Monday, December 5, 2016

A Quick Run Around the Web -- December 5, 2016

"Modified Mora Pathfinder - My New Survival Knife"--Survival Lilly.  And you can watch how her friend modified the knife for her right here.


Firearms/Prepping:
  • First things first--if you haven't gone there yet, Greg Ellifritz had a new Weekend Knowledge Dump up on December 2, 2016. A few articles that caught my attention specifically was an article on how aging affects your eyes and shooting, including some suggestions as to your glasses or contacts that will help; an article on why ultra-compact .380 pistols may be a bad choice for an inexperienced shooter; and a useful infographic on lockpicking (a nice follow up to my links to some lockpicking resources last week).
  • "WRONG GUN: Why The Most Popular Gun For Law Enforcement Is A Mistake"--Bearing Arms. I don't remember why I re-read this May 2015 article by Bob Owens. However, in it, he discusses why, in his opinion, the Glock is a horrible handgun for law enforcement officers and why they should pick a weapon with a long trigger pull, such as some of the DA/SA handguns. He writes:
Mechanically, Glocks and similar pistols are incredibly solid and reliable designs. What they aren’t is forgiving.

Utterly predictable and normal human physiological responses (startle response, symmetric sympathetic response, etc) and psychological mistakes (forgetting the check the chamber on a design that requires the trigger to be pulled for disassembly) have repeatedly lead to hundreds, if not thousands of negligent discharges. Many of those have been fatal.

Agencies that switch from other pistol designs to Glocks (and to a lesser extent, other short trigger pull, no external safety guns) typically see their number of negligent discharges soar. Agencies that switch away from Glocks to more forgiving designs typically see their negligent discharges decrease.
The problem, as Owens sees it, is that no matter the amount of training, 20% of officers will rest their fingers on the trigger of the firearm.  
I addressed Owen's argument last year, as well as noting some articles from others responding to his argument. One point to make, however, is that in reviewing NYPD reports for 2011, 2012, and 2013, the percentage of accidental/negligent discharges with Glocks were not grossly disproportionate to other firearms; and some of the firearms recommended by Owen were nearly as high or higher than the Glock.
  • "Is .22 Rimfire Ammo Suddenly Plentiful For Everyone?"--The Truth About Guns. The author relates some anecdotes that suggest that .22 is suddenly more plentiful. He also notes a couple good deals on AR magazines.
  • Some more options for women seeking to conceal carry at Dene Adams, including a corset type garment with pockets for carrying firearms or ammo. (H/t The Firearms Blog). Just looking at how high the pocket is for the handgun--it appears to be at the rib line--I would think that it would be very difficult or awkward to draw. Bloke on the Range produced a video on "Why did the British and other Euro Armies typically wear holsters on the left?" which discusses that very problem back when men wore their belts around their waists instead of their hips.
  • "What Would a Long Range Sharpshooter Infantry Paradigm Look Like? Part 3: Organization and Tactics"--The Firearms Blog. The third part of Nathaniel F.'s series on a long range sharpshooter infantry. In this post, he notes that because of the weight of the weapon, many of the members of a platoon would need a lighter weapon, taking you back to lightweight carbines or personal defense weapons (PDWs). Hopefully, Nathaniel will address historical examples of a "sharpshooter" infantry, such as the British army prior to WWI (their professional "sharpshooter" army, which did pretty well in irregular colonial warfare, was pretty much devastated within the first few months of the beginning of WWI). 
  • "Knife Construction Preferences"--Defensive Training Group. A nice discussion of full-tang, skeletonized tang, partial tang, narrowing tang, and stick tang, and the advantages or disadvantages to each.
  • "Gun Control: Hawglegs and Hawgwash"--Fred On Everything. He takes his wry (or caustic, if you prefer) common sense and turns it on the issue of gun control. After noting that gun control generally equals more crime, he observes:
         If guns were made illegal in the US, not a single villain would turn his gun in. The bumper sticker, “When guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns,” is exactly right.Guns, usually small and easily smuggled, are immensely valuable to criminals. Why would they turn them in? Criminals do not obey laws. It’s how you know  they are criminals.
           Curiously, the fewer guns in the hands of the law-abiding, the more valuable they are to criminals. When citizens may be armed, crawling in a window at night becomes much less attractive. And of course gun control would mean disarming white people, who tend to obey laws. Having witnessed Baltimore, Ferguson, and Charlotte, many whites are not enthusiastic about being left helpless.
             One must never say this.
               Gun-controllers, unless they are greater fools than seems humanly possible–they may well be–know  that criminals are not going to turn their guns in, and there is no way to confiscate them. They also know, unless actually mad, that criminals are overwhelmingly black. Do the controllers propose to send the army through black regions of Chicago, searching houses room by room to find hidden guns? Hardly. 
          • "More guns, more risk for people of color"--Boston Globe. The basic thrust of the article is if black people have more guns, they are more likely to be shot by police. The author's evidence? Just a handful of anecdotes from all over the country and several years. And we all know what they say about anecdotal "evidence". But here is the interesting part of the article: the author cites a 2014 Pew poll for the proposition that "54 percent of blacks saw gun ownership as more likely to protect people than put them at risk; two years earlier, it was just 29 percent."

          Other Stuff:
                 “There must be no distinction between ‘believers’ and ‘unbelievers’’” insists Samuel Schirmbeck in his “Crusade of Islam.”
                   As a correspondent in North Africa, Samuel Schirmbeck became familiar with a creeping Islamization, and warns of the “Crusade of Islam.” He calls for the courage to criticize Islam openly, and blames leftists for the spread of radical Islam in Western Europe.
                     “People who are critical of Islam are not Islamophobic. They are just violence-phobic, intolerance-phobic homophobe-phobic. They reject in Islam what we also [once] had: misogyny, intolerance in the name of a philosophy. We have separated ourselves from that with great effort, and now people do not want it to re-enter our land under the cover of religion.”
                       Samuel Schirmbeck experienced creeping radicalization in North Africa. When he arrived in Algiers as an ARD[1] correspondent in 1990, the beaches were full of women in bathing suits, and the land was full of hopes for democracy. Islamists put an end to that. They threatened alleged “unbelievers” with death. Samuel Schirmbeck stayed, and learned to live with the latent fear. It left him, he says, only when he occasionally flew to Frankfurt for a few days for discussions.
                         “And then I realized how valuable that is — a public space where you do not need to fear religious madness, where you can step out of your front door without the fear of someone shooting you in the head because you are an “unbeliever.”
                           According to Dutch media advisors from the anti-discrimination bureau MiND said that, while homophobic abuse was usually a crime, it was justifiable if you were Muslim due to laws on freedom of religious expression. 
                             They argued that the Koran says it is acceptable to kill people for being homosexual, and so death threats towards gay people from Muslims could not be discriminatory. 
                        It is perfectly reasonable once you understand the left's hierarchy of victimhood
                               The area comprised of Mendocino County, Humboldt County, and Trinity County in Northern California is known as “The Emerald Triangle” - three sparsely populated counties that are notorious for marijuana cultivation.
                                 They have become a hotbed for sex trafficking and drug cartels.
                                   Many flock to the area for well-paying jobs by processing marijuana but the farms are remote and cell service is limited and many go missing.
                                     In 2015, Humboldt County reported a disturbing 352 missing people.
                                       Private investigator Bill Garcia, who took part in the search for Sherri Papini, told Inside Edition: “The cartels are working in that area. They have been in that area for some time and that whole surrounding area where young women are kidnapped regularly.”

                                  No comments:

                                  Post a Comment