We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, September 15. 2012
Summer is slowly ending up here. Carpe diem. We're kayaking on the upper Hudson River this morning.
Money Can Buy You a Baby Girl. But What About Happiness?
For self-defense: .22 beats .45, but shotgun beats all
Kodiak Bears, Up Close and Personal, in the Alaskan Wilderness A newly renovated retreat gives visitors a chance to see the Kodiaks in their element
Old Urbanist: Places That Aren't Car-free, But Should Be
Ten Reasons to Ignore the U.S. News College Rankings
Our friend Tom Brewton of The View From 1776 has a book out: The Liberal Jihad: The Hundred Year War Against The Constitution
Where are his popular successes?
"Ceremonial queen"? Ouch.
Knish: We're better than they are:
More Obama drug and homosexuality allegations (video)
Is this stuff true?
MSNBC agrees with Egyptian government. Says Jonah:
Echoes of "Better red than dead." Cowering submission seems to be a reflex.
Speaking of dhimmitude, Obama submits to Brotherhood, asks for suppression of anti-Islam video
Al Qaeda Flag Flies Over U.S. Embassy In Tunisia
Romney is right: In embassy incidents, Obama administration's first instinct was to sympathize with attackers
Obama: The Weak Horse
Romney's not doing badly in the polls
The World from Berlin: 'Obama's Middle East Policy Is in Ruins'
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Are we really going to hold what we can say or do in our own country hostage to the passions of foreign lynch mobs?"
Hey, how about we all head to DC to have a Tea Party outside the Egyptian and Libyan embassies? Might even be large enough to roll in some of the other delegations where protests are popular.
Then at least, MSNBC will come out against mob politeness.
"Obama submits to Brotherhood, asks for suppression of anti-Islam video"
Asking Youtube to do what the Constitution won't let the government do
Turns out all that golf was training. Obama is now in the mother of all sand traps as the White House heads for the bunker in the face of the hazard.
The gay allegations won't help him lose. It will energize his base - 'the first GAY president' 'the first GAY AND BLACK president'.
You can just see the LGBT Alliance folks crying with joy, and the emotional outpouring from sympathetic people who lack a rational bone in their body.
True, but it is my understanding that gay is not well embraced by the black community.
The best defensive weapon. Yeah, yeah...a .22 is blah, blah, blah...a 9mm is blah, blah, blah...a .40 is....
The best gun for a fight is the one you have with you. Period.
If firing a weapon ends a fight by dint of scaring the aggressor away try standing downrange when a .45 goes off versus a .22. The .45 wins hands down.
Stopping power comes from a brain/spinal chord shot. Otherwise you're waiting for trauma to result in exsanguination. More trauma = faster expiry. If the assailant is determined and walks past the psychological deterrent of being fired on, you want to increase the trauma. That means bullets downrange making center mass hits. There are a lot of variables in outcomes with all calibers, but the larger the bullet and the greater the mushrooming (with weight retention), the more trauma is inflicted. Trauma is your friend.
There's a lot in the way of clothes, muscle, fat and bone between the muzzle of your gun and a critical hit. Given the armor surrounding the small target presented by the brain and the spinal chord, I'd like more punch per round than offered by a .22 to get to them. That is, if I was aiming for small targets. I'm a front sight, center mass, self-defense shooter...put the front sight dead center of your target and pull the trigger.
Proficiency with your weapon is critical. If compact .45 is too much gun in terms of carry and recoil step down. As big as you can carry, though. If a fight does break out it's most likely going to go down just about on your toes and if a gun comes out it's all hard violence. Know your damned gun.
The douche in that video? He's talking about a .22 with a can. Yeah, like the Mossad we all carry silenced .22's to cap a bad guy in the occipital lobe while he's taking a dump. We can brag to our butt buddies in prison about how bad we are, killing a 210 pound guy with a .22. He's a tool. Complete tool....
Far to many variables to be that sure of yourself. A .22 LR from a pistol can penetrate body armor. Not dependably but it can whereas the larger calibers cannot.
