Serbu Blowback 22LR

The Firearms Blog reports on a .22 blowback machine pistol--the Serbu--that shoots an impressive 2,000 rounds per minute. That exceeds the firing rate of even the American-180 submachine gun, (although I would note that the latter used a 177-round drum magazine, rather than the 10-round magazine of the Serbu).

"Prepper on a Budget"

A reader pointed me to this article on putting aside food storage and supplies when on a tight budget. It includes links to other resources and articles. 

Greg Ellifritz: Mob Survival

Greg Ellifritz at Active Response Training has an article on what to do if you get caught up in a mob/riot.

First They Came for Traditional Christians....

From the National Review:

Religious institutions could be at risk of losing their tax-exempt status due to their beliefs about marriage if the Supreme Court holds that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed, President Obama’s attorney acknowledged to the Supreme Court today [i.e., April 28].

The government wouldn't even have this stick with which to beat Christians if it wasn't for the awful events of 1913--a year to live in infamy. Paul Rosenberg described the events of that year as "The Blow That Killed America 100 Years Ago." He described three events that killed the United States--at least as a constitutional federal republic: (i) the 16th Amendment, allowing the Federal Government to impose an income tax; (ii) the 17th Amendment, which eliminated the representation of States in Congress by requiring the popular election of Senators (prior to that, Senators were chosen by each State's legislature), turning Senators into creatures of a strong central government; and (iii) establishment of the Federal Reserve System--i.e., privatization of the creation of money. Read the whole thing, and see also "Beware of Years That End in 13."

Boko Haram Changes Name...

RT reports:

Boko Haram’s commitment to the jihadi group the Islamic State, has just become even more pronounced, after the Nigerian terrorist organization changed its name to ISWAP or Islamic State’s West Africa Province. 

The move appears to give the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) a foothold outside of the Middle East and North Africa for the first time, as the terrorist organization tries to create a global caliphate. 

Links between the two militant Islamist organizations have grown over the last year. A recent video released by IS sang the praises of Boko Haram fighters, while the Nigeria-based militant group also released a propaganda video, via IS’s social media channels.

Appendix Carry--For or Against?

Breach Bang Clear noted a couple articles about appendix carry yesterday. The first is "The Appendix Carry Craze" by Darren LaSorte, who insists that appendix carry is bad. His primary argument (based on the number of lines devoted to it) is that it was extremely uncomfortable for him when he tried it. But he also adds:

There is no doubt that appendix carry allows for more efficient concealment than the strong side carry that I practice. Too many people around us like to casually touch our sides, but few will attempt to touch the area immediately above the beltline below our stomach. Many around me end up feeling steel or polymer. It’s always a little unsettling when it happens. Also, it’s easier for the end of a handgun’s grip to print out from under a shirt or suit, especially when bending over (at least bending over is possible for me when not carrying appendix).  

This newer form of carry also provides for a lightening quick draw as long as circumstances surrounding the draw are perfect. The one, not so insignificant problem with this is that circumstances are usually less than ideal when you are in a fight for your life (why we conceal and carry in the first place).  

Some advocates of appendix carry claim that it is hard for an adversary to foul a draw. This claim simply doesn’t stand up to reason or practice, and it’s why I reserve this form of carry for the most extreme of circumstances such as venues where there are large, dense populations with people regularly bouncing off one another. Concealing the presence of the gun in these circumstances is the most critical consideration. 

Try this: Get a training partner to come at you aggressively while you are carrying a blue gun appendix style. Let him get fist-fight-close and see how easy it is for him to jam your draw. Then, move the blue gun to a more comfortable spot (4 o’clock on the strong side) and try again. With the latter, you can use most of your body as a shield in order to provide time and space for a draw. It all becomes really evident if you simply try it.  

All of this was on display during a training course I attended in California this past weekend. I’ve been looking for a solid reason to shun appendix carry, and I’ve finally got it. It’s no longer my being an old dog unwilling to learn new tricks. There is a legitimate tactical reason that appendix carry is a real disadvantage. I would hope that anyone who practices it on a regular basis takes a realistic look at how difficult it is to draw from appendix against a determined adversary in a physical fight. It can also be dangerous when the muzzle is redirected toward your body during a struggle.

On the contrary side is Breach Bang Clear's own article on the topic: "Why Carry AIWB?" by Matt Jacques. Jacques points out the advantages:

AIWB is faster and more secure than many other carry methods. The handgun is near my body's centerline. If someone “bumps” it, they will most likely be someone I am giving a hug or brotherly shoulder bump to, and in either of those cases they know I'm a gun-toting guy so no surprise there. If it's someone I'm not close to, I can now control the action and keep that area away from an accidental bump and resulting “look of concern”. 

And the draw / presentation is faster from 1 o'clock AIWB as opposed to 3 – 4 o’clock strong-side carry. It's an economy of motion consideration. Less time-in-hand movement, quicker to the target. 

It's also more practical while seated in a vehicle, since your weapon is up front and accessible instead of under a seatbelt or tangled in a cover garment. The cover garment can be mitigated with setup, but your draw is still faster coming from the centerline. I've also found that AIWB makes it easier to hide the handgun's profile (depending on clothing). ...

In quickly poking around the internet, it appears that appendix carry has a lot of fans. When the Ballown Goes Up! blog note that appendix carry is popular with combatives instructors. The author dismisses the paranoia over the issue of safety (i.e., it is no more dangerous than other common methods of carrying a firearm) and gives some tips for making it more comfortable. He also notes that draws from an appendix carry are fast, can be done without the exaggerated arm movement of a hip-side draw, and are more natural.

Gabe Saurez also recommends appendix carry for exactly the situation where you are grappling/on the ground with an attacker on top of you. Another good article I found on the topic is "Appendix Carry Illustrated" at the Legion's Fate blog. And here is woman's take on appendix carry and why it worked better for her. Although Caleb at Gun Nuts Media ditched appendix carry, it mostly had to do with it not working with his preferred wardrobe and that he didn't want to have to practice a different draw from what he used in competition.

I'll admit that I've never tried appendix carry before. I experimented with it last night after reading the articles by LaSorte and Jacques, using my J-frame in its pocket holster--just pushing the holster inside the waistband and cinching up my belt a little tighter than normal--before leaving to do some grocery shopping. I just wore a loose t-shirt over it. My initial impressions are that it concealed better, and was more comfortable when sitting seatbelted into the car, than the standard strong-side holster I would normally have used. So now I think I will look into getting a holster more appropriate for appendix carry.

I will leave off with a story that I quoted from last year. Although the story has to do with appendix carry versus using an ankle holster, I think some of the points are applicable to appendix versus other methods of carrying. The story can be found in its whole at The Firearms Blog. The part relevant here:

I have always appendix carried my Browning BDA-380 when undercover just the the right of my belt buckle and had put on rubber Pachmayr grips that work perfectly to prevent the firearm from slipping down from the belt.  

The big dudes were kicking us in the achilles tendon, and calves, while wearing heavy work boots, and pinching the back of our arms. Let me tell you when a large full grown man pinches your muscles it hurts like hell.  

