Orlando, Ideologies, Guns & Weapons

I’ve waited until today to comment for a couple of reasons. First off, a friend might have been there, then, and I needed to know his status. Second, Orlando has the OGC, Orlando Gay Choir, and I’ve met some of the folks in it. Another good friend had his son in the OGC and I’ve met some of the folks from it. In short, I know some of the gay folks in Orlando and, well, that makes this event more difficult.

Also, knowing full well that this would be “4 walled” in the news cycle, I didn’t see much purpose in a “me too” pile on. I wanted to wait until I had something to say. Until more was known and a better understanding could form.

What Happened?

It is important to make sure you know what really happened prior to reacting. More than anything else, I see this rule violated in this kind of event. From the POTUS on down to the “guy in the street” interview; folks jump to their Talking Points without a clue about the reality. So what did happen?

An American Muslim Male who was known in the gay scene and hung out at that bar “a couple of times a month” for a long time (IIRC year or two), who was known for beating his wife (per her statements, but also note this is in accordance with the Koran which states a man may “beat his wife unto her couches” for not being obedient) and who was described as hateful and prone to anger issues by his fellow workers; bought two guns in accordance with law, and then went to a gun free zone with limited exits and shot a lot of people (over 100, about half dead). He was employed as a security guard for an agency that was hired by the Federal Government, and had a special class of firearms license that let him posses and carry weapons into places the rest of us (even concealed carry license holders) can not go armed. He passed a Federal Background Check more extensive than that needed to buy the guns.

The Usual Suspects

So the Political Class have issued their call to “Round up the usual suspects!” (to quote Casablanca) and all the typical village idiots are running around reading from their hymnal-playbooks. Adding idiocy and pathos to sadness.

The Donald wants to ban muslims from known terrorist states from entering America until we can figure out what is going on. But this guy was born here, so that would do nothing for this class of problem. (It would likely fix other problems, though). Further, we already know what is going on. Islam wants to take over the world. (Read your Koran, that’s what it said to me.) Everyone is to be forced to convert, or die. (Optionally, if and only if the local dominant muslims decided to do it, you might be allowed to live if, and only if, you pay a special tax to them…) So what more is there to understand? There will always be “Radical Islam” trying to kill off western civilization since that is the requirement of Islam. Get over it and move on.

The Hillary wants to ban “Assault weapons” and “military guns” and impose background checks on gun shows and all the usual claptrap. Yet this guy passed an even more extensive background check. So how well is that Federal Background Check working for you this time, eh? Furthermore, he used a simple SEMI-automatic rifle, not a “military gun” and not an “Assault rifle” (which, by definition must have a full automatic “machine gun” mode of at least several rounds). So how would banning a gun that wasn’t used change this? Conversely, banning guns that LOOK LIKE military guns, but do not function like them (which is what was used) has only two possible outcomes (depending on how implemented): Either
1) folks will be killed by prettier weapons with more magazines, or,
2) Normal, moral, law abiding folks will be disarmed and have their 2nd amendment rights removed for no benefit.

Neither of those is a good thing.

The News Talking Heads divided into their usual camps. Fox News having folks on pointing out how dumb the gun ban ideas were. MSNBC pointing out how dumb the folks opposing gun bans were. CNN moaning and emoting over the dead and with pictures of candle vigils… Clue Stick: Candles do not stop nutcase ideologues with guns ( and / or laws ). Honorable Mention goes to Alisyn Camerota and Chris Cuomo on CNN who asked The Usual Liberals spouting the Talking Points Du Jour polite but pointed questions. Like “but he had passed a background check and had a Class {B?} Firearms License” and similar. Actually pointing out to folks that the proposed “fix” would have done nothing. Still slightly left wing tilted, but being good journalists and covering both sides. Refreshing, really.