For fat people, a .22 is likely to penetrate further reaching vital organs. Not much good in making a big hole if all the energy is absorbed by the adipose tissue stopping deep penetration. I was told of one incident where to doctor plucked 9mm rounds from the guy's chest with his fingers. The cops on that raid stopped using 9mms.
As the guy says, in most situations, more rounds (suppression fire) is better than bigger rounds in stopping an attacker.
The key is which gun can you more reliably put rounds into the central axis (head to groin) where real damage and not just tissue trauma can be done.
And, of course, whatever handgun you have it really is only useful in flinging lead at a determined attacker while you make your way to your shotgun.
The odds of coming up against an assailant wearing body armor are slim at best...fleetingly small. It's not a consideration when I carry. YMMV, though I doubt it.
Regardless, the argument that a .22 can defeat body armor is highly suspect. All the tests I've seen were using .22 rifles (maximizing the effectiveness of the round) and the results were dubious. This of course brings into question type of body armor being used, and as this is really a moot point it's not worth considering. I'd love to see some hard data on .22's defeating BA, but in the meantime I'm shooting big and slow.
The talk of body armor and suppression fire is a little out of my league. As is the nonsense about silencers on a carry piece…that was just idiotic. Suppression is a military tactic. I'm not really sure what he means by that, but it sounds awesome. Anyway, you can check me on this, but I think most gun related incidents don't get beyond 5 shots. If that's suppression I'm guessing you can do that with a bigger round that you can still control.
If the perp is fat hit the upper torso if you can…I mean, a un-expanded .22 round slowed down by fat isn't likely to open up arteries anyway, never mind penetrate bone to get the spinal chord. Also, is it likely to penetrate a sternum after being fired from a pistol? I'm guessing if a chest can stop a zippy 125 grain 9mm, it'll stop a 40 grain .22.
I addressed the issue of too much gun and the need to get rounds downrange in a reasonably accurate fashion. I also mentioned that "real damage" is central nervous system or the circulatory system. Yes, getting rounds center mass is the issue, but tissue damage is an issue as well, and vital organs are armored up with bone and muscle.
This article by a coroner is interesting. He has this to say about the .22 for self-defense:
QUOTE FROM THE MORGUE:
As for the .22, I agree with you that it's a poor choice of weapons and probably about the last one I would choose if given a choice of calibers. Still, it's a caliber we see quite frequently, and it might be good to know what damage it imparts. Discussing it is in no way an endorsement of it.
"The reason it's such a poor choice of a defensive weapon by now should be obvious. If you think 125 grains of 9mm has little stopping power, try 40 grains of .22 long rifle. It has been my experience that hollowpoint .22 long rifle bullets fired from handguns seldom mushroom; when fired from rifles they usually do. Also, when fired from handguns both hollowpoints and solids are often recovered relatively intact and undeformed.
"Like most revolver calibers, the .22 long rifle (I don't remember ever seeing a .22 short or long although ratshot shows up from time to time) is most often seen at suicides. The ubiquitous .22, since it's the most commonly fired caliber in the US, is never in short supply, and many folks who own no other firearm own a .22. Most often the site of the wound is to the head, and penetration is almost always more than sufficient to get the job done. When fired from a rifle, often a "lead snowstorm" is created and shows up on the x-rays where the bullet fragments shortly after entering the skull. With body shots, either in defensive situations or suicides, multiple shots are usually required unless someone gets inordinately lucky and plants the bullet firmly in a vital organ. I've seen more than one example of someone who tried to commit suicide by emptying a cylinder into the chest and was forced to reload before completing the job with a shot to the head. As nvbirdman (a commenter) so rightly said, it has a well-deserved reputation as a very poor choice of defensive weapons.
The .22 LR is the AK-47 of self-defense in America. It's cheap and readily available. It's notable for two reasons: It stops fights because most times when you shoot your brother with a .22 over an argument about beer he stops fighting and asks why you're being a dick before he ambles off to the emergency room; and it has a reputation as an able killer because a .22 LR shot directly into the head at suicide range is an effective killer. Just ask the Mossad.