We were in deep deep shit but fortunately we had stopped right before the May 19th lady and I quickly got my firearm out because I could still move my forearms and it was a simple matter to just move my hand to my belt buckle area to draw. Danny on the other hand had seen me going for my weapon but when he bent over to get to his ankle mounted weapon they “bucked” up against his extended rear end preventing him from bending over and when he tried to lift his leg to get to it they jostled him so he couldn’t stand on one leg.  

HE COULD NOT GET TO HIS WEAPON TO SAVE HIS LIFE.  

I took my weapon out from under my shirt with just and inch or so of the barrel showing, so the rest of the crowd couldn’t see it, and told the May19th lady “I know who you are and you know who I am. Look down (she did) and in three seconds I’m going to start shooting, starting with you right in the stomach if you don’t get your goons off us” I told her “we are leaving so just get them off us and we are out of here” All this time they keep up the pinching and kicking and I could see Danny was having a hard time of it.

(Underline added).

Anyway, I'm excited to give appendix carry a try. Maybe it will work better for me, maybe not, but I'm intrigued to give it a try. I don't expect it to be the best method in all situations, though, but it is another option.

Cold War Weapons Caches

Weapons cache found in Gaza (Source)

At one time I started reading a book called Nuclear Suitcase by Joel Jenkins. I thought the book itself was terrible, and I'm not recommending that anyone read it. I stopped about a third of the way through it. However, the premise intrigued me--that the Soviet Union had created caches of weapons (including potentially small nuclear "suitcase" bombs) inside the United States during the Cold War. The author noted Congressional testimony concerning the caches, and I tracked down an article about the subject from the January 25, 2000, Los Angeles Times.

A former Soviet spy testified at a congressional hearing in Los Angeles on Monday that Russian intelligence operatives placed weapons and communications caches--perhaps even small nuclear devices--in California and other states as part of a plan to destabilize the United States through sabotage.

Those caches, hidden during the Cold War and perhaps for years afterward, were to be used by elite Russian commandos to attack political leaders, military installations and oil pipelines, power plants and other civilian targets in the event of war or increased political tensions between the two superpowers, according to Stanislav Lunev.

Lunev was the star witness at the field hearing of the House Committee on Government Reform. A former colonel, he was billed as the highest-ranking member of the Russian military intelligence agency known as the GRU ever to defect to the United States.

... The central reason for the hearing--the suggestion that there may be "portable tactical nuclear devices" stashed in suitcases and hidden in strategic locations across the United States--has been controversial and strongly discounted by some, including senior State Department officials.

Critics say that Lunev has never been able to identify a specific location of one of the sites and that even if they exist, they probably contain items that are a lot less destructive than portable nuclear weapons.

On Monday, Lunev had the luxury of appearing only before two sympathetic Republican congressmen--committee Chairman Dan Burton of Indiana and Joe Scarborough of Florida--who didn't grill him on the details of his allegations.

Lunev said he is unable to pinpoint the locations of the caches because his orders were only to locate potential sites.

But he insisted that during his nearly four years spent in Washington, D.C., before 1992, he was one of literally hundreds of agents who were told to find such secret hiding places.

"I had very clear instructions: These dead-drop positions would need to be for all types of weapons, including nuclear weapon[s]," Lunev said in a heavy Russian accent. Lunev said the caches also contained guns, radios, maps and currency.

Lunev's allegations received support last year when another Soviet defector, Vasili Mitrokhin--an archivist for the Soviet intelligence service KGB--co-wrote a book that contended that hundreds of the sites were scattered across the United States and Europe.

Mitrokhin had smuggled information out of the Soviet Union and only had time to write down four specific locations of the caches--three in Switzerland and one in Belgium. When authorities accessed them, they found at least some evidence of intelligence activity.

One bunker in Switzerland exploded when authorities sprayed it with a water cannon.

Burton said he wanted Monday's hearing to take place in Los Angeles because intelligence information indicates that California was one of the major targets for such caches in the United States.

Also, there is a preponderance of important civilian and military installations near Los Angeles and San Francisco, according to the two congressmen and Lunev.

"California is the most populous state in the nation," Burton said. "If there are hidden caches of explosives in this state, that's very dangerous. That's something the people ought to be informed about."

A senior State Department official said the administration--and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in particular--were taking the allegations very seriously.

The official said, "We understand that the FBI investigation to date has not produced evidence of such arms caches in the United States." The source added that senior Clinton administration officials "have asked the Russians [about the arms caches] . . . and they have denied that there are such caches placed around the country."

(See also this article). In 2014, notes smuggled out of the Soviet Union by Vasili Mitrokhin, a KGB archivist, were made publicly available.  Reporting on the information contained therein, The Telegraph wrote:

Booby-trapped caches of weapons are probably still hidden around Britain after being concealed during the Cold War by Soviet agents preparing for conflict, a leading historian has said. 

Details of how clandestine stockpiles of small arms and communications gear were hidden across Europe are disclosed in a KGB intelligence archive made public for the first time on Monday. 

* * * 

The trove of files copied down by a senior KGB archivist called Vasili Mitrokhin over a 12 year period before he defected in 1992 is considered one of the most invaluable intelligence sources of the Cold War and provides a detailed insight into Soviet spy operations. 

Nineteen of 33 box files containing his notes are being opened to the public at Churchill College in Cambridge.

Mitrokhin’s notes provide detailed descriptions of weapons caches hidden around major European cities for use by agents operating abroad should tensions escalate into a conflict. 

Professor Christopher Andrew, a historian and friend of Mitrokhin who has written two books on the archive, said caches were hidden around most major cities. 

Though the archive provides no details of hidden weapons in Britain, they are almost certainly here, he said. 

He added: "This was a large scale operation and the caches were strategically placed in most Nato countries during the Cold War. 

"Given that Britain was second only to the United States in terms of importance to the Soviets at this time, it would be remarkable if this tactic wasn't deployed here. 

"Of course by now they would not be easy to find and it is unlikely the weapons would be serviceable." 

Describing one stash near Berne, Switzerland, Mitrokhin provides directions to a chapel near a farm. 

He adds: "After taking 36 steps, you will be at the point between two large leafy trees, the only ones in the sector. 

"The distance between the trees is three paces. The area between the trees has been used for the cache." 

Another note provides instructions on how to disarm explosive booby-traps on the caches.

 (See also this article at the Daily Mail).

Of course, the Soviet Union was not the only country to create caches of weapons. It was reported in 1996 that the United States had negotiated with Austria to remove weapons caches placed by the CIA decades earlier.

Book Review: "How to Survive the End of the World As We Know It" by James Wesley Rawles

(Source)

It might seem odd, but although I have looked at, and through, Mr. Rawles book on several occasions since it was first published, I have never read it because I never actually felt any great need or desire to buy it. But I recently saw that the local library carried a copy and thought I would read it.

