Looming Disaster!

Biden Says Family Will Decide Whether He Runs for President - NBC News:

Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday night he "will not hesitate" to run for president next year — but only if his family is up to it. "I'll be straightforward with you: The most relevant factor in my decision is whether my family and I have the emotional energy to run," Biden said during an appearance at a synagogue in Atlanta.

Please, Mister Vice President ... resist!

With all due respect, you are a political Bozo and shouldn't be allowed to occupy the position of Post Master General for the state of Rhode Island.  (I couldn't find a smaller state.)

Nobody likes you, nobody has any respect for you, and if you should announce your candidacy you would reveal yourself as being dumber than the stump you speak from.

Do it for your family.  Do it for your country.  Do it for yourself ... please don't make your place in history as the candidate who had fewer votes than that dopy kid from the Mad Magazine!

OUR CHOICE:

Joe?  The anonymous Face In The Crowd?

Or That Kid From Mad Magazine?

Face it, Joe .. you're outclassed!

Prayers for both families

Missouri 11-year-old fatally shoots 16-year-old intruder | Fox News:

An 11-year-old Missouri boy shot and killed a 16-year-old boy during an attempted home invasion Thursday afternoon, St. Louis County police said.

I cannot imagine how either family can deal with the tragedy which all have suffered.

 Police said two suspects tried to break into the home north of downtown St. Louis twice before the shooting on Thursday. On the third try, authorities said the unidentified teen went through the home's unlocked front door while the 11-year-old and a 4-year-old girl were home alone. Police said the younger boy shot the teen in the head.
Fox2Now reported that police want to know why the children were home alone and why the 11-year-old had access to a gun. Police believe the mother bought the gun after prior break-in attempts.

Police should also wonder why the 16-year-old (and his companion) attempted to break into an occupied house.

These are children.  Everyone involved here was just a child.  They aren't expected to be able to deal with this kind of confrontation as an adult would.

Why should one teen be so determined to rob a house.  Was he so desperate that he would risk his life for monetary gains?  Obviously, he either didn't know there was anyone home, or he didn't care.

As for the younger boy, who defended his home and his little sister ... this will haunt him for the rest of his life.

In the state where I live, it's legal for a child over the age of 10 years to be left alone in charge of a younger sibling.  But obviously, it's not the 'best' solution to the problem of a Single Working Mother.

One wonders what would have happened if the defending boy had NOT been able to defend himself.  Would the older boy (the intruder) have assaulted him and his little sister?

We have no way of knowing what tragedy had been averted.  We only know the tragedy that we see.

That's bad enough. For everyone.

Nobody wins, everybody loses.


Compare that story with this story.

Stacy and "What If ..?"

Shining a light on the gun show - Las Vegas Weekly:

Las Vegas Weekly Correspondent Stacy epitomizes the Gun Show Quandary:

"You'll Need A Bigger Gun!"

I explain the scenario to him: What if someone is breaking into my home, and it’s dark, and I want to unlock my gun safe and load my gun and turn on my laser and make my way through the hallways guided by the red light for pinpoint accuracy?
Or what if I need the red light to help me see to unlock the back door and run like hell? Or to find and lure my cat to safety with a bouncing red light? 

“Oh,” he says, pointing toward tables of heftier handguns and rifles across the aisle, “if you’re getting this for home defense, you’ll need a bigger gun.”

 Or maybe I’m just better off with a solar-powered flashlight that also charges my cell phone, which calls 911.

Maybe there's a large segment of America which hopes that Stacy never NEEDS to defend herself.

Anyone who can use parable to shine such a wholesome light on the whole gun thingie should be protected.

She's an American Treasure.

How many Divisions does USPSA need?

USPSA Adds New Division - Guns & Ammo:
September 03, 2015

The United States Practical Shooting Association has added a provisional Carry Optics division to its competition categories for the remainder of 2015. “Recently, the tides have started to turn, and it is USPSA who must keep up with the industry,” USPSA President Phil Strader said. “We have recognized the progression of lightweight carry pistols that are being outfitted with slide-mounted electronic optics.”

For the difference between "Carry Optics" and "Open Division", see here.

This is a ten-round limited gun, short magazines, with restrictions on holsters (no race holsters and positioned like a carry gun).  Internal modifications allowed.

There are exotic (my word) restrictions on the gun, such as 'speed bump trigger'.

