CDC and WHO: They're At It Again

Should Gun Violence Be Considered a Public Health Issue? 
[newsy.com]

Gun violence kills and injures tens of thousands of people every year, and some doctors and health professionals say that's enough to consider it a public health issue. There's just one small hurdle: politics.

Actually, the "problem" described here is not politics.   The problem is "The Inconvenient Second Amendment".

Uber Liberal Alan Derschowitz recently wrote about the Second Amendment, saying that if he was rewriting the Constitution, he would omit the second Amendment:

“If I could write the Bill of Rights over again, I would skip amendment number two. We’re the only country in the world that puts in our Constitution the right to bear arms. It’s an absurd thing to be in our Constitution, but it’s in our Constitution,” said Dershowitz. “We have to live with it.”
Invoking the text of the Second Amendment, Dershowitz suggested that guns should be more heavily restricted.
“Guns have to be well regulated and they are not well regulated in this country. We’re going to have these kinds of massacres over and over and over again until we change the gun culture and the National Rifle Association is part of the problem, not part of the solution,” he said.

THAT  is the real "problem" with the Second Amendment; too many Americans are willing to throw one of our Constitutional Rights "under the bus" because it's inconvenient.   Derschowitz is entirely too eager to throw out the baby with the bath-water.   His "solution" is to penalize the law abiding.

(Curiously, Derschowitz once wrote an article about "The Inconvenient Second Amendment", which is no long available on the Internet. IIRC, his point then was that the Second Amendment was in the Constitution and carried the weight of law.  Apparently, he found this opinion piece ... inconvenient.   However, his point ... that if we start trashing the Second Amendment, that opens the door to amendment or trashing of other Constitutional Rights, which he likes 'better' ... is well taken..  Well, thank you for that much, sir.   Even if you don't like it; even if you disagree with it; you recognize the danger of trying to rewrite the Constitution.)

Cully Stimson wrote about this in 2016 in reference to the shadow "no-fly list":

But so many liberals would like to write the inconvenient Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights, that they see no problem with treating it as simply a privilege that the government can take away at will.

Let us be clear about this:   the Second Amendment protects the right of any sane, law-abiding mature citizen of the United States to keep and bear arms ... including firearms.  It is not a right which is PROTECTED by the Constitution; it is a right which is RECOGNIZED in the Constitution.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization already consider violence a public health threat, whether it involves a firearm or another tool. Some physicians argue approaching gun violence as a public health issue might help curb the number of gun-related deaths and injuries in the United States each year.

Their logic if flawed.  Violence is not contagious, except that societal aberrations in our culture allow people to violate the laws which protect the innocent.

Why should we accept laws which penalize the law-abiding?  We already have laws forbidding firearms possession by criminals; these laws aren't achieving the desired result.    The argument is not that we should obviate the laws because they are ineffective; we have laws against speeding, too, but people still break these laws ... and the violators pay the price when they're caught.

We cannot make a law which will prevent criminals, terrorists, madmen from acquiring weapons; the only laws we can create are whose which will restrict "The Good Guys".

Violence ... including violence with a firearm ... is not a legal problem; it's a societal problem

US aircraft carrier & bomber ‘under attack’ in doctored N. Korea footage (VIDEO)

US aircraft carrier & bomber ‘under attack’ in doctored N. Korea footage (VIDEO) — RT News:
(click link to see videos)

North Korea’s state media has released a doctored video worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster, in which a North Korean missile "destroys" US B-1B and F-35 jets, while a submarine targets America’s state-of-the-art carrier USS Carl Vinson. The video, released by DPRK Today, also features US President Donald Trump, seen speaking at the celebration of the US Air Force’s 70th Anniversary at Joint Base Andrews, portrayed as “a mad man,” South Korean news agency Yonhap reported. Also in the footage, a North Korean submarine-launched missile strikes the USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, with the caption reportedly saying: “Should F-35, B-1B and the Carl Vinson lead the US attack, they will head to the grave in that order.”

Sixty rounds in your Glock?

9mm Extreme Extension Glock – Taccom3g:

(a) TACCOM 9mm Extension for the 33 round 9mm Glock magazine.

The manufacturer claims:

We’ve come up with an extension and spring that will feed your PCC efficiently. Made from 6061 aluminum, it will take the abuse of competition and keep on running. The internals of the extension are smooth to allow for both the follower and the rounds to flow effortlessly thru for thousands of cycles. Easy to assemble too!! 