Like my review on Max Velocity's Contact!, I think it is best to first approach How to Survive the End of the World As We Know It by describing what it is not. And that is, unlike other books such as Cody Lundin's When All Hell Breaks Loose, Rawles book is not actually a manual on surviving disasters or emergencies. That is, there are no instructions on what to do in the event of an earthquake, tsunami, nuclear explosion, riots, and so on. The only place that Rawles touches on surviving any particular disaster is a short appendix that addresses surviving a pandemic. (And this is not his primary concern regarding how the world will end, which is an economic collapse). Instead, Rawles' theory on surviving a disaster is avoidance--not being there when a disaster strikes.

You may remember my recent discussion between survivalism and prepping, and that it primarily revolves around the idea of a retreat of some sort. And that is what Rawles' book is about: it is, at heart, a book setting out the basics of setting up a small homestead in an isolated rural area, while addressing topics such as self-defense that other homesteading books, such as Back to Basics won't address. (Rawles has a chapter discussing defense and security issues, and another chapter specifically devoted to weapons). Yes, it gives a nod to sheltering in place in an urban setting, but Rawles is quite clear that he does not believe that "bugging-in" is a viable option.

At 316 pages including a couple appendices and an index, Rawles obviously cannot go into great detail on the various topics of food storage, gardening, getting and purifying water, etc. This book is to provide an overview--a place to start on your journey into creating a self-reliant homestead, rather than an end. Notwithstanding the marketing hype, this is not "the definitive guide on how to prepare for any crises." This is not to say it is without benefit to the person that is already experienced. Rawles includes a broad swath of information, as well as some specific tips and directions, that there is more likely than not something new and of value. For instance, his chapter on water, although not very long, has some excellent information on purifying and treating water. His chapter on gardening and raising livestock also has good information on controlling pests, sources of tools, and some lessons learned for when buying livestock which are probably worth the cost of the book to someone just getting started into livestock. However, the value of this book will go down the more experience and knowledge you have. It is, as I said, for the person relatively new to the topic of survivalism and prepping.

My single biggest disappointment with the book is the lack of diagrams or illustrations. There is not a single diagram or illustration in the entire book. For instance, his instructions on building a Berky water filter clone (pp. 73-74) or constructing a bullet bucket (p. 75) would have been helped out by photographs or illustrations showing the various steps or components. Illustrations on the construction of barriers or other security devices would have been useful.

Secondly, as I've mentioned, Rawles rejects the idea of "bugging in." However, he seems to have an all or nothing attitude: he assumes that if you are "bugging in" in an urban environment, it must be a an apartment building in Manhattan or similarly dense urban center; and bugging out must be to an isolated retreat. I would have liked to see some discussion about the suburban home.

Another criticism I have with the book is the tacit assumption that you will find and settle in a location similar to that of the author's. Rawles lives in the extreme north of Idaho--practically on the Canadian border--in an area with decent to good soil and adequate supply of natural precipitation. Although the winters can be cold, the summers are mild. Moreover, there is a significant amount of pine and fur forests and an adequate population of larger game animals (as well as bear). Thus, what may work for Rawles in that situation may not be applicable if you were, instead, attempting to live in a retreat in the high mountain deserts of Nevada, the plains of Kansas, or in rural Alabama, for instance. This isn't something that Rawles ignores--he specifically notes the importance of researching not only the general climate for your location, but also the specific micro-climate, when considering a location--but it does carry over into recommendations on what firearms to have and certain other factors.

In short, if you are new to survivalism--or perhaps a prepper that has decided to invest in a retreat--this book provides a good overview of what is needed for a survival retreat. However, it is only an overview. It has some defects, the most significant of which is the lack of illustrations or diagrams.

The Missing Link ... (Updated)

... between the StG 44 and the CETME/G-3: the StG 45 delayed rollback. I've collected some photos to show the evolution from StG 44 to the G3.

StG 44 (MP44) using the 7.92 Kurz (Source)

StG 45 (M) -- A more easily manufactured firearm using a delayed roller block system (Source)

Another view of the StG 45 (Source)

Spanish CETME Mod. A (Source)

Spanish CETME Mod. B (Source)

The Spanish CETME Mod. C (7.62 NATO) (Source) (Note, this may have been made from a parts kit, since the triple frame at the front appears to be from a G3--it is somewhat slanted on the front and lacks the tab for the bayonet--and the finish is black, rather than the brown used on the CETME rifles)

An interesting variant with a a wooden pistol grip. However, it is lacking the paddle magazine release and front pin on the lower receiver, so appears to be built on a semi-automatic receiver. (Source)

Another photograph of the CETME Model C (Source) (Note: Although the stock and bayonet appear correct, the cocking handle is extra large--probably from an HK 21--the cleaning kit is German, and the magazines are German G3 magazines). The CETME cleaning kit fit into a small tube inserted into the front of the cocking tube.

An early model HK G3. Note the similarity to the CETME Mod. C (Source) 

A replica of the HK G3 with the narrow front stock and carry handle (Source)

An HK G3 sporting the Navy lower and wide forestock (Source)

The whole HK line based off of the G3 (Source)

Update: An article tracing the lineage from the Stg. 45 to the CETME Mod. C, including additional photos.

Terrorist Attack on Paris Churches Thwarted

The Associated Press (via the Miami Herald) reports:

An Islamic extremist with an arsenal of loaded guns was prevented from opening fire on churchgoers only because he accidentally shot himself in the leg, French officials said Wednesday.

The 24-year-old computer science student, who was also suspected in the death of a young woman whose body was found on Sunday shortly before his arrest, had been flagged as a risk for intent to travel to Syria but there had been no specific reason to open a judicial investigation, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Wednesday.

Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins said the suspect – an Algerian who had lived in France for several years – was arrested in Paris Sunday after he apparently shot himself by accident and called for an ambulance.

He was waiting outside his apartment building for first aid when police arrived. They followed a trail of blood to his car, which contained loaded guns, and notes about potential targets.

A search of his apartment in southeastern Paris turned up more weapons including three Kalashnikov assault rifles along with phones and computers that police used to establish that he’d been in communication with someone “who could have been in Syria,” Molins said at a news conference.

This person “explicitly asked him to target a church,” Molins said, declining to answer questions about the investigation into what he termed “an imminent attack.”

So many things spring to mind about this article: how our greatest protection from terrorists is often their stupidity; the ineffectiveness of gun control; the fruits of European immigration policy ... and the last bit of the article (not included above) indicating that European authorities are working with Google and Twitter to increase electronic surveillance.

Saudi Arabia Resumes Air Strikes in Yemen

The Independent reports:

Yemenis are wondering if the 28-day Saudi bombing campaign is really over or whether the war has simply entered a new phase. Air strikes were still taking place in Aden, Taiz and other Yemeni cities hours after they were supposed to have ceased.

And nobody in Yemen supposes that the war the Saudis escalated when they started bombing on 26 March can be concluded just because the bombs have stopped falling.

The Houthis, the Shia militia whom the Saudis are supposedly trying to displace from power, overran an armoured brigade headquarters in Taiz after heavy fighting as the air war ended. Whatever else Saudi bombing has done, it has not broken the Houthi’s grip on power.