Well, if you carry a .22 for self-defense, the smallness of the gun would be deciding factor. But it isn't useless, it just requires more skill to cause a bleed out or hit a vital. Any small pieces of lead being thrown in a person's direction can be a deterrent. Few would stop and go, "oh, it's only a .22 so I'll continue." Suppression fire in self defense is keeping them at bay while you make your way somewhere else or convincing them to stop the attack.
Of course, if you run into the person bent on killing, then bigger holes with more shredding of blood vessels is a better choice.
I think the lesson is, there is no perfect size pistol, and the particulars matter. Size, composition, self discipline of the person taking the round, placement of shot, proximity, aspect of person taking the round, etc.
You might be interested in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA&feature=player_embedded) this presentation by a doctor on gunshots. Key takeaways, 6 out of 7 people shot with a handgun survive. All handguns have low penetration. Getting into an OR is key to survival.
As for a .22 penetrating BA, it can happen but not reliably. If you need to penetrate armor with a handgun, you carry the FN 5.7. It's a .223 round but with a lot more punch. A friend who was in the police had a partner shot with a .22 and it made it down to the last two layers of kevlar in a patrol level vest (don't remember the exact type vest) It is mostly due to the small round worming its way through the fibers where a larger round gets picked up by the fabric.
I was away on vacation and checked out of the real world for a while. Coming back I caught the brouhaha over Romney's remark.....but I can't FIND Romney's remark on the internet. All I can find are people attacking him and some columns with snips of what he said, but not the statements themselves. Must be pretty accurate shot at obama for the internet to hide it and the "news" people to attack it but not quote it.
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” — Romney statement, Sept. 11, 2012
Knish: We're better than they are
Better than they are ...
they kill us
they burn a couple more embassies
they burn American flags
they can kill us
they kill thousands of us
Only a tiny number of people were involved in the death of the U.S. ambassador. The vast majority of Muslim countries are trying to protect U.S. embassies. It's no different than Islamic radicals condemning the entire U.S. for the actions of a few ideologues. The ambassador who was killed certainly wouldn't have condemned the entire nation of Libya for the actions of a few.
We are better in at least one sense. Generally speaking, when we are somehow embarrassed by other nations, either deliberately or by accident by small groups within these nations, we don't raid their embassies or kill their diplomats. This has happened more than once to the U.S. in Islamic nations.
We have our own problems, certainly. We attack our own, and sometimes mistakenly (such as attacks on Sikhs after 9/11). But rarely in a mob, and almost certainly never calling for the death of the other nation.
No, we resort to changing names of French Fries to Freedom Fries. Or we write songs putting down those nations, or promoting our own. We do not resort to mob mentality.
What's disconcerting about all this is the way the media continues to ignore the cause of all this. It wasn't a YouTube clip - that's a smokescreen which is becoming quite effectively the new reason for the attack. No, just as we 'knew' about 9/11 and 'could have stopped it' - we knew this attack was coming and we knew the others would likely follow. Right? After all, Zach - you know all about how well prepared we are for this stuff. Because it's easier to know about and stop the bizarre and (at the time) seemingly disconnected events of 9/11 than a single pre-planned attack on an embassy in a country experiencing the throes of nation-building.
Plus, you know, it's another great chance for Obama to apologize for how small-minded we are as a nation. Shameful that we produce this kind of video trash, right? Shameful! Not so shameful that they are willing to kill 'because of it' - no, it's our small-minded view of the world that creates the problems, not their small-minded intolerance and violence.
Yes, we ARE better than many of them. Not all. But as nations go, we spend more time talking and disagreeing than acting out on our feelings. Nations, in general, that react to 'feelings' in a fashion as we've witnessed, tend to destroy themselves.
Of course, Obama's all about generating that emotional response. He's not got much of a practical record to stand on, now that his foreign policy is in tatters. Gotta get that old 'lovin feeling' back, right? Divert attention, attack your opponent, tell everyone he's part of the problem you're part of the solution, and then tell YouTube to take the video down (ahem - not censorship, but DAMN CLOSE). We, as a nation, are doomed if we keep going in for that emotional response he seeks - we WILL be just like those nations.