Manufacturer also offers some supplementary advice:

Note: Keep in mind that the end user must chamfer the inside of their magazine as well as their follower so that you get a smooth transition when the follower re-enters the magazine.

An idea whose time has not come?

The curmudgeon in me refers back to Viet Nam where we couldn't get the 30-round "banana" magazines for M16's (apparently those of us 'in the field' had second or third call on equipment, including magazines, boots and replacement arms ... right after the Officers and the REMFs stole the good stuff) and in fact we used the straight 20-round magazines but downloaded them to 18 rounds, because the springs lost their resiliency when kept fully loaded for days at a time.

So I'm historically dubious about claims exceeding my experiences. These magazines are obviously not intended for the kind of abuse and poor maintenance suffered during a combat tour.

My experience competing in IPSC matches / "Open Division" was that the 25-round magazines had to be treated with kid gloves.  We removed the springs (or at least the end caps) from the magazines so the springs were not under any tension between usages ... which is to say, right up to Match Day.    That kept their 'strength' up so there were more or less reliable, but we still tended to down-load the magazines by a round or two.

But that was way-back-then, and the manufacturers claim here that:

We’ve come up with an extension and spring that will feed your PCC efficiently. 

By that I presume that advances in metallurgy have resulted in springs which WILL perform reliably under the most grueling of conditions.

Actually, I doubt that.

On the other hand, I recall a couple of very smart fellows who once said: "640 kilobytes of memory should be enough for anyone", so I suppose it's possible that I've misjudged modern technology.

The Bag Trick

The Bag Trick…How to easily conceal a weapon in public | Active Response Training:

Not for everyday carry, but this  ad hoc technique allows ready access to a defensive weapon in "unusual circumstances".

Originally posted on May 27, 2014 by Greg Ellifritz in Articles, News and Tactical Advice

Trump Angst

During the Election Season last year, I admitted online that I was conflicted about my presidential vote.  Should I give my vote to "The Donald", who knows how to make money but is relatively clueless about how to be a president?

Or should I give my vote to "The Hillary Beast", who knows how to run a country but would run it in a direction I could not accept?

Ultimately, I voted for "Not Hillary".   And now I ... and the rest of America who faced the same difficult choice ... are paying the price.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump's frightening and tightening legal noose | Fox News:

The Donald Trump I know is a smart guy who often thinks a few steps ahead of those whose will he is trying to bend. But I lately wonder whether he grasps the gravity of the legal peril that is beginning to show up around him. In the past week, we learned of an unfiltered public confession of frustration and weakness among his lawyers and we learned that his former chief confidant and campaign manager is about to be indicted. This is very bad news for President Trump.

I'm disappointed in President Trump, and I'm angry when people criticize him for his (so far) poor performance as a president.   I agree, though, that this is one of the most inept presidents we've been saddled with since ... oh, I don't know ... the Peanut Farmer?
(Jimmy Carter)

Considering the alternative, though, I continue to believe that Trumps failures to live up to his promises is the less painful outcome, compared with a potential Hillary-beast presidency.

Trump fails to live up to his promise; if Hillary had lived up to HER promise, it would be an even more grim America.

There's an old mantra about the balance between competence vs intelligence, and the mantrix I found was in reference to military officers. Generally, it looks like this:

 In self-help books I have repeatedly seen a two-by-two matrix used to evaluate individuals. The four elements in the matrix were labeled: Brilliant & Lazy, Brilliant & Energetic, Dumb & Lazy, and Dumb & Energetic. Curiously, the brilliant and lazy were extolled above all others.

Politically speaking, you can substitute "Industrious" with "Ambitious", and "Stupid" with

Generally speaking:

Any officer who is clever and industrious is destined to positions of great responsibility, while an officer who is clever but lazy will do no great harm because he won't seek a position of responsibility.

An officer who is stupid but lazy will not have the desire (or energy) to do harm.  (In the political field, they will not run for high public office ... nor be elected; usually.)

But an officer who is stupid but Industrious will have the will to make changes, but lack the wit to avoid endangering his men.

Trump, I believe, falls under the "Smart and Industrious".   He chose to make money, and used his fiscal position to achieve positions of great power.

Hillary falls under "Stupid and Industrious".  