The course of the air war has been very similar to successive Israeli bombardments of Lebanon and Gaza over the past 20 years. First, there are bloodcurdling claims how the enemy will be defeated by airpower alone. Then, it becomes clear that air strikes are doing a lot of damage to civilians – 944 Yemenis have been killed and 3,487 wounded so far, according to the World Health Organisation – but are not having a decisive impact on opposing military forces. Finally, there are mounting demands that air war ends from foreign countries, notably from the US, which has aided the Saudi airforce with intelligence and logistics.

The lack of success of the Saudi Air Force should come as no surprise. The Saudi Air Force is trained by the United States Air Force and has become imbued with the same misconceptions and errors as to the effectiveness of bombing campaigns.

Although the United States never fully succumbed to Britain's theory in WWII that carpet bombing enemy cities for the express purpose of killing civilians would lead to strategic victory, the U.S. did fall victim to the idea that, rather than being an operational tool, aerial bombing campaigns were strategy--that is, aerial bombing could win a war. U.S. theories on the use of aerial bombing evolved in small ways since WWII, but still focus on the destruction of key infrastructure necessary to the enemy's command and control. In fact, this and air-superiority are the primary mission of the U.S.A.F., and dominate and explain the programs and equipment sought by the Air Force.

This type of strategic bombing can be extremely helpful when facing an enemy that is centralized and dependent on a command and control infrastructure (e.g., Saddam's Iraq in both wars). However, it is much less useful when facing an enemy that is decentralized and/or not particularly dependent on infrastructure, as shown by every insurgency in which the U.S. has been involved. Yes, you can destroy a weapon's depot or artillery position, but, after a while, all an air force is doing is uselessly pounding the rubble. And in today's world, strategic bombing can be less than useless when the enemy cowers behind the skirts of women and children, or in bunkers beneath schools and hospitals.

The reality of war is that air power is most effective when employed in support of ground forces. Saudi Arabia has not realized any benefit from its air campaign because there is nothing important for it bomb on a strategic level. It needs boots on the ground, and an air force willing and able to provide close air support.

Manufacturing Cartridge Cases

The Firearms History, Technology and Development blog recently concluded a short series of articles on how cartridge cases are manufactured:

1. Manufacturing Cartridges in the 19th Century;
2. Manufacturing Cartridges in the 19th Century - Part II;
3. Manufacturing Cartridges in the 19th Century - Part III;
4. Manufacturing Cartridges in the 19th Century - Part IV; and,
5. Manufacturing Cartridges: More Modern Methods.

Paddling from Minnesota to D.C.

Canoe & Kayak magazine has a six-part series of a canoeing trip from Minnesota to Washington, D.C., that gives some tips and ideas. The articles are:

1. Paddle to D.C. Dispatches: Lessons From the Grand Portage;
2. Paddle to D.C. Dispatches II: Superior Paddling Destinations; 
3. Paddle to D.C. Dispatches III: Upstream Travel advice;
4. Paddle to D.C. Dispatches IV: Destination Mattawa River; 
5. Paddle to D.C. Dispatches V: Canoe Cart Portaging Tips; and,
6. The Final Paddle to D.C. Dispatch: Urban Paddling Advice.

Storage Hacks for a Small Apartment

(Source: Solent Plastics)

Open the picture in a new tab, or go to the Solent Plastics website to see it full sized.

More Info on Warka Water

Source: Warka Water

About a year ago, I posted a bit about a moisture farming device called the Warka Water, which was designed to collect condensation from the air. It's creators claim it can collect between 13 and 26 gallons of water per day, on average. Here is a link to the creator's website, providing more information on the design and construction of the device.

Four Barrel Pistol

Last week I commented on the Reliant, a 4-barrel Derringer type pistol from Signal 9 Defense. It is a 4-barrel, break action pistol in .38 or .32 calibers.

Last night, I was watching an old episode of Special Unit 2, and was surprised to notice that a couple of the characters sporting four barrel pistols. Since the episode aired in 2001, I can only assume that the handgun was a COP .357 Derringer.

School Shooting in Spain

From The Telegraph:

A teacher has been killed and four people wounded after a 13-year-old boy entered his secondary school in Barcelona and began shooting a crossbow. 

* * * 

According to witnesses in Barcelona’s El Periódico newspaper, the student knocked on the door of a classroom on arriving late for his lesson and fired point blank into the face of the female teacher who opened it.

Those sources then said the boy attacked the female teacher’s daughter, who was in the same classroom.

On hearing the commotion, a male teacher from a nearby classroom approached the scene and was stabbed in the chest with a large knife, causing him an injury which proved fatal. The suspect is then said to have entered another classroom and attacked a male student with the knife. 

A further teacher is also reported to have been injured. All four wounded, three of whom were taken to Barcelona’s Sant Pau hospital, are said to be stable. 

The attacker was also found to have materials apparently intended for use as a petrol bomb in his rucksack.

According to the article, Spain requires a license in order to obtain a crossbow, which license must be renewed every 5 years.

 

"How to Survive in the West--A Mujahid Guide"

PJ Media discusses a recently released ISIS manual for jihadists living in the West, noting that the booklet "urges followers to train with Nerf guns and watch Bourne films as part of their under-the-radar preparation for terrorist attacks." While this may be laughable, some of the recommendations are not. The article goes on:

They’re told to alter their first name — “Al instead of Ali, or a neutral name like Adam” — or make up an alias, as jihadists in the Islamic State “are not allowed to tell their real name to anyone in case their friends are captured and interrogated and reveal the real name of the brothers to the tyrants.” Plus, they argue, an alias with a non-Muslim name would come in handy if they want to get an “important position” such as work in a power plant.

Then comes the question of cold, hard cash: “Before any real Jihad can be fought, Muslims require money.” Conveniently, “in cases of necessity and for survival, Muslims are permitted to get money from ways which are not normally allowed.”

“If you are an expert in credit card fraud, paypal/ebay scams, Phishing, hacking, or you know the secrets of a big company, then take advantage of your skills,” the book advises, emphasizing the crimes in bold. “If you can claim extra benefits from a government, then do so. If you can avoid paying taxes, then do so.” Taking out a loan you’ll never repay and using the money to immigrate to the Islamic State is encouraged, but if you get caught doing this or other scams don’t say you were raising dough for jihad, the guide cautions.

For those interested in what ISIS thinks a budding terrorist should know, the booklet--"How to Survive in the West--A Mujahid Guide"--can be downloaded via the Black Flags Series website.

Update: The Black Flags website is down. But a copy is currently available here.

There Is A Storm Coming

If you have ever watched a business blow up, you know that there are signs of impending doom. A slow decline in revenue and morale, gradually accelerating (this is when those in the know suddenly start leaving--the rats fleeing the sinking ship, so to speak), and then a sudden break up or collapse. As I've noted before, the collapse of Western Civilization began a century ago. We are, I believe, on the cusp of the sudden surge toward break up. The past weekend was full of news stories painting an outline of some of what is coming down the pike.

I'll start with the cultural war. Not the "abortion" or "gay marriage" topics, but something even more fundamental--the gender wars. Instapundit posted the following message from feminists to straight-white-men:

"Sit down & let us abolish you."

