnt been warned over and over.

Audacious Epigone said...

As Jack Donovan so eloquently put it, we have become the new barbarians.

Dan said...

This is a difficult one for me. Being a data driven guy, I understand that a white male is far likelier to use his gun against himself than against someone else.

The white male suicide rate is > 20 per hundred thousand while the white male rate of homicide is around 5 per hundred thousand.

That said, I am comfortable around guns and have campaigned for our man at gun shows.

I think the number one thing you can do to protect your family is to be HBD aware and place them in a safe neighborhood.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

Does the gun commit the suicide? Finland has fewer guns and higher suicide rates than the US and we have blacks (who don't kill themselves). It makes it more convenient, which must have an effect on the margins, but is it the driving force?

Casher O'Neill said...

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the male suicide rate skyrocketed. I suspect many grim years ahead with the final collapse of the Republic. Guns may seem to be a more merciful way to go, but that is assuming it is done "right". Blind, bleeding to death slowly and alone may be worse than a bridge or hanging.

We all need to keep strong, and keep our friends strong. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article5

Dan said...

I think having a gun at home does make suicide more likely.

Most people have severe low points from time to time. If you have a gun, you can act on impulse and off yourself.

I am all for the second amendment and I do believe that the arms of our nation are an important defense against tyranny, but the cost is enormous and it is borne by gun owners.

Dan said...



On the other hand the US only ranks at #50 in suicide rate, which is not high at all considering.

And we would be ranked lower still if all countries were honest. For example many Muslim countries have a suicide rate suspiciously close to zero.

Maybe I am frustrated that gun owners seem to be arming for a great defense of liberty that never seems to happen. That thing in Oregon last winter for example: they probably owned a hundred guns each, but nothing happened.

No Thermopylae, no going down in blazes of glory. What is the point of all these guns?

I suppose the time will come when order fails, but there sure seems to be a lot of waiting.

Audacious Epigone said...

Casher,

Carbon monoxide in the garage or a bottle of sleeping pills seem gentler to me, but suicide has always been unfathomable to me. In the words of Aurelius, nothing happens to man that he is not fitted by nature to bear.

Dan,

They're not necessary until they are.

I don't say that flippantly or dismissively. It really is the best response I can offer.

Succantation said...

Guns don't cause any harm in the same way as nuclear bombs don't cause any harm.

You need to understand variation and numbers.

If a sufficiently large population exists. If 10% of the population has a predisposition to which 15% of all set of circumstances and combination of environments lead him or herself to commit homocide - then you need to compare those rates to if guns didn't exist at all except the black market. You also need to consider prior probability of acceptance post-probability of acceptance and rates of adoption. The policy of gun bans just don't work in areas of high adoptable, since it is harder to 'reverse trends' than prevent it.

Anyhow, the key thing here is compare which leads to more deaths. More people, larger proportion of irresponsible people or... lots of people and almost nil proportion responsible. Countries like Japan benefit from strict laws.. cause their genes are collectivist, 'culture-harmonizing' and strong ostrachization/care for others(less "independent-minded").. so giving guns actually might instill more fear rather than benefiting anyone since the occasional shooter would be a national news event rather than the daily mail in the US where a gun is actually needed to defend.

Also giving choices also means.. irresponsible people using it. That is why we can't just give nuclear bombs or grenades for everyone to defend themselves from 'nations' or 'groups/riots' like ANTI-stem cell people rushing into labs and blowing up the place.

Guns = quick, to the point, 99.999% success. Carbon monoxide.. sleeping pills.. complications.