Thursday, March 22, 2018

March 22, 2018 -- A Quick Run Around the Web

In this case, the victim knew there was something wrong with the perpetrator, and initially tried to avoid the perp, but then turned his back and carried on as before when he was attacked.

It’s the criminal’s job to make sure he has you at a disadvantage before he commits his crime. Many novices assume they will have plenty of time and forewarning. They assume they will be able to draw their weapon, flee, or have time to call the police. The reality is more like the scenario described above. You won’t even know you are in a fight until you are knocked to the ground and stabbed.
He has some suggestions for your training. Also, Greg has been blogging for 6 years--Congratulations!.
Over the last several weeks, I have had many conversations with clients, colleagues and friends who hold a range of opinions on the regulation of firearms in the U.S. It is clear to me that most people believe there are areas of agreement and practical changes we can make to find common ground.
And, like a good little progressive, he will use other people's money, goodwill and capital, including those of his shareholders, to advance his personal beliefs; while placing his employees' jobs at risk. Someone needs to start some shareholder lawsuits.
  • "Federal Power-Shok Copper Throws .300 Blackout into the Mix"--The Firearm Blog. These hunting rounds use copper projectiles for states or ranges that restrict the use of lead. 
  • "The Keys to a Good Hunting Rifle"--Shooting Illustrated. The handling characteristics of rifles depends a bit on the intended use. Nevertheless, whatever the use, the rifle should fit you and come to the shoulder easily. However, most hunting rifles produced today fall down in that regard:
         One would think that after more than a century of building hunting rifles with modern chamberings that every factory rifle would be perfect, but cutting corners, reducing costs, and taking the easy way (as with composite stocks) have actually taken rifles in the other direction.
             Most of my acquaintances look at these statements and mutter, “Well, I shoot factory rifles pretty well.” Maybe, maybe not. Unfortunately, most hunters today, having never handled a rifle that really fits them and was built to be the best possible hunting rifle for them, have no idea what’s good and what isn’t.
              You can’t appreciate the driving qualities of an Aston Martin if you’ve never driven anything but a John Deere tractor. Once you have driven an Aston Martin, anything less will never quite satisfy you.
        His primary complaints are that the grips and fore ends are too thick, and I have to agree. I have a couple European stocked rifles that are heads and shoulders above the chubby Remington stock on another weapon.
        • "British Army Set to Drop Light Machine Guns"--The Firearm Blog. They have essentially decided to go the same route as the U.S. Marine Corps, which is to save weight by abandoning pure suppressive fire from a belt-fed light machine gun, to more accurate fire from an automatic rifle. To a certain extent, this makes sense since soldiers are more heavily weighed down with ancillary equipment than ever before, and the last couple of decades have been filled with fighting insurgents. However, I worry about the impact of doing so if they should end up fighting against a peer where they can't guarantee air superiority. 
        • "Why The Weaver Stance Should Not Be Discredited"--Shooting Times. The author apparently recently published an article that showed a woman using the traditional Weaver stance, and received negative comments about it, to the effect that the only good stance is the Isosceles stance. The author gets a little defensive in his article, but observed that the Weaver stance has served well for a long time, discussed how it was developed from the boxer stance (i.e., fighting stance), and that it was the only comfortable way for this particular woman to shoot because of issues with arthritis and strength. I would add that even Massad Ayoob, one of the greatest proponents of the adoption of the Isosceles stance in the 1980's, noted that the Isosceles stance will naturally transform to a Weaver as you shift to address threats that are coming from the side. So it behooves the shooter to know how to shoot using that stance.
        • Running out of other people's money: "PARIS ERUPTS: Furious scenes on streets of France as THOUSANDS rally against Macron"--Express. So why are students, public workers, and railway workers rioting? 
                 Public sector workers are angry with plans to cut public sector headcount by 120,000 by 2022, including with voluntary redundancies, and introduce other reforms including merit-based pay.
                   Railway workers are worried by government plans to scrap job-for-life guarantees, automatic annual pay rises and generous early retirement.
              And the students? The article doesn't say, but don't they protest over nearly anything?
                        “We want Africa back. Africa belongs to our people.
                           “We are saying that which our people were killed for ... has not been achieved, and therefore we will continue with that struggle. When we say so, they say we are racist, they say we want to kill white people. Why would we kill white people?
                             “Our mothers and fathers are not murderers. The white settlers found them here, they killed them, they forcefully removed them, yet our people kept on saying: ‘Let’s talk.’
                              “Today we say: ‘Let’s talk like our parents kept on saying to you. Let’s talk about how we are going to expropriate land without compensation.’ Then when we say so, they say we want to kill them.”
                        Malema doesn't look like he is San, but appears to be a Bantu. In other words, his people likewise weren't native to most areas of South Africa, and were waging wars well into the 19th Century to take land from the San. 
                        • "How We Reverse Engineered the Cuban 'Sonic Weapon' Attack"--IEEE Spectrum.
                        • "No Church Escapes Modernity"--Rod Deher at American Conservative. The article begins as a discussion of the coming conflict within the Catholic church created by the dangerous moral positions taken by the current Pope Francis, and the general doctrine of Papal infallibility. But he makes a good point that churches ultimately must rely on actual truths revealed by God and some form of legitimate authority, or they will cease to be churches:
                                ... For modernist types, religion is infinitely malleable, because it is about arranging theological claims to suit our desires. For traditionalists, big-T Truth exists independently and objectively, though our ability to know it is limited by our own mortality and finitude. Christianity is a religion of revelation. One Czech intellectual I met, not a believer but sympathetic to Catholicism, said, “The Catholics made a mistake when they forgot what Moses knew: that their religion is built on revelation.” His point was that in the end, Christian rationality, however sophisticated, exists on the solid base of assenting to the truth of Biblical revelation.
                                     Note well: Christian authority, not simply Catholic authority. Obviously churches disagree on how to interpret revelation, but in the end, Christianity, like Islam and Judaism, is a revealed religion. This is not the place to get into the interpretive weeds here. The point is this: the Christian religion, whatever its modern forms, makes exclusive truth claims. If it is treated as nothing but a philosophy or law code, it dies. But if it is treated as nothing but a vague, malleable humanitarianism, it also dies. There has to be a there there.
                            Deher goes on to liken our situation to the Jewish remnant after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and cites to portions of Jeremiah instructing the remaining Jews to accept there punishment and position as vassals to the Babylonians. Of course, as we know, the Jews did not, but foolishly threw their lot in with Egypt, which also was invaded and overthrown by the Babylonians.
                                       One of the key points about the Old Testament (or even the New Testament, for that matter) that many people miss is that there was a known ecclesiastical authority. When Samuel, for instance, strode into King Saul's palace and cut off the head of an enemy head of state, Saul didn't question Samuel's right to do so. When you read about the various prophets, even when the Israelites were following false prophets, they still knew that Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, etc., where the true or recognized prophet of God. Similarly, while members of the early Church may have been led astray by false teachers, they still knew that Peter or Thomas or the other Apostles held actual authority to speak on behalf of God. It was one of the reasons why Paul could write his letters and expect that they would be read and followed.

                            No comments:

                            Post a Comment