Breitbart reported that "[a] Liberal Democrat activist who sits on two national party committees has been suspended from her regional party after a string of sexist comments on social media. The activist in question, Sarah Noble, made multiple tweets of a disturbingly hateful nature, including 'kill all men', 'fuck men', and 'die cis[gendered] scum'." Nothing new in all this, other than feminists are becoming more public and brazen about the topic. It is easy enough to write off the foregoing as some radical fringe, except the attitude infects society as a whole. Men are denigrated throughout our society. And the response is declining marriage rates. As this article points out, "men need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle." I think what we are going to see is an sudden, exponential decline in birth rates and social stability as more young men choose their X-Box over sex and marriage.

Iran. It is developing (if it has not already developed) a nuclear weapon. Obama's negotiations were nothing more than stalling tactics while Iran widened its proxy wars, hardened its military program, and upgraded its missile defenses. In fact, according to the Washington Free Beacon, Obama expressed surprise that Iran hadn't purchased air defense missiles from Russia earlier:

President Obama said that he was “not surprised” Russia sold an advanced missile system to Iran in the midst of his negotiations with the Ayatollah to prevent Iran’s nuclear facilities from making a bomb. He went even further to say that he expected the deal to happen a lot sooner than it did. 

“I’m frankly surprised that it held this long given that they were not prohibited by sanctions from selling these defensive weapons,” President Obama said on Friday.

"Defensive weapons," which will be used to shield Iran from any military action should it not abide by the not yet existing treaty to forestall its nuclear weapons program. Oh, but that is not all that has been happening during the kabuki theater of the negotiations. North Korea has been transferring missile components to Iran in violation of international sanctions--a fact that Obama kept secret from the U.N. agency responsible for enforcing the sanctions.  And don't worry about the convoy of ships from Iran to Yemen to openly resupply the Shia Houthi rebels. I mean, maybe you should worry, but Iran evidently does not need to. Even the Arab Gulf nations have begun to publicly question whether Obama secretly supports the Iranian regime specifically, and Shiite Islam in particular.

Last week, Judicial Watch reported on the existence of an ISIS base in northern Mexico, near the border with the United States. The Administration denies that there is any such base. In fact, the information is so baseless, that the FBI is now conducting an investigation into who leaked the information to Judicial Watch. I'm sure that this has nothing to do with the theft of radioactive material last week in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico. But some future theft will be for the radioactive material and not scrap metal.

I don't want to forget Ragnarok, which began as an armed uprising in Ukraine and now has the U.S. and Russia stumbling toward war:

COULD A U.S. response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine provoke a confrontation that leads to a U.S.-Russian war? Such a possibility seems almost inconceivable. But when judging something to be “inconceivable,” we should always remind ourselves that this is a statement not about what is possible in the world, but about what we can imagine. As Iraq, Libya and Syria demonstrate, political leaders often have difficulties envisioning events they find uncomfortable, disturbing or inconvenient.

Prevailing views of the current confrontation with Russia over Ukraine fit this pattern. Since removing Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and Muammar el-Qaddafi from power had limited direct impact on most Americans, it is perhaps not surprising that most Washington policy makers and analysts assume that challenging Russia over Ukraine and seeking to isolate Moscow internationally and cripple it economically will not come at a significant cost, much less pose real dangers to America. After all, the most common refrain in Washington when the topic of Russia comes up is that “Russia doesn’t matter anymore.” No one in the capital enjoys attempting to humiliate Putin more than President Barack Obama, who repeatedly includes Russia in his list of current scourges alongside the Islamic State and Ebola. And there can be no question that as a petrostate, Russia is vulnerable economically and has very few, if any, genuine allies. Moreover, many among its business and intellectual elites are as enthusiastic as the Washington Post editorial page to see Putin leave office. Ukrainians with the same view of former Ukrainian president Viktor F. Yanukovych successfully ousted him with limited Western help, so, it is argued, perhaps Putin is vulnerable, too.

Nevertheless, Russia is very different from the other countries where the United States has supported regime change. First and most important, it has a nuclear arsenal capable of literally erasing the United States from the map. While many Americans have persuaded themselves that nuclear weapons are no longer relevant in international politics, officials and generals in Moscow feel differently. Second, regardless of how Americans view their country, Russians see it as a great power. Great powers are rarely content to serve simply as objects of other states’ policies. Where they have the power to do so, they take their destiny into their own hands, for good or ill.

WHILE MOST policy makers and commentators dismiss the possibility of a U.S.-Russian war, we are more concerned about the drift of events than at any point since the end of the Cold War. We say this having followed Soviet and Russian affairs throughout the Cold War and in the years since the Soviet Union’s implosion in 1991. And we say it after one of us recently spent a week in Moscow talking candidly with individuals in and around the Putin government, including with many influential Russian officials, and the other in China listening to views from Beijing. We base our assessment on these conversations as well as other public and private sources.

There are three key factors in considering how today’s conflict might escalate to war: Russia’s decision making, Russia’s politics and U.S.-Russian dynamics.

(Read the whole thing).

And nature can still deal some blows. ABC Australia reported over the weekend a mysterious deadly outbreak in Nigeria that killed its victims within 24 hours. Probably too deadly to spread very far, but that was what was thought about Ebola a couple years ago. And this article from the Seattle Times is ostensibly about how global warming is increasing the length of the growing season in more northern climes (at the same time as it brings colder winters and more precipitation to the same localities), but that California, the American Southwest, and the Rocky Mountain states are seeing declining rainfall. 

We live in interesting times.

(H/t Instapundit and Weasel Zippers)

What Does Gun Safety Say About You?

The Daily Mail has an article about a pair of bank robbers in the Pittsburgh area. What made me chuckle is that authorities reportedly believe the robbers are current or former police and/or military because they use holsters and keep their fingers off the triggers of their weapons. 'Cuz, only police and military know to do that....

South African Immigrants Form Militias

The title of the article says it all: "South Africa descends towards a new apartheid: Immigrants create armed gangs and patrol the streets in the face of violence from black locals aimed at foreigners." The story begins:

Immigrants wielding machetes have clashed with police as they hunt for locals that attacked foreign shop owners as violence continues to spread across South Africa. 

Police fired rubber bullets and a stun grenade today to disperse a gang of immigrants who had armed themselves with machetes in a run-down district in Johannesburg.  

The country has been hit by a wave of violence against immigrants in the past fortnight. 

The foreigners have complained about a lack of protection and some have started to arm themselves and fight back. 

The Cooling Trend

In his article "Green is the New Red," J.R. Nyquist discusses how the environmental movement--particularly "global warming"--has been turned to the purposes of tyranny. As part of his essay, he discusses the issue of global cooling:

John L. Casey is a former NASA engineer. His book, Dark Winter, discusses climate science in terms of solar cycles. According to Casey, “Major changes taking place in the climate have already pulled the rug out from under the idea that mankind controls the climate.” The scientific evidence, if looked at properly, shows there has been no global warming for the last 17 years. Casey also says that “the actual record of global temperature trends shows the oceans and the atmosphere have actually been cooling for most of the last 11 years.” The sun passes through cycles, and according to Casey, we are headed toward a cold cycle, with the lowest temperatures predicted to occur between 2031 and 2037. “It is important to note,” says Casey, “that the … 1990-2010 warm period will be the last record warm period for the next 206 years….” 