She chose to make her mark in the political scene, which gave her a similar position of great power. But as much as people tend to consider her 'smart' ... she took the easy route to power; she chose to seek popularity rather than industriousness.

She did not create wealth; it was donated to her.

Hillary did not create wealth for herself or others (except for the wealth she acquired which came from political contributions)

Politics is a Funny Game:

You can win it in one of two ways:
1: you can win it with Money, which Trump did;
2: or you can win it with the cult of your personality, which Hillary almost did.

But the difference is ... the Thinking Voters have to TRUST the candidate.

Nobody trusted Hillary.

Nobody trusted Trump, either,  but Hillary's history of lies and deceits worked against her so strongly that she could not escape her own past actions.

Ultimately, Donald Trump is President of the United States not because he was trusted, but because he was Not Hillary!

Personally, I would have voted for The Man In The Moon before I voted for Hillary, because she had no political or moral compass, and her past actions proved that she was not the right person to lead our country in the coming years.

Does Trump have the moral values to deserve this high office?  I don't know.

But I do know who does NOT have sufficient moral values to represent my birth nation; and she lost.

"Apply background checks for gun purchases to voting"

John Lott's Website: In the Chicago Tribune: "Apply background checks for gun purchases to voting":

Dr. John Lott has another op-ed in the Chicago Tribune based on part of the testimony that he will be giving on Tuesday morning to President's Commission on Voter Integrity in New Hampshire.  

Essentially: since Liberals believe personal background checks do not infringe on the civil rights of citizens who wish to purchase a firearms ... why not use the same mechanism to validate the civil rights of citizens who wish to vote?

Interesting concept, worth reading a short article.

Just ... go read the whole thing.

The Death of "Everyman"

Character actor Harry Dean Stanton dies at age 91: LOS ANGELES (AP) —

"Dead ... of Natural Causes".

An odd soliloquy for an actor who portrayed so many "un-natural" men for so many years.

 Never mistaken for a leading man, Stanton was an unforgettable presence to moviegoers, fellow actors and directors, who recognized that his quirky characterizations could lift even the most ordinary script. Roger Ebert once observed that no movie with Stanton in a supporting role "can be altogether bad."

Harry Dean Stanton, a man who refused the usual one- or two-name labels, was one of the most versatile and appealing character actors in Hollywood history.  He never turned in a bad performance.

Correction: he was almost always "bad", but in a 'good' way.

I don't know about you, but I refuse to believe that HDS died of "Natural Causes".

He never played a "natural" role in his life.  Every part he played, every scene he played, he stole from the lead actors.   He was so "natural" in his career, he added verisimilitude to the most bizarre scenes.

He was so eerie, he made you believe the most unlikely scripts; any movie which "co-starred" HDS had a certain something special that you knew you just had to watch it, just to see how he would transform the most mundane character to the one you had to pay attention.

Scenes, entire scripts, were transformed from the mundane to the sublime.  If the director hired Harry, we knew there was something "special" about the movie.  And we were never disappointed.

He was weird, he was bizarre ... his character never was a "minor part" no matter what the script and the casting said.

For those of us who consider ourselves 'average', he elevated the role of the 'average man' to our entire satisfaction.  He developed the role of "every man" beyond the vision of writers, directors, and co-workers.

"I worked with the best directors," Stanton told the AP in a 2013 interview, given while chain-smoking in pajamas and a robe. "Martin Scorsese, John Huston, David Lynch, Alfred Hitchcock. Alfred Hitchcock was great."
He said he could have been a director himself but "it was too much work."

That's the image I'll always hold of Harry Dean Stanton.

He was a natural.  The rest of us don't know how that feels, except when we watched him work.

Arrogance Repaid

SOUR GRAPES: Hillary Clinton Trashes Trump as a 'Deplorable' 'Reality TV Star': “

Well, I thought Trump was behaving in a deplorable manner. I thought a lot of his appeals to voters were deplorable. I thought his behavior as we saw on the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape was deplorable,” Clinton told CBS’s “Sunday Morning.” “And there were a large number of people who didn’t care. It did not matter to them. And he turned out to be a very effective reality TV star,” she added. Clinton referred to her previous statements trashing Trump and his supporters on the 2016 campaign trail, doubling down on her claims that Trump voters are a “basket of deplorables” who are “irredeemable.”

During the latest Presidential campaign, I blogged that I was truly torn about which candidate to vote against;   I was not impressed by either Trump or Clinton.

The bottom line for me was their contrasting views on the Second Amendment;  Trump vowed to honor the Constitution, while Clinton considered the Supreme Court's support of the RKBA to be "wrong".

What is it about Liberal Democrats, who are their own worst enemies?

The arrogance of Clinton was enough to make a lot of people choose Trump, who might never have been elected had he been opposed by any other American than Hillary Clinton.

(Well ... or Bill Clinton, who can't keep his zipper up.   Or Al Gore, an idiot who couldn't even carry his own home state.  Or George Clooney, who can at least look pretty in front of the camera.  Or Barbra Streisand, who at least can sing.   Or ... never mind.)

The Best Decision Hillary Ever Made

Hillary Says She’ll Never Run for Office Again  - Breitbart:

 Sunday on “CBS This Morning,” former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she would never run for office again. Clinton said, “I am done with being a candidate but I am not done with politics because I literally believe that our country’s future is at stake”

Hallelujah!    Our country's future is brighter for that decision.

(Is it too much to ask her to move to Tanzania?)

Grandparents Day

Every day can be Grandparents Day. The official commemorative day is the Sunday after Labor Day. If you’re celebrating Grandparents Day throughout the year, these resources can help with ideas on how to Do Something Grand.

I expect my children and my grandchildren to hold this day in special reverence.


Hah!

Ann Coulter on "Amnesty"

We were told that these were simple, hard-working people who just wanted their chance to earn an honest living.

As it turns out  ...

We Made Donald Trump PRESIDENT -- What Else Can We Do? | Frontpage Mag:

How many different ways can Americans say they want illegal immigration dealt with seriously?

 It's as if, night after night, Paul Ryan knocked on our door and asked us to take in one helpless orphan and, night after night, we crack open our door, only to be set upon by 30 armed felons with tire chains and brass knuckles.

Ann Coulter NAILED IT!

Congress has passed laws requiring that immigrants pay back taxes, learn English, not collect welfare and have good moral character. That's not too onerous, right? It's not like we're requiring them to have any skills or talents that would be valuable to America. 
Every single one of these requirements has been scuttled by immigration bureaucrats, federal judges and Democratic presidents. All of 'em. Our immigration bureaucracy is so dedicated to destroying America that it's made citizens of thousands of convicted felons. 

What we Expected ==>       <=== What we got

 At a certain point, Ryan might actually produce a sad orphan. Who knows? It’s theoretically possible. But we could not be faulted for not opening the door.

No one injured when S. Carolina deputy shoots at man 5 times

No one injured when S. Carolina deputy shoots at man 5 times | WCBD News 2: BLUFFTON, S.C. (AP)

The sheriff of a South Carolina county is defending the deputy who shot at a man five times after authorities say the man pointed a pistol at the law enforcement officer. No one was injured. 

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a problem when a L.E.O. shoots at someone who is pointing a gun at him ... and misses?

 Beaufort County Sheriff P.J. Tanner tells The Island Packet the initial investigation shows the deputy did nothing wrong during the shooting early Saturday at the Vista View Apartments in Bluffton. 

Well ... the deputy missed his target.   Considering that he was engaging in return fire directed at someone who was shooting at him, there are people who would consider "failure to successfully elimate an active threat" to be the "wrong" response.

( So much for the "The Only Ones Qualified" argument. )

 Tanner says the deputy was not put on leave and remains active. 

That doesn't speak well for a Department which apparently considers "the deputy who can't shoot straight" to be a valuable member of the department.  The article does not suggest that the deputy was required to receive remedial training in firearms accuracy.

A news release says the unnamed deputy investigated when he saw two men sitting in a vehicle in a parking lot. The release says one man fled, and the deputy chased him and found the man lying on the ground, pointing his pistol. The 18-year-old faces several charges, including fleeing to evade arrest.

Assuming that "... (t)he 18-year-old ... " refers to the felon who was arrested for 'pointing his pistol' (presumably at the officer), it seems reasonable that "fleeing to evade arrest" would be the least of the charges; how about "attempted murder of a police officer"?

The duty of a sworn police officer is to uphold the law and go home to his family at the end of his shift.   The Liberal Media may applaud the officer for his humanity in sparing the felon the violent end which he had earned, but the officer failed in his duty; anyone who points a gun at a police officer will shoot a police officer; if not this one, then the next.

And to shoot at a man with a gun five times, and to miss, is to allow that felon to learn to be more heartless the next time he has an officer in his sights.

Who says no one was injured by an officer who failed in his duty?
Ask the next cop who meets that felon over a gunsite.

Barber Blues

I went to the barber today ... I had tried to get in on Wednesday but he was so busy I got tired of waiting and left.  Besides, I had left my reading glasses at home and the American Rifleman magazine issue on his coffee table was printed in a smaller font than usual and I couldn't read it.

It was a much shorter wait today, and I enjoyed the magazine more with my glasses on.

When it was my turn, I hopped into the chair and started chatting with Takaa, my Chinese barber.   Glancing down at the dropcloth I saw a lock falling into my lap.  I blurted out:  "Where the hell did that grey hair come from!?"

Takaa looked down at the lock in my lap, shrugged, and said "It's okay, I'm only cutting grey hairs today" and went back to his clipping.

When I got out of the chair I tipped the barber an extra five bucks for getting rid of the grey hairs.

I swear, when I shaved this morning, I only saw brown hair in the mirror.   I guess I should have stuck around longer on Wednesday; I'm pretty sure I didn't have any gray locks than.

Darwinian Solution

Ouch: Gun goes off, man shoots self in groin on Madison-bound bus, police say | Crime | host.madison.com:

A 21-year-old Chicago man shot himself in the groin early Wednesday morning, while on a commuter bus .... The unidentified victim apparently had a loaded handgun in the waistband of his pants, and the gun fired, sending a bullet through his penis and one testicle, said police spokesman Howard Payne.

Pretty sure his children won't follow in his footsteps.

And yeah, "the gun fired".  Is this what they mean when they talk about "Smart Guns"?

Tomorrow ...

I had it in mind to post "The Day Of The Triffids" on Tuesday, but today I think I'll post this:

                                                             Tomorrow

Grasping At Straws: Baltimore Gerrymanders Gun Rights.

Baltimore gives initial nod to proposed mandatory minimums for illegal guns:

The measure originally aimed to criminalize the carry or transport of a handgun, either openly or concealed, within 100 yards of a public building, park, church, school, or “other place of public assembly” with a mandatory penalty of one-year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

A flawed bill, for two reasons:

First, assuming the phrase "other place of public assembly" is not explicitly defined in the actual bill, that could mean a movie theater ... or almost any place where the public assembles.   Example: A Shopping Mall.

Second, assuming the phrase "transport of a handgun" means having a handgun in your car as you drive through town, it's almost impossible to chart a "safe" route through town on your way to or from (for example) a Shooting Range.

To illustrate the complexity of this problem, you should avail yourself of a map of a city, municipality, etc. and identify and mark the locations of every " public building, park, church, school, or “other place of public assembly”.

I couldn't do that with 100% confidence in my home town, or even a small town.
Hell, I live within 100 yards of both a church and a park.   I couldn't even leave my driveway without violating such a law.

It is idiosyncratic of politicians (not just Liberals, but all of them) to resolve every problem by throwing a law at it.  Plan "B" is to throw money at it.   That's their entire toolbox.   It is reasonable to expect no more effective plans from a group of people who are elected by popular votes.

I would give Baltimore politicians credit for at least trying to resolve their high-mortality rate of Gangsters with Guns, but passing new laws like this one only serves to criminalize law-abiding citizens.

The gun delusion

The Concord Monitor has offers an interesting opinion piece from Debra Marshall, who cautions us that:

"I’m not safe, and you’re not safe, if either of us is armed; and you’re deluding yourself if you think you’re well-trained in firearms."

Debra Marshall: The gun delusion:

A weapon [emphasis added] has just one purpose – to kill another human being. We all need to assume, very seriously, that anyone who possesses a weapon has every intention of pointing it at another human and attempting to kill them. Not maybe, not only if they have to – but absolutely. And that any person who carries their weapon around with them intends to do so at any moment, without warning. We would be fools to think otherwise, and fools to think that we won’t be their target.

AND ...

Specialized training doesn’t consist of taking pot-shots at a human-outline target in an indoor target shooting range. I don’t care what the range instructor told you – he lied. If you aren’t a member of a police force, military unit or related government agency with specialized weapons training, you have NOT received the training you need to be armed with a weapon and for me to be safe anywhere near you.

I agree with some of her arguments ... and disagree with others .... in whole or in part.

Which isn't really important.  It's still a fascinating screed, written by someone with experience and judgement.   That she evinces an inordinate amount of faith in the skills and training of Law Enforcement personnel only demonstrates that she believes a regular regimen of training is better than none at all.

Some people really SHOULD NOT be trusted with guns.

Most of them already know that.

But some of those who do not know that, are employed by municipal police departments.

Dems Deny Concealed Carry By Charging Preposterous Permit Prices

John Lott details the obstructions anti-gun states use to deny Concealed Carry by "Undesirables".

How Democrats keep guns in the hands of the rich - Chicago Tribune: A new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the average fee for a concealed handgun permit is $67, but it is much higher in the most Democratic states. Each 10-percentage-point increase in a state's presidential vote for Hillary Clinton was associated with an additional $30 in the concealed handgun permit fee. In California, where Clinton won by about 30 points, fees can be as high as $385 for just two years. In New York City, where she won by 60 points, a three-year permit costs $430.

 In addition to prohibitive fees, some blue states — California, Illinois — require four times as many training hours as the national average, adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of obtaining a concealed-carry license. In California counties, the mandated cost of training can run from $250 to more than $1,000. Compare heavily Democratic Illinois, where the cost of permit and training runs over $450, with neighboring Republican Indiana where the total cost for everything is $50.

I'm on the side of encouraging firearms training ... I teach it at my local gun club.   But there is no 'certification' awarded in my class;  it only serves to familiarize students in safe gun handling, with an emphasis on competition. So I can attest that It Ain't Rocket Science; what you PAY for is the certificate, which some states/localities require before a Concealed Carry License will be issued.

The states which mandate "certification" aren't using this requirement to "ensure proficiency"; they're using it as a club to beat the shit out of anyone who has the gall to demand that their Constitutional Rights will be honored.   Then after the expensive training, they add on this absurd fee for the permit itself.

Dr. Lott is, as always, absolutely correct.   This is all a great scheme on the part of the so-called "Liberals" (who are anything but liberal) to obstruct the American Citizen's access to firearms as noted in the Constitution.

This is why we can't have any fun any more.    The Democrats are, literally, doing everything they can to discourage law-abiding private citizens from exercising their rights.   Why are they doing that?

There are two reasons why Democrats are against the Second Amendment.

The first reason is that they are, as a class, a bunch of narrow-minded fuss-budgets who pretend to believe the Government can solve all your problems for you ... and if you aren't the government, you're not competent to run your own life.

The second reason why Democrats are against the Second Amendment is that Conservatives (not all of them Republicans) are FOR it.   Anything Republicans like, Democrats instinctively denounce.

Yes, many Democrats are nice people; many of my best friends are  ... uh ... no, not really.   A couple, at best.   But I'm sure there are a lot of nice Democrats out there, that I just haven't met yet.

Having said all that, the Democrats in "Blue State" of Oregon are among the "Nice Democrats".    For example, the cost for a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) is in the $50 - $65 range.    You can actually take an online course for about that same amount, and apparently their certification of completion is acceptable in Oregon.   (Also, it seems that most County Sheriff offices will accept USPSA membership as certification of handgun competence.  Go figure.)

(The same website offers a neat summary of Oregon Gun Laws)

In Chicago; Just Because you're Paranoiac ...

... that doesn't mean that nobody's out to "get you".


Inside the gun violence epidemic on Chicago's South Side - CBS News:

 "We felons. You know what I'm saying? Ain't nobody gonna give us no jobs. The cops don't give a f*** about us." But when asked if innocent people dying by those bullets is worth it, they both said, "No."

Lances at Dawn

The Brits can't own guns any more.  Or knives, or spears, or lances, or ...

Wait a minute!  Lances?  They can do LANCES!


Extreme jousting: Knights in armor clash on horseback in VR:

It’s knight time: go lance-to-lance on horseback in a modern jousting match. 

USA TODAY NETWORK



Damn this looks like fun!  Can we do this 'here'?

NEVER denigrate the ability of Englishmen to Find A Way to practice Extreme Sports.

Is a Lance designated as an Assault Weapon?

This is the COOLEST THING EVER!

*It makes IPSC look like a Child's Game*