I don't have any history on the genesis of the provisional Division.  I'd be interested in the background story on why this division was (provisionally) approved by the Board of Directors.

Generally speaking, it sounds to me like Production but with a slide-mounted Dot-sight.

Well, USPSA has long been a proponent of trying to keep the competition focused on fairness, rather than an arms race.  It appears that there have been some concerns about people who want to shoot Production rules, but need the electronic dot-sight.  And that combination has become more popular in recent years due to the propensity of more 'modern' pistol designs.

Comments are especially solicited here.  Especially from anyone on the BOD or who has other information .. either background or technical.

I admit, I just found out about this 20 minutes ago, and I'm posting the information to make Practical Pistol competitors aware of recent changes .... and NOT because I know what the HELL I'm talking about!

Jerry the Geek

The Problem With Trying To Regulate Guns Is ....

America has to do more to prevent gun violence - The Washington Post: 

The late Jimmy Durante is famous for saying:

 "Everybody Wants ta Get In To da Act!"

It's the age-old complaint of professionals vs amateurs.  (Or, here .. people who know what they're talking about vs those who haven't actually 'thought it through'.)

GUN CONTROL is like that:  Everybody has an idea, an opinion, and a computer.  Geez!
Some times, I think that there are some people who shouldn't have access to a computer and the internet connection.  It's like giving MATCHES, or a gun and ammunition to a child ... you never know what's going to happen next but you're pretty sure you're not going to like it!  (SATIRE ALERT)

Here's a couple of comments on the WAPO opinion article listed above:

lerobinsontff 9/2/2015 6:05 PM PDT OK.  You don't like the term "gun show loop hole".  Would you then support closing the private sale loop hole. 
LikeShare2 TeddieK 9/2/2015 6:18 PM PDT @lerobinsontff - The problem with trying to regulate private sales is that there is no database of who owns what. 

The first comment was in reference to the fact that only dealers are required to 'vet' purchasers.  Which means that a criminal can be prevented from buying a gun from a dealer ... but not from a private individual.

Some states are working to close that "gun show loophole" by requiring private sales to also
'vet' purchasers, not necessarily by directly using access to the NCIS but by going through a dealer for this process.

The good thing about this is singular: every private transaction is (by design) subject to confirmation by NCIS.   Which keeps criminals and crazy people from buying guns on the private market ...which is also called the "Secondary Market".

The bad thing about this is the multiple consequences of the process:

1. it imposes the government into the process of a private transaction
2. it is not possible  to track transactions without definitively identifying the gun, which means that the serial number must be included in the paper trail ... which is tantamount to Registration.   Gun owners don't like Registration, because it's nobody's business but our own.  Well, that and also that it is the precursor to confiscation and other Bad Things.
3. If you need to get the Government involved, it's going to cost you money.  Well, SOMEONE has to run the NCIS process, and around here in Geekistan it's going to cost you around $50 for a dealer to run the paperwork.  This is ipso facto a tax on the transfer of firearms.  Gun owners don't like taxes, either .... especially when the sole purpose of the 'fee' is to support a regulatory process which we don't like anyway.
4. Trust and Honor.   My government doesn't trust my honor?  Okay, that's a wash;  I don't trust my government either, because they keep chipping away at the Bill of Rights.
5. WILL NOT COMPLY!  It's an extension of (4) .... If I think that the government is going to collect data based on these background checks, and if I'm a Cranky Old Poop (which I'm not, but I do know a few good, honest folks who are), I'm not going to abide by this unconstitutional law.  Which would make a criminal out of an honest person.  I'm not very smart, but this doesn't look like the thing that a Government that wants me to trust them would do.  It certainly doesn't engender a warm, fuzzy image of my Government in my heart.
6. Finally, and the most important thing is ... why does your want to oversee Secondary Market Sales?   Because they want to keep crazies and criminals from buying guns?   Does anybody think that Crazies and Criminals are so STUPID that they would buck the system?  First, Crazies aren't prevented because there is no database which identifies them (Patient Privacy Laws).  Criminals just steal the guns .. why should they pay Street Price for a gun they can get for free?  Hell, they're already criminals!

So, back to the original comments:

GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE:  Alternative is ipso facto registration of guns by serial number, because it cannot be regulated without that. have a problem with that.  Registration is the first step toward confiscation, and I don't believe the folks who say "we don't want to take your guns", because as soon as they day that ... you know that's exactly what they want.  They think they're being honest, but they're lying; they just want you to own guns that they think are 'acceptable'.  In the long run, no guns are acceptable to those who want to regulate them.

They're not worried about 'you', just the 'bad guys'.  But to them, every gun owner is a 'bad guy'.  To wit: the terminology of their description of gun owners is demeaning and dismissive.  "GUN NUT" is the least offensive of the bunch.

DATABASE OF WHO OWNS GUNS: oh yeah, we're going to register every gun in the country?  I don't think so. [eye-roll]   Because Confiscation.   Do we REALLY want the government to have a list of every gun in America?  Some people (such as the folks in the original thesis) think that would be a good idea.

That could have egregious consequences for The Little Guys in America.  Not today, maybe.  But ... until Tyranny.  Which some folks think is looming over us today. 

 (Not me, of course: I'm apolitical!)

PS: You may think I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.  I visualize a society that protects my constitutional rights under the second, fourth, ninth AND fourteenth amendments.

Honest, Officer, I thought that hooker was my grand-daughter!

Prosecutor Gives 87-Year-Old Man a Pass: (NEWSER) –
(September 02, 2015) in Michigan ... Cops have a Heart

An 87 year old Michigan man was busted for soliciting prostitution last June.

The cops let him go, on the grounds that he had ".. lived 87 years without so much as a blot on his criminal record."

Frankly, if a man at 87 years is out trolling for  *(ahem)* feminine companionship, I think they ought to give him a standing ovation.

Oh.

Maybe that's what he was looking for from the hooker.

Not that anybody wants to take your guns away, but ....

Why the US Leads the World in Mass Shootings:
(August 24, 2015)

Lankford says that the main lesson from the study is an obvious one: Mass shootings can be reduced if the number of guns in circulation is reduced, as happened after a spate of shootings in Australia. "I didn't come into this study with any gun control agenda—I just let the data speak for itself," Lankford tells Deutsche Welle. "Whether people are willing to act on it is another question."

Any suggestions, Mr. Lankford, about how this reduction might be accomplished?

Houston, We Have A Problem

12 ways to spot a potentially violent person in the workplace - Houston Chronicle:

How many times have you read about a workplace shooting, and the employees said something like, “I’m not surprised he did this,” or, “He always gave me the creeps, but I never thought he’d actually kill anybody”?
Experts on workplace violence offer a psychological profile of the typical perpetrator, and it’s worth the while of businesses to know the signs.

I'm not too sure how expert the experts are, but several of their 12-points seem to make sense.  In a creepy sort of way.

Essentially, if the person is a creepy loner who's always mad and seems power hungry ...

... he may be a "potentially violent person".

Or he may just be you, on a bad day.

For what it's worth, I found it somewhere between amusing and interesting.

(Note:  Not NEARLY as interesting as the "You Just Might Be A Redneck" thingie.)

ATF: Don't Ask!

Wondering if Something is ATF-Legal? Don't Ask. - AllOutdoor.com

.... He asked if shouldering a rifle-caliber pistol with a SIG forearm brace was indeed illegal, and was told in no uncertain terms that yes, it is. Heck, they even showed him the ruling. Shouldering a pistol with a forearm brace magically classifies it as a short-barreled-rifle (SBR), which is taboo and requires certain tapdance numbers and bribery of the government (a.k.a. “tax stamp”) in order to be legal. The nameless agents, who spoke with him on the condition of anonymity, added that the reason this ruling was made is that too many of us asked too many questions.

 (RTWT)

"Too many of us asked too many questions?"
  I'm ... without words!

WIN-7 & WIN-8 due for intrusive updates

Windows 10 Worst Feature Installed On Windows 7 And Windows 8 - Forbes:

 Laughing at Microsoft MSFT 0.00%’s controversial data mining and privacy invasions within Windows 10? Well Windows 7 and Windows 8 users should laugh no longer as this most hated spying is now headed your way… Software specialist site gHacks has discovered that Microsoft has pushed four new updates to both Windows 7 and Windows 8 which introduce new data collecting and user behaviour tracking features.

Damn!  I had settled into the smug satisfaction that I won't be installing Win-10 in the near future.  Now, what difference does it make?

I hate new operating systems; they're only installed when the old ones finally get all the bugs out of them.  Now they're adding new bugs!