In November 2008, Prof. Don J. Easterbrook of Western Washington University wrote an article titled Global Cooling is Here. In this article he flatly stated, “Global warming is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere was not the cause of the warming – it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.” Last month Michael Bastasch published a piece at the Daily Caller about Jurgen Lange Hein, a physicist with the German-based European Institute for Climate and Energy who says that solar radiation since 1998 has diminished, “and could reach values similar to those of the early twentieth century. A drop in global temperatures of the next few years is predicted.” Bastasch wrote another piece back in 2013 titled “Scientists predict a century of global cooling” in which he stated, “Scientists … have been increasingly turning against the global warming consensus and arguing that the world is actually in line for a colder century.” 

Two years ago 125 scientists sent an open letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stating that, “We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions [that global warming is proven].” These scientists went on to state that there has been no global warming during the previous 16 years. In fact, the letter says UN officials should be more worried about global cooling than global warming.

(Underline added).

Historically, cooler weather has resulted in lower precipitation and increased desertification in many parts of the world. (See "Climate Change Catastrophes in Critical Thinking", "Global Cooling, Not Global Warming, Doomed the Ancients" and "The Upside to Global Warming"). In Europe, on the other hand, it can lead to longer winters and/or increased rainfall and more violent storms. In any event, shorter growing seasons and disruptive weather can be expected to impact food production and increase food prices. (See "The Little Ice Age In Europe").

From an eschatological perspective, I find it interestingly that the lowest temperatures (and presumably the worst climate/weather related disasters) will fall 2,000 years after Christ's triumphal entry to Jerusalem.

Related Posts: "The Coming Ice Age"

"Self Defense - Tony Lopes"

Le Survivaliste has an interview with Tony Lopes about self-defense training and hand-to-hand weapons. Tony Lopes is a knife maker and survival expert.

Prepping for Others

The Approaching Day Prepper discusses "Breaking OpSec" and notes:

About a month ago we attended PrepperFest in Columbus, OH. It was our first prepper conference and we found it to be well worthwhile. One of the workshops was by Black Dog Survival School. I found the instructor’s take on OpSec to be surprising and so much more realistic than the traditional perspective. He asked a question that went something like this: 

“How long after SHTF do you think it will take for those around you to figure out that you have food, shelter, heat, fire, and water?” 

His answer – about two days after they run out, which will probably be about three days after the catastrophic event. I think he’s probably right. That means that by Day Five, unless you live in a really remote location, your OpSec will be shot, too, and you will have to make some critical and difficult decisions: 

Will you share what you have and, if so, with whom? 

In the cozy security of life-as-we-know-it, you may be able to take a hard line and answer that question very narrowly – you’ll share only with those you’ve prepped for or with. In other words, anyone else who comes knocking at your door will be turned away, probably at gunpoint. Or maybe you’re more generous and think you’ll share with your extended family and neighbors. But how far does that extend? 

Will you really be able to say “no” to your children and their spouses and children? 

What about your in-laws and their families, including that brother-in-law who drives you nuts? What about your children’s in-laws? 

As I recall, the speaker said when they honestly looked at their family tree, they decided that they would be prepping for fourteen people. Yep, fourteen. Because to do otherwise meant that they would be saying to people they love (and/or have an obligation to), “No, I can’t give you food – you will have to go hungry.”

In the warmer months, it is pretty easy to tell when someone is having a barbecue because you can easily smell it from blocks away. Walking down my street in the evening, I can tell what many of my neighbors are eating for dinner because the scent is sent outside through exhaust fans or, in the warmer months, open windows. Wood fires are even more easily detected through scent. I doubt it will take even take 5 days for your OpSec to be shot, unless you are eating cold food out of cans and everyone is forced to stay inside because of weather or some other reason.

"Hand-to-Hand Combat and the Use of Combatives Skills: An Analysis of United States Army Post Combat Surveys from 2004-2008"

On April 1, 2015, I linked to an article discussing a military study on hand-to-hand combat, but did not have a link to the full study. Well, here it is for your reading enjoyment. (Follow the link, then click on the address following the "Full Text" heading to download a PDF).

Anti-Immigrant Riots in South Africa

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you. The Daily Mail reports that the riots have been ongoing for the past two weeks in Durban and spreading to Johannesburg, and have led to 6 deaths. According to the article, the riots are the result of high unemployment rates and a large number of immigrants. "In the past two weeks, shops and homes owned by Somalis, Ethiopians, Malawians and other immigrants in Durban and surrounding townships have been targeted, forcing families to flee to camps protected by armed guards."

The protests are not white versus blacks. Channel 4 News reports, for instance:

Reported comments by the Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini - that foreigners should "pack their bags" and leave - are thought to have stoked the fires of hatred. Many of those rioting were heard chanting "the king has spoken".

The International Business Times reports:

Police have stepped up their presence across the entire Alberta Park area of the city, home to many immigrants. The unrest is believed to have its source in a labour dispute at a local supermarket, which has escalated into random attacks on foreigners. 

"The employees were complaining about the employer employing foreign nationals," Police Minister Nathi Nhleko said, reports EWN. 

More than 1,000 foreigners - including Ethiopians, Malawians, Somalians and Pakistanis - have been forced to flee their homes in the KwaZulu-Natal province since the violence erupted days ago, after Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini said that foreigners should "pack their bags" and leave. 

Some locals accuse the immigrants, many of whom are from other African countries, of taking jobs and opportunities away from them.

Newsweek also relates: "'It is African-on-African. It is not on other nationalities,' said [Police Minister] Nhleko."

The Remington 700 Settlement--Not A Done Deal

CNBC, in an article entitled "Judge approves massive Remington rifle fix," reports that "[a] federal judge in Kansas City, Missouri, has given preliminary approval to a massive class-action settlement involving millions of allegedly defective Remington rifles that were the subject of a CNBC documentary."

The case is Pollard v. Remington Arms Co., LLC (W.D. Mo. No. 13-86-CV-W-ODS), and is based on allegations that the trigger in Remington rifles are defective because the design allows debris and other foreign material to slip between the trigger and the trigger connector making the rifles susceptible to accidental discharge without a trigger pull.

I haven't been able to find a copy of the opinion to which the article refers, but the article indicates that "[u]nder the settlement, which is still subject to final approval later this year, Remington will offer to replace the trigger systems, free of charge, on more than 7 million of its bolt-action rifles." (Underline added). Part of the reason that approval of the settlement is delayed is because the judge was not pleased that older rifles were not subject to the recall, and the owners of those rifles would only receive a $10 coupon for Remington products under the proposed settlement. The judge has apparently ordered that representatives owners of older rifles be added as plaintiffs to the suit to get input from the owners of the older rifles. So, in short, Remington and the plaintiffs' attorneys may be happy with the settlement, but it is still not a done deal.

Of course, it is the plaintiffs' attorneys that stand the most to gain from the settlement--according to the article, they stand to collect $12.5 million in fees.

TFB: "A Few Reasons I Like The Kalashnikov Better Than The AR-15"

Nathaniel Fitch writes about the AK at The Firearms Blog.

"Video Show Mob Attack At Gas Station In Tennessee By High School Student Gangbangers"

Another heartwarming story (and video) about inner-city youth from Weasel Zippers.

Signal 9 Defense Reliant Pistol

Source: The Firearms Blog

With the exception of double-barrel shotguns, multi-barrel firearms are generally pretty rare. Sure, there are derringers, and you may run across the occasional combination gun or double-barrel express rifle, but for the most part, multi-barrel weapons are a thing of the past. But, lo and behold, I saw today that The Firearms Blog is reviewing a pepper-box looking "revolver" called the Reliant Pistol from a company called Signal 9 Defense. (Although the weapon is a break-action, I tentatively term it a "revolver" because, according to the article, the firing pin mechanism rotates to a new position as each barrel is fired). The rubber boot at the bottom of the grip is actually a speed loader that holds four more rounds.

It is intended to fire (depending on the barrel package), either .32 or .38 caliber rimmed cartridges, although it will accept a couple .32 and .38 rimless cartridges using a moon clip (which would probably be the best way to use the weapon for concealed carry). Its weight and size are such that it should generally be concealable, but probably less so than a similarly sized semi-auto or revolver. The intent of the weapon, as the name indicates, is maximum reliability: it can be fired from inside a purse or pocket, and someone grabbing the firearm cannot prevent it from firing (although there are disarming techniques that so weaken your mechanical advantage...).

It might seem strange in a world where an increasingly larger number of small auto-loaders are being offered to design and produce weapons with even less capacity than a J-frame revolver. It is challenging to think of anything this weapon can do that a 5-shot "hammerless" revolver could not. Someone grabbing a snub-nosed revolver to stop it from working seems highly unlikely (and please correct me if you have more information), so if there is any advantage, it would have to be in the trigger pull, which is indicated to be 8 lbs. I suppose there is the intimidation factor as well--staring down 4 barrels instead of one. Anyway, it is in interesting weapon, even if I don't appreciate its advantages, if any, over other similarly sized handguns.

In the Country, No One Can Hear You Scream ....

One of the commentators to this blog used the turn of phrase in the title, and I've become attached to it as describing one of the serious downsides of a rural retreat. I bring up the subject because of this article at the Daily Mail: "Ninety-year-old bachelor farmer found tied up and battered to death in rural Minnesota home." The title says it all.

"Two Overdue Technologies About to Arrive"

The Futurist discusses artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality.

How Big Was the Tambora Explosion?

An article at Wired Magazine.

Collapse of Bronze Age Civilizations

Last month I reviewed the book 1177 B.C.--The Year Civilization Collapsed. Today I saw an article at the Daily Mail discussing the book and its author's theories, including that the civilizations collapsed due to a perfect storm of drought, war, and earthquakes.

Up on the Soapbox: "Survivalist" Versus "Prepper"

This is one of those philosophical issues that probably would be of no significance or importance if it wasn't for the negative connotation associated with "survivalist" by the media. Some people call themselves "preppers" because they don't think they are "survivalists" in the traditional sense of the word. Some people don't like the term "prepper". Max Velocity has suggested using the terms "realist" or "rationalist" instead. I don't think there is a clear demarcation between a prepper and a survivalist, but I do think there are some basic philosophical differences and goals.

American Preppers Network discusses the difference between survivalists and preppers. (H/t KA9OFF Preparedness News). The author explains the basic difference as:

[S]urvivalists focus on wilderness survival skill sets like trapping, hunting, fishing and living in the wild. Preppers prepare for catastrophic emergencies and disasters in advance with supplies, gear, food and water, attempting to replicate a “normal” existence as much as possible.

Captain Dave also makes a similar distinction, writing: "If there is a difference between a prepper and a survivalist, it is that a prepper is more reliant on their preps, while a survivalist may have a greater ability to survive in the wilderness with little hardware." While I think they are close, it is not quite correct. I have friends quite adapt at wilderness survival that probably don't have a week's worth of food in their home. And the distinction doesn't hold up well with the history of the movement.

The term "survivalist" seems to have its roots in the 1970's and 1980's. People like Mel Tappan, Ragnar Benson, Howard Ruff, Kurt Saxon, Bruce D. Clayton, Joel Skousen, and Duncan Long were very influential on the survivalist movement during that time. In the 1990's, Kenneth W. Royce (aka, "Boston T. Party") and James Wesley Rawles became prominent in the survivalist movement. Although each of these authors were concerned with differing disasters, the common element seems to have been the belief in the establishment of a survival retreat. In fact, an alternate term for survivalists in the 1970's and early 1980's was "retreaters." These survivalists urge (or urged) moving to a rural location where a family or group could establish large scale gardening/small scale farming for food, independence from the power grid, home schooling of children (or at least planning for it in the event of a disaster), and, in most cases, preparations for armed protection from other small groups. In many ways, the survivalist movement took the quasi-hippy "back to basics" or "back to the land" movements, and added a new motivation for getting back to a simpler, rural lifestyle: surviving an apocalyptic disaster and the gangs that would inevitably follow.

But well before the survivalist movement, there were people and groups (including Mormons) advocating food storage and emergency preparation without the concomitant goal of establishing a retreat. 9/11 and Katrina gave a considerable boost to popularizing the storage of food and emergency supplies, having a 72-hour kit, first aid skills, and so on. The goal is not to establish a small colony surviving the collapse of civilization, but to weather more modest calamities (even if "more modest" is something like the Big One), or at least something less than the end of the world as we know it.

While it may seem trivial, the viewpoint concerning a survival retreat is critical to understanding the difference between the two philosophies. To the survivalist, a fully stocked and developed retreat is the ultimate goal. A prepper may recognize the need to evacuate (and may even have a "bug-out" plan), but is satisfied with storing food, water, etc., where ever they may be--even if it is an apartment in Manhattan. The survivalist expects and plans for a sudden collapse of civilization. The prepper does not. There is an anti-urban (not anti-social, but a dislike of the large urban centers) sentiment in the survivalist literature that is lacking among those that I would characterize as preppers. This is not say that preppers are urban while survivalists are rural or nature oriented; but that survivalists reject the notion of surviving in a city or suburb, whereas preppers do not.

So where do I fit on the spectrum? I'm not sure. My philosophy has definitely been shaped by survivalism, but as I've studied the collapse of civilizations, I've observed that civilizational collapses have historically taken decades, if not longer, particularly as the size of the civilization increases. I've also learned that rural retreats are not the end-all, be-all of disaster preparation. In many ways, one's security and food situation is more vulnerable in a rural location than in a developed area. My views now align less with Tappan or Rawles and more with that of Fer Fal.

Marooned by Pirates

From the Daily Mail:

A retired Calgary couple who were attacked by pirates during a sailing trip in Honduras two weeks ago said they're grateful to be alive after the terrifying incident.  

Loretta Reinholdt, 54, and Andy Wasinger, 46, were on their second day into a trip from Belize to the Honduran island of Roatan in which they were learning to sail on a 17-meter-long hired boat with a captain when they were attacked. 

Four men with guns and knives boarded the sailboat and took all of their money after waving down the sailboat by asking for gas.  

'They were yelling,' Reinholdt, a former nurse, told CBC. 'They were demanding more money. They didn't believe we only had that amount. And the more angry they got, the more scary it was. 

'And they actually had me, pulling my hair and a knife on my throat, demanding more money from the captain.' 

Wasinger, a former computer programmer, added: 'I knew we had to comply with the pirates and not be heroes.' 

After the terrifying hold-up, the pirates pushed the sailboat to the shoreline of a remote beach in Jeanette Kawas National Park, cut the main sail and tore out the engine wire, leaving the couple and their captain stranded.  

They also took gasoline, the radio and drinking water from the boat.  

The couple and captain made SOS messages with branches along a park trail, which was discovered by hikers four days later. 

'It was great. It was one of the best moments of my life, I think. I was ecstatic,' Wasinger told CTV News. 'I know we can go through anything in life now after this situation. We are a lot closer as a couple and we live life every day as if it is our last.' 

During their time in the jungle, they survived on rainwater, peanut butter and cheese and make a make-shift tent to stay in until they were saved. 

"Bugging Out"--A Video From alonewolverine1984

An interesting video from a women in Austria, performing a mock "bug out." Based on her other videos, she is experienced in the outdoors. Nevertheless, she had problems with keeping warm enough at night, which meant that she didn't get as much sleep. If you plan on bugging out to a wilderness area, plan to have a sleeping bag or blanket roll.

Her having to fashion a spear also highlights the problem with living in a locality that restricts possession and use of firearms. Although she uses a rope to rappel at the beginning of the video, it raises the point that it may be useful to have a rope and harness for climbing or rappelling (something I'm not experienced with, unfortunately).

Anyway, check it out.

Global Economy Facing Low-Growth Trap

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, writing in The Telegraph, reports:

The global economy is caught in a low-growth trap as innovation withers and the population ages across the Northern Hemisphere. It will not regain its lost dynamism in the foreseeable future, the International Monetary Fund has warned. 

The IMF said the world as a whole has seen a “persistent reduction” in its growth rate since the Great Recession and shows no sign of returning to normal, marking a fundamental break in historical patterns. 

This exposes the global economic system to a host of pathologies that may be hard to combat, and leaves it acutely vulnerable to a fresh recession. It is unclear what the authorities could do next to fight off a slump given that debt ratios are already at record highs and central banks are running out of ammunition.

Yemen Slides Toward a Failed State

The American Conservative, citing several news sources, reports that Saudi Arabia's efforts in Yemen are leading to many civilian casualties, but not meeting any of the Saudi's goals. Rather, the military action appears to be pushing the country further into chaos, and alienating even those Yemenis that oppose the Houthis.

Getting Rid of Rust

Blue Collar Prepping discusses some methods for getting rid of rust on an item. The author discusses several types of rust dissolvers, but also rust neutralizers that leave black rust coating to prevent further rusting.

"Revolver Vs. Auto: Which Model Fits Your Concealed Carry Needs?"

An article by Massad Ayoob at Personal Defense World discussing the pros and cons of the revolver and the semi-automatic for concealed carry.

An In-Depth Analysis of the 6.8 mm SPC (Updated)

The Firearms Blog has an in-depth review of the performance of the 6.8 mm SPC--a .270 caliber round designed for use in the AR. There is quite the debate in the comments regarding the author's conclusions. The basic contention in the debate was the purpose of the cartridge. The author, Nathaniel F., maintains that the round was developed for medium-to-long range precision shooting, at which it is pretty much a failure. However, a large number of the commentators contend that the 6.8 SPC was developed with the purpose of increasing lethality at short to medium ranges, and does a very good job in that regard (as exemplified by the round's popularity in hog hunting).

I don't know enough about the cartridge to comment on its performance. However, in doing some quick research of information on the internet, I could not find any mention of it being developed as a long-range cartridge other than Nathaniel F.'s article, whereas I found several sources that mentioned it having been developed for the shorter combat ranges of out to 300 or 400 meters.

Update: Nathaniel F. was kind enough to respond to my post (see the comment below), and after looking over the article he referenced and his comments, I think I understand where I (and probably some others) went off the mark. Nathaniel had noted that the 6.8 mm was intended to replace the Mk. 262 round for the Mk. 12 SPR (Special Purpose Rifle). What I think is causing the confusion is that the Mk. 12 was a version of the AR intended to be used by designated marksmen--i.e., more accurate and longer range use of a weapon than expected from a typical Marine or infantryman, but not the range or precision of a sniper; and the Mk. 262 round was a 5.56 mm cartridge intended to provide better accuracy and lethality at ranges out to 700 meters. In other words, that the history related to the designated marksman rifles put into my mind, at least, that we were talking about a round intended for longer ranges than typical engagements.

Nathaniel F. pointed me to a 2006 article by Zak Smith describing the history of the 6.8 mm. Smith's article notes:

The SPC designation was assigned based on the intended integration into the Mk12 Special Purpose Rifle (SPR). The SPC was designed from the ground up to provide increased energy, barrier penetration, and incapacitation from the Mk12 SPR, from contact distance to 500 meters.

In other words, not even the 700 meters of the Mk. 262 round. And, as Nathaniel's article makes clear, inside of the 500 meter range, its performance is not even as good as the Mk. 262.

Anyway, I appreciate Nathaniel clearing this matter up for me.

Happy Easter

Rafael's Resurrection of Christ

He is risen! He is risen!

Tell it out with joyful voice.

He has burst his three days' prison;

Let the whole wide earth rejoice.

Death is conquered; man is free.

Christ has won the victory.

                                                                  --from the Hymn "He Is Risen" by Cecil Frances Alexander

The End of E Pluribus Unum

Last year, Jerry Pournelle noted that the most important founding principle of the United States was the motto e pluribus unum. He wrote:

But the premise of the United States, the really founding principle, was e pluribus unum – that from many peoples we would create one people, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, and those phrases were not taken lightly. As the late William Buckley observed, you could study and learn to become an American. That wasn’t true of other nations. You could not learn to be Swiss, or a Swede or a German; but you could learn to become an American. 

Diversity was not a goal of this mixture. Certainly you could be an Irish-American, or an Italian-American, and we had parades and lodges to prove it, but you were American first; and while we tolerated various sub-cultures, diversity as such was not a goal. The goal is one people living in harmony. The original civil rights movements understood that: its goal was not a diversity of cultures all to be treated as equally valuable but rather the admission of minorities into the general culture. Some diversities were tolerated – they had to be, given the multiple origins – but nothing like all of them.

But some cultures may be too incompatible to attempt to assimilate. Fred Reed believes so,  and has discussed his thoughts in several articles:

•  "White Girl Bleed a Lot--The Raging Success of American Racial Policy"
• "Riots--Ain't Nobody Gonna Like It"
• "Respecting All Cultures By Allowing Them To Remain Separate"
• "Plinking Cops--The Symptoms Worsen"