So, in a sense, though not in the way you're thinking, we probably won't be better than them. Soon.
Bulldog: Generally speaking, when we are somehow embarrassed by other nations, either deliberately or by accident by small groups within these nations, we don't raid their embassies or kill their diplomats. This has happened more than once to the U.S. in Islamic nations.
Better than whom? The mob? Yes, it's a crime to attack embassies. If the government sanctioned such an attack, it could be considered an act of war, but that's not what happened. Radicals are trying to force the U.S. to abandon the region.
Bulldog: We attack our own, and sometimes mistakenly (such as attacks on Sikhs after 9/11). But rarely in a mob,
Not lately, anyway.
Bulldog: No, just as we 'knew' about 9/11 and 'could have stopped it' - we knew this attack was coming and we knew the others would likely follow. Right?
Embassies are always difficult to protect, as they are small, non-militarized outposts who primary purpose is diplomacy. Nevertheless, the U.S. should have been better prepared.
I wonder if we're even understanding what's happening. Carter lost Persia. Obama lost North Africa and possibly the other USA's friendly Muslim countries. Has he given the radical islamist 9-11?
With respect to the criticisms about Romney's "timing" - I fail to see the difference between groveling before your enemies before or after they arrive with the pitchforks.
The Romney campaign needs to take the gloves off. They seem to respond to criticisms by the Obama campaign the same way Obama responds to rioting Muslims. He will not win if he keeps this up.
Well, Zachriel, you get those big noisy angry mobs who want what they want when they want it (like OWS) and attack embassies... Makes a pretty good they. Not all Italians are mobsters. A very high percentage aren't. But a high enough percentage of Muslims seem to be enough to make them a they.
Sam L: you get those big noisy angry mobs who want what they want when they want it (like OWS) and attack embassies... Makes a pretty good they.
Knish clearly isn't talking about the mobs, but Muslims in general.
Our experiment at civilizing the savage failed miserably in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger" means that the Muslim need not waste time worrying about his conscience.
The Muslim need not waste time pondering the ethical implications of killing another human being to know that he is better than we are.
And so on.
Islam is a highly diverse community that traditionally stretches from Indonesia to Morocco. They don't even agree on religion among themselves.
"Islam is a highly diverse community that traditionally stretches from Indonesia to Morocco. They don't even agree on religion among themselves."
Yes, and the "bad ones" always wear a little yellow patch on their clothes so you know which of them you might have to look out for if and when their religious hormones run amok.
You might also say there were good Nazis and bad Nazis, but how could you tell them apart?
The issue is not whether there are good or bad Muslims, but whether Islam itself is "good" or "bad", whether its tenets encourage or dissuade its believers from such violent behavior. It is probably no coincidence, for example, that I have seen no similar acts of violence from members of the Baha'i faith during my lifetime.
Agent Cooper: Yes, and the "bad ones" always wear a little yellow patch on their clothes so you know which of them you might have to look out for if and when their religious hormones run amok.
That's the problem with non-state actors. They don't wear uniforms. They are civilians, or blend in with civilians.
Agent Cooper: You might also say there were good Nazis and bad Nazis, but how could you tell them apart?
There were trials to determine criminal culpability.
Agent Cooper: The issue is not whether there are good or bad Muslims, but whether Islam itself is "good" or "bad", whether its tenets encourage or dissuade its believers from such violent behavior.
As we said, Knish wasn't making a limited claim about the mob, but Islam. By incredible coincidence, many Christians said the same thing about Catholics and Jews too.
Agent Cooper: It is probably no coincidence, for example, that I have seen no similar acts of violence from members of the Baha'i faith during my lifetime.
No, the Baha'i have always been the persecuted minority. On the other hand, Christians have been known for their violent persecution over matters of religion.
.22 beats a .45...? Heck I dunno, with all that THUMP THUMP in the back ground I couldn't hear what he was saying.