The President, boating far up the River DeNile… can’t even bring himself to say “Islamic Terrorist” or even “Islamic Murderer”. Somehow seems to think if we just whistle past the Islamic Jihad we won’t end up in the graveyard. Dear Mr. POTUS: When folks want to beat you up, dominate you, rape women and kill men, whistling doesn’t cut it; but a well aimed Real Assault Rifle works wonders. Furthermore, when someone is stalking you (as Radical Islam is doing to all of Western Citizens) looking them straight in the eye and saying “I see you, I know who you are and what you want, and I will stop you.” can work wonders. Head in the sand not so much…

The Reality

More gun restrictions will not fix this. (Calling gun bans and restrictions “gun control” is just a lie. Banning a car is not controlling it, it is banning. Same thing with guns). Banning weapons in general has a very long history – of failure. China banned the people of Okinawa from having weapons. The result was Karate – the art of “open hand” or empty hand fighting. I was a student for years. I can kill with my bare hands. Unless you want to join the Islamists and start chopping off hands, you will not be taking those away from me. The Nunchuck was another direct result. Banned from owning swords or bow, the rice-flail and well handle became weapons. Now the nunchuck and “side handle baton”. In a case of incredible irony and terminal stupid, California has banned the nunchuck (unless you are currently enrolled in a class teaching it…). Guess what, the belt made of bike chain and the metal “medical arm brace” can work just as well. Short swords are banned in public, but the Machete in California is classed as a “gardening implement” so OK. But ban the machete, and I’ll just move on to the scythe or the “Art Of The Hand Saw & Claw Hammer” or a dozen others. (Note that in the game / movie Clue, the weapons include only one gun… the rope, pipe, and even candlestick are all lethal…)

You simply can not ever ban your way to safety. It is a fools errand and does not work.

In particular, note the attacks in France. Some of the toughest weapons bans in the world. The Islamist Murderers know how to make explosives from hydrogen peroxide and acetone from the local mega-mart, they don’t need guns. Yet they still get them there. Why? Because the only real effects of a gun ban are:
1) A weak, exposed, and vulnerable target population.
2) A larger and lucrative market for smugglers.

So just as soon as you win the War On Drugs and we don’t have tons of drugs crossing the border per day, that would be a good time to bring up the idea of gun bans again…

Or maybe not… Do note that folks in prison regularly make weapons, including guns, from materials at hand. I have a book on “Improvised and Modified Firearms”. It is very surprising what can be made into a gun. (Hint: You need to ban all water pipes and metal tubes…also nails and wood…)

Banning guns to folks with a “misdemeanor hate crime” conviction is not going to fix this. First off, he didn’t have one. Second, with the present trajectory of what is considered a “hate crime”, in short order most of America will be subject to banning. Already the Black Lives Matter folks see all Police has haters, so disarming the Police is good? Saying “I think marriage ought to be between man and woman” gets you branded hater too. (So I guess it would work to disarm all the Radical Episcopal Terrorists… Oh, wait, there aren’t any…) The whole concept of “Hate Crime” is a farce. Crime is crime. How one emotes about it is irrelevant (unless, of course, you want to inject a political control knob…) Would the FBI Agent who points out a given Mosque as center of Islamic Radicalization be subject to Hate Crime conviction for wrong think? In some jurisdictions today, highly likely. (Flint, anyone?)

Banning Muslims from foreign lands will not fix this. (It might improve things in 20 years, since there is a clear pattern of the children of Muslim Immigrants being radicalized. It might also reduce embedded covert ISIS agents.) These are radical islamist murderers following where their ideology leads them. The only real fix is to exterminate the ideology. I will leave it for others to decide where the ideology ends. Is it a perversion of Islam? A particular sect? (Watching Sunni and Shia argue over which one is the infidel can be great sport… they have been killing each other off for centuries). Perhaps all of Islam? When I read the Koran, it seems pretty clear to me. Islam is to dominate, the infidel is to be subjugated or killed. Perhaps “they” can “fix it”, but I’d rather they fixed it first, then were allowed to come here. The other way around seems to get a lot of folks killed. But that’s just my opinion. (And I’m saying it because I love everyone, even them… not a shred of hate in me… does that make it a ‘love crime’?)

The Scenario

I’ve struggled for a couple of days with the question of “Say this or not?”. The reason is pretty simple. I don’t want to give anyone ideas. Yet I’m pretty sure the Islamic Murderers are pretty well aware of this kind of potential. They have been known to scout out fuel trucks.

A fuel truck driven into the front door and set on fire would have had just as many, or more, killed. But it doesn’t even need a whole truck. This attack happened just at closing time for the bar. So you get 2 guys, each in overalls saying “Joe’s Cleaning Service” and with a mop in one hand and a 5 gallon plastic pail saying “floor cleaner” in the other. One approaches each door (front and back as required by fire regs). IF stopped by someone at the door, they say “Oh, let me show you my ID and the work order” and set down the pale (that has a loose lid). While setting it down, they knock it over into the doorway. Then light it.

Now 5 gallons is about 20 liters. That liquid will spread out rapidly to about 2 mm thick, then start evaporating rapidly. It will cover about 20 x 1000 cm^2 x 5 or 100,000 cm^2 Call it 10 m^2 or about a 10 x 10 foot area. (3 x 3 m is about 10 x 10 feet to the precision of spilled gasoline)

Now “flick your bic” and there is a wall of flame at both exits. NOBODY gets out alive. Anyone who runs through the flames will be functionally blind as they exit, so one “whack on the head” with your trusty hammer and they are done.

This is but one of a hundred scenarios that can be thought up. Each worse than a gunman with a long rifle.

The Problem

The basic problem is the creation of “soft targets”. The “gun free zone” is a prime example. It isn’t “gun free”. It is properly called “Defense free – Criminal With Guns Attack Zone”. It is no accident that mass shootings happen at schools and bars. They are both “gun free zones” aka ‘easy targets’.

Anyone who demands more “gun free zones” is waving a giant “I Am An Idiot!” flag. Anyone advocating for “gun control” is lying, as it is gun banning and restriction, not control, and delusional in thinking less defense means better defended. I don’t have to like that to see the truth in it.

(Similarly anyone calling the AR-15 he used an “assault rifle” is clearly waving the “I am ignorant” flag or “working from an agenda”. It is NOT a military gun nor an “assault rifle” as it is not capable of automatic fire. Period. Full stop. And no, just because some Dimocrat passes a law defining it as one doesn’t change the reality.)

There will always be nut cases and malicious ideologies. They will always have access to weapons (since so much is so easily weaponized). Disarming yourself will not “fix” that. The only way to fix it is to attack the ideology and exterminate it. I don’t have to like that either, to see the truth in it.

Now mix your soft targets with your murderous ideology, you get mass casualties.

That really is how simple it is.

The Fix(es)

The only real fix is to harden the targets (which means more guns not less) and exterminate the ideologues.

A partial “help” would be to stop building giant “man traps” with only 2 exits. Have some ‘breakout panels’ in any place that is subject to attack. That can be as simple as large windows with nearby chairs for tossing, or as complicated as an alarmed “emergency door” in the back of the bathrooms, only openable from the inside.

Overstated? Not at all. The Islamic Murderer cased several places looking for the best target. He clearly figured out that Disney has a LOT of security (even if hard to spot). It is also open to lots of free flow of people. That means his targets could escape and he would be rapidly faced with guns and police. So he “moved on” to a softer target. One with limited entrances and exits, and one with no ‘counterforce’ to face. In short, there is a reason armored cars have armed guards and police carry guns. It makes them a harder target.

I don’t like war. I don’t like killing. I don’t like security checks at doors. I have hearing loss of a kind that means any live gunfire without ear protection will leave me permanently deafened (more than I already am) so I can’t practically use a gun without preparation (i.e. plugs AND muffs). I don’t like any of this (Islamic Murderers included). What I like doesn’t matter.

“Reality just is.” -E.M.Smith

Our political class needs to understand that and embrace it. There is an objective reality. It is full of bad actors. The best way we have found to date to deal with it is to be armed and dangerous ourselves. I’d love to see a better way, but one does not exist at this time. (The world still has police and armies…for a reason.)

Part of that reality is that “Islam is NOT your friend”. Read your Koran. It states, several times, “Do not take Christians to be your friends” and “Do not take the infidel to be your friends”. So I am not insulting Islam or Muslims by stating to act in accordance with their Koran. Islam is apart from all Christianity and all Jews and all of everyone else, by their own rules. Do not, ever, expect “assimilation” to western culture. It is just not going to happen. The only allowed assimilation is you, to Islam.

Worse, Political Islam is the action arm working to convert the world to Islamic Rule and Sharia Law. Just ask them, they will tell you. (Well, most of the time… but the Koran specifically advises to lie to the infidel when desirable… so it’s more reliable to read their published works.) The Mosque is not just a “funny church”. It is also a cultural center and used by Political Islam to push the agenda of dominance.

Those realities “just are” too.

As a necessary consequence, it is a requirement to do surveillance of mosques. The ones indulging in Political Islam must be identified. The actors pushing that dominance agenda must be identified, and ejected from the society. ( I don’t really care how).

The whole ideology of dominance and death dealing must be extirpated in the West. Until that is done, it’s Groundhog Day at the Islamic Murder Coral. Only the weapon of choice will change.

In Conclusion

There is no conclusion. Not until the Ideology Of Murder is exterminated, the groups pushing it are exterminated (ISIS only the latest, and not the last), and Islam has a “Reformation” that lets it let go of it’s murderous tenets. Until then it is a culture war between two very incompatible cultures, and in a war, those who are unarmed are buried. Right now, we are burying 49, them 1. We need to “up our game”. A lot.

Playing kissy face and sucking up will not make this any better, and only encourages more attacks and ‘dominance seeking’ as you are signaling weakness and submission. What works with all bullies is force in their face. What always fails is being nice and polite. “Peace in our time” fails. “Peace through superior firepower” wins. That is the clear lesson of history, and of anyone who has been on the street alone at night in marginal places. Anyone who has dealt with bullies knows this too. Political Islam is just a global bully, and it must be confronted with force, in every place it exists. There can be no safe haven, not even in the Mosque (or perhaps especially in the Mosque). The rabble that follows the bully dissipates when the bully is beaten. Getting in the occasional street fight just makes them look stronger. Half measures (as our POSTUS likes) don’t get the job done.

I would also suggest to the LGBT Community that there is a clear choice here. Islam wants you dead (see the laws under sharia and in Saudi). The Democrats want you cheek by jowl with lots more islamists. The Republicans want to defend you from them. Maybe it is time to check out the Log Cabin Republicans and get a concealed carry permit.

You can’t run away (there is no such place as ‘away’) and you can’t quit the fight (they will not stop until 100% of the world is Islamic and under Sharia). You have no choice but to “be among them“…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Orlando, Ideologies, Guns & Weapons

  1. PhilJourdan says:

    Death is a great convincer. There is a trickle of gays away from democrats and towards republicans. More episodes like this past weekend, and it will turn into a torrent to the point that there will only be 2 types of gays – dead or republican.

    Gays are finding out they are last year’s news. Used, abused and discarded. Liberals love Muslims now. But like the scorpion and frog, democrats are going to find out that there are people who do not mind dying – if it means taking you out with them. Democrats are about to find out what it is like to be a frog. Gays just did.

  2. omanuel says:

    Thank you, E.M. Smith, for your continuing effort to identify the source of current social insanity.

    The 1945 decision to unite nations and to hide the source of energy in atomic bombs, in fact, isolated humanity from the creator, destroyer and sustainer of atoms, lives and planets in the core of the Sun.

    That insanity will be eliminated by the next super-solar eruption (that occurs every ~1,000 years and resets the stage of civilization), if not sooner.

  3. Gary P Smith says:

    After joining the Log Cabin Republicans, the LGBT community might want to join the Pink Pistols organization as well. http://www.pinkpistols.org/

  4. Ian W (Aka Nautonnier) says:

    Without any comment and not in any particular sequence it is instructive to read/watch these links. What is happening is not random.
    The last Caliphate – the Ottoman Empire was only broken by the First World War and the reason the political boundaries don’t match the ethnic boundaries in the Middle East was the deliberate attempt of the French and British to ensure a caliphate did not return after the first World War.


  5. E.M.Smith says:

    Gretchen Carlson on Fox just waved the “I am ignorant flag” in advocating for an “assault weapons ban” reinstatement. Even said “semi-automatic assault weapon” completely unaware of that being an oxymoron…

    I’d expected Fox to have more clue about what is, and what is not, actually an “assault rifle”. Apparently not.

    Dear Gretchen:

    Yes, the AR-15 is an “ugly gun”. It is just as lethal as the “pretty gun” semiautomatic rifle. Limit magazines to 15 rounds and the perp just has to carry a few more in number, but being smaller they are also lighter. Net-net it is roughly a wash. Remove the “pistol grip” it is just as lethal. Remove the flash hider and the accessory rail, it is just as lethal. Etc. etc. right down the list of “banned features” in the prior law. The wooden stock semi-automatic battle rifle of W.W.II was the M1 Garand. It had an 8 round “clip” (not a detachable magazine) and was one of the most lethal battle implements ever devised. It isn’t an “assault rifle” though… and it is very pretty.

    Only “full automatic” distinguishes the non-assault weapon from the Real assault weapon and only a real assault weapon has full auto mode.

    BTW, a large number of AR-15 shooters do, in fact, hunt deer and other critters with them. They are a bit low in power, IMHO, and a “real deer rifle” is usually of a much more powerful caliber and cartridge ( .30-06 and .308 NATO are common – much larger and more powerful cartridge) and again, IMHO, the dinky .223 used in the ARa-15 is more suited to ‘varmints’ than deer; but in fact people are much easier to kill than a deer.

    FWIW, the pump shotgun would have, IMHO, been far more effective and lethal in that close range environment. It has an effectively infinite magazine as you can just stuff rounds into it as you shoot. Limited only by the size of your wheelbarrow of ammo. Widely used as the “trench broom” of W.W.I and so effective the Germans issued an order to kill any enemy with one on sight, even if surrendering. Similarly, use of two handguns would have been more lethal as he could have carried more ammunition. In reality, he chose the wrong weapon for the job. Inside, the added range of the rifle out to several hundred yards is just wasted, and the weight and length are hindrances. Ban them and you will be simply moving the Perps to more appropriate weapons and kill more people. Check with the military. For inside close quarters special assault teams prefer a smaller round in a more pistol sized package.

    So please, Gretchen, learn a bit about actual guns ,actual use, actual tactics, before you run off to propose laws to do things you do not understand. At present, you are looking a bit dumb on the issue.

  6. Larry Ledwick says:

    @EMS ref your mention of other means of mass murder, your option has already been used for all practical purposes (actually much less extreme version of it) and it was almost 2x as lethal as the Orlando shooting. You are not giving away any secrets and it also serves to illustrate the futility of banning a gun which is used in less than 2% of all shootings.


    As far as the 1994 assault weapon ban, one of the reasons it was allowed to expire was that on analysis, it was found to have literally no measurable impact on gun crime. (not to mention the fact it was widely ignored by the public)


    The simple fact is, that if the anti gun folks wanted to take “common sense measures to reduce gun crime” they would do something about gang bangers in the inner city which kill 5,000 – 6,000 black youths a year. That is the real gun violence problem, not the barely measurable number of murders caused by all long guns (of which only a fraction are so called assault weapons). The fact that they are not focusing on that part of the problem is proof positive that their agenda is something other than reducing gun crime. (or that they are totally incompetent)

    More importantly, legal bans of high demand goods or services never have worked.
    Prostitution has been outlawed or highly restricted world wide for over 1000 years. Still there.
    Hard drugs have been outlawed and heavily restricted for at least 100 years in most western countries. Still here.
    Liquor sales was banned in the 1920’s in the U.S. – hardly made a dent in consumption, simply drove it underground and made organized crime powerful and wealthy.

    Name one legal prohibition of a high demand good or service which actually worked.
    (China’s approach to drugs where the pulled opium den customers and owners out in to the street and executed them on the spot being the only sort of successful measure I can think of.)

    The assault weapon (as used by the anti-gun lobby) is a public relations fabrication intended to instill fear, there is no objective formal definition of assault weapon in Federal law or historically in the fire arms community, they are in no particular way different from fire arms which have been available for over 100 years. The first semi-auto loading pistol adopted into military service in the U.S. is the model 1911 colt .45 so called because it was adopted in 1911. German Luger 1904, browning hi power 1914, Mauser C96 1896, Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) M1918 etc. etc. etc.
    Since the modern civilian AR family and related fire arms are also semi-auto function they are directly comparable to these century old designs.

    There is nothing at all unusual or new about the modern assault rifles other than that they look scary and the anti-gun left finally noticed them and decided to use them to manipulate public opinion. They routinely publish the most ridiculous misinformation about them and the media is criminally negligent on not calling them on that crap. For example asserting that a semi-auto civilian AR family rifle can fire at 700 rounds per minute. That is the rate of fire for a fully automatic weapon which is already illegal under Federal law to produce at all after 1986, and even before that required a Federal tax stamp as a class 3 or Title II weapon. In other words it is already illegal to make or covert such a gun to achieve that rate of fire.


    Even the fully automatic belt fed M-60 machine gun does not achieve that rate of fire. The M249 Squad Automatic Weapon does achieve 800 rounds a minute but is not legal to possess by a civilian. Light civilian weapons like the AR series of rifles are nearly uncontrollable at full auto fire as the U.S. military found with the M16A1 in Vietnam. Most rounds fired were wasted.

  7. p.g.sharrow says:

    I have watched / listen to Gretchen for years. Sometimes I think that the “Dumb Blond” act is her way to get the interviewee to give more information. At other times I’m sure she IS a Dumb Blond!
    Some people are deliberately ignorant, STUPID really!
    There is No cure for stupid…pg

  8. Larry Ledwick says:

    On the AR as a hunting weapon, you are correct. The .223 / 5.56 version (ie classic AR-15) is illegal to use for deer hunting in Colorado because it is “not lethal enough” ie it does not have enough projectile energy to ensure a reliable humane kill on a deer sized animal. That said one of the reasons the AR family of weapons is so popular is the caliber is determined by the Upper receiver used. You can also install a .22 rimfire conversion kit and practice with the .223 version upper using common .22 long rifle ammo. (That is how we qualified troops in the Colorado Army National Guard for the M-16).

    So you have one weapon that you can practice with using .22 long rifle, remove the .22 subcaliber kit and shoot .223 all day long to take coyotes or other larger small game, then pull the .223 upper off and use the appropriate magazine for .243 or any one of the larger true hunting calibers on and use it for big game hunting.

    It is also commonly used in the DCA National Match target shooting series in several different matches. Those target matches “require” the use of a rifle which has a direct linage to a service rifle used by the U.S. Military, so you get AR versions up calibered to cartridges suitable for target work out to 600 yards, M1- Garand battle rifles chambered in either .308 (used by the Navy) or .30-06 used by the Army, or the civilian versions of the M-14 like the Springfield M1A.

    Contrary to the crap published by the media they are one of the most useful rifle designs ever built precisely because they can be used for everything from training new shooters (low recoil low cost .22 LR), standard .223 up through a laundry list of other calibers suitable for other tasks up to and including long range rifle match competition and big game hunting, down to pest control in rolling plains Wyoming where you might be shooting prairie dogs at 300 yards.

    The single biggest lie told by anti gunners is that the rifle has only one purpose to kill people.


  9. E.M.Smith says:

    @Gary P:

    Interesting “top post” at pinkpistols:

    Some bars and other establishments that serve alcohol are difficult to protect because many states forbid the carrying of weapons where alcohol is served, but that just as one might have a designated driver who stays sober, one might have a designated carrier with a concealed-carry permit who goes armed and does not drink. “It’s sad that we must consider such things, but when there are persons out there who mean us harm, we must find ways to protect ourselves within the law.” Patton concludes.

    Very good creative idea…

    BTW, at one point in my life I was “night auditor” at a motel / restaurant / bar. Patrons headed for the bar would often “depot” their gun with me at the front desk. I was a 19 year old college kid at the time… but hey, they were forbidden to take it to the bar, and couldn’t see leaving it in their room or car as being very safe, so… in my drawer it went…

    Now that, too, would likely be seen as somehow illegal or against company policy or…

    But the idea of a “sober card” saying “yes, I’m in the bar, but not drinking” as a “pass” for concealed carry in bars and clubs is a great one. Essentially lets folks be volunteer sober security and monitors in clubs… Would have stopped the Orlando event “right quick” too (one jihadi shooter can’t point and shoot in 5 directions at once… and by my estimate, one in 20 would likely be packing under those conditions… so he points at one and is hit by 2 or 3… end of story).

  10. Larry Ledwick says:

    The one question I have, is supposedly that night spot had a security officer at the door (can’t remember where I saw that so can’t link) if so what happened to him/her?

    The other option would be the old west solution, a bar gun behind the bar and one or more of the bouncers who could carry.

    Second issue which has not been talked about is apparently other exits to the club were padlocked, I thought fire regs prohibited that.

    On the assault weapon thing for those who do not keep current on the firearm market in America.

  11. E.M.Smith says:


    Fire code usually mandates 2 exits from a space, with the exception of bathrooms. IFF they had, say, 4 exits, 2 could be locked shut and still pass inspection. It also looks from the building layout like they had one whole wall of the place as “bathroom” with only one entrance… and that from the main room(?) large space. I don’t know of “talent dressing room” could be qualified as “bathroom”, but likely so (much like your hotel room doesn’t need a second exit).

    Basically, the whole place might have only one main entrance, and then an exit out via some convoluted path to the kitchen (and that might even have been in an attached room / building) where the gunman can cover both doors from the main room… that leaves you stuck for an exit. Once the main room is “done”, he then hit the “bathroom” area. Only one in / out.

    To the best of my knowledge, the “No Guns In Alcohol Spaces” law has no exception for the barkeep, and depending on local law might not have any for “security”. I know that in Kalifornia, the “no guns on school grounds” at one point in the drafting also prohibited police from having guns on school grounds. Don’t know how it ended…

    While you would think there would be common sense allowances for staff to carry, that is often not the case.

  12. Larry Ledwick says:

    Fire code is also strongly local in application although many areas just adopt the national fire code and call it done. In Colorado lots of stores have multiple exits but the emergency exits are alarmed doors which sound an alarm if opened. In the theater shooting the shooter went out an unalarmed emergency exit and blocked it open so he could get back in.

    As you mentioned many people do not realize that in some construction types any fit adult can simply kick their way through a wall between the studs. For night clubs etc. might be useful to have kick out emergency panels that could be kicked out from the inside but not visible on the outside so a burglar could not exploit them to gain access to the building off hours.

    Something along the lines of an airplanes emergency exit windows over the wings perhaps.

    Of course civilians don’t know it, but military (infantry) know that when trapped in a kill zone with no easy or covered exits, the only escape and the best tactic for a group is for everyone to charge the shooter. He will get a few, but it will be over in seconds and the shooter will always lose in the end.

  13. dougieh says:

    Hi E.M.
    Thanks for spelling it out.
    it needs to be said by all MSM as well, but PC has rendered all Media coverage worthless IMHO

  14. Larry Ledwick says:

    Statement from the owner of the gun store where the fire arms were purchased:

  15. Larry Ledwick says:


    Related to this I just posted this follow up comment to the above article:

    The important point to this article is that it was a carefully targeted law that did not deprive citizens in good standing from owning Tommy guns is just made it highly undesirable for the mob to use them. If people really want to reduce gun violence they should focus their concerns on the real problem. Inner city gangs using pistols. They kill 5000 to 6000 young men every year. Assault weapons on the other hand are only responsible for 0.4% of murders. Their number is so small the FBI does not even bother to keep statistics on assault weapons specifically. If you are seriously concerned by gun violence, work to reduce suicides (mental health support), cut down urban gang crime (in the most heavily regulate cites in the country by the way) were the majority of gun homicides occur and encourage fire arm safety classes in schools so young kids know that guns are not toys. If you did that you could cut gun deaths by 60% or more. Assault weapon bans have already been tried in 1994. In after the fact analysis of the law when it was allowed to expire researchers could find NO detectable impact on gun deaths due to the law. It was completely useless and did nothing to reduce gun deaths. Which do you want to do, look good and impress your friends by supporting reinstatement of a proven useless law or make a real difference and attack the real problem and save 5000 to 10000 lives a year?

  16. James Higham says:

    Chiefio says not to jump on hobbyhorses and then goes and does just that – his own.

    I happen to agree banning guns is counterproductive and agree with him on most other things but that doesn’t mean Islam was not a factor here. It’s this negating of other valid factors and pushing one’s own to the exclusion of other cogent points which gets up my nose.

    The truth is usually a combination of factors, not just one on its own.

  17. punmaster says:

    The AR-15 is an ugly gun? I always [thought the] utility of a tool was a measure of attractiveness.

  18. richard ilfeld says:

    We are all Israelis now.

    The passive response that is all that the left and PC-whipped Republicans can muster up will leave people to their own devices. If we have to live surrounded by potential terrorists – a state forced upon Israel by geography and geopolitics (Giving Gaza to Hamas is as smart as allowing no go zones in Brussels, or Flint or Detroit or Minneapolis) then we’ll need to protect our micro environment. Metal detectors and armed guards at every store, every mall, every event. A visible police presence. Avoiding people of a certain appearance, they might stab you or run you over. And we’ll have to learn to tolerate an acceptable level of carnage. Law enforcement and first responders clean up messes more often that they interdict evil. The only difference is that we won’t have rockets launched from the Muslim enclaves into our communities on a regular basis.

    OF course, there perimeter around liberal enclaves will be wide enough to prevent their fragile psyches from being disturbed. The university may be walled, so we can retreat to safe spaces to hide from difficult ideas rather than active shooters.

    The president made a BFD that words don’t matter. ‘A muslim can tell who a terrorist is without a label. Ok wordd don’t matter. And people on the left are too ignorant to see the difference between a football player and a Native American / frirst People / orginal citizan or whatever the hell the currently approved label for someone who identifies themselves as a member of a tribe is.

  19. E.M.Smith says:

    @James Higham:

    Um, no, I didn’t. The word “hobbyhorse” does not appear in my text, nor did I jump on one. I did do exactly what I stated others ought to do: Wait until you know what happened before jumping to talking points.

    Also I didn’t fixate on one issue. I did give more time and space to gun issues, mostly due to it being what the entire Democratic Machine and pretty much all news media were pushing, even a couple of the folks on Fox News. Had there been zero “pushing of that agenda”, I’d have not mentioned it. (And yes, I do have a reflexive “fix it” behaviour when folks are spouting things that are “just wrong” – as do many folks on the Aspe spectrum and many many Geeks. You can validly accuse me of “jumping to correction mode” vis a vis the media gun storm). Note that I also pointed out the stupidity of limited exits, none from the bathroom, lack of security in general inside the club. I also clearly pointed out the “root cause” as radical / political Islam and gave suggestions for course of action to “fix it”. (Monitor and eject, for one). At no time did I say that Islam was not a factor, and I specifically pointed out it is incompatible with western civilization as it stands today and “needs a reformation”.

    So maybe you need to go back and re-read what I actually wrote.

    There will always be nut cases and malicious ideologies. They will always have access to weapons (since so much is so easily weaponized). Disarming yourself will not “fix” that. The only way to fix it is to attack the ideology and exterminate it. I don’t have to like that either, to see the truth in it.

    Now mix your soft targets with your murderous ideology, you get mass casualties.

    Perhaps you missed that part of the article in your haste to “correct” me…

  20. Larry Ledwick says:

    Part of the problem with this whole issue is poor understanding of the real facts on the ground. Much of the data exists in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports but their on line portal is a bit obtuse to navigate. Here is a link to the 2014 data, and some extracted data:


    In 2014 out of intentional homicides by gun known to law enforcement, long guns (rifles of all types accounted for only 248 out of 11,961 homicides or a rate of 2.07% for ALL rifles.
    Note that the FBI does not even bother to break down rifles into subtypes, so for practical purposes, the number of those homicides committed with “assault rifles” is unknown, although it is by definition a small fraction of that total I have seen a quoted statistic of “assault rifles” being responsible for 0.04% of all intentional homicides which at an annual rate of 11961 would equal to about 48 killed by “assault rifles”. That sounds reasonable since other types of rifles are so much more common in America, there being something like 100 million long guns in homes, so I will accept that as a reasonable guess for this summary.

    The real issue with this whole debate is if you were making a good faith effort to reduce gun related homicides or just all homicides where would you focus your attention. Obviously the answer to that is you deal with the biggest risk factor first. Looking at the 2014 homicide statistics lets compare the various weapons used.

    Total homicides in 2014                         11961
    total homicides by gun                           8124
    total handgun homicides                          5562
    rifles                                            248
    estimated due to assault weapons                   48 
    (included in rifles above ie about 1/5 of all rifles used)
    shotguns                                          262
    other gun types                                    93
    guns type not reported                           1959
    Other weapons used in homicides
    knives or cutting instruments                    1567
    blunt objects (clubs hammers etc.)                435
    Personal weapons (hands feet etc.)                660
    poison                                              7
    explosives                                          6
    fire                                               71
    narcotics                                          62
    drowning                                           14
    strangulation                                      89
    asphyxiation                                       96
    other weapons not stated                          830

    As you can see:
    You are 116x more likely to be killed by a hand gun than an assault weapon.
    You are 33x more likely to be stabbed to death than killed with an assault weapon.
    You are 14x more likely to be beaten to death by someones hands and feet than an assault weapon. You are 9x more likely to be beaten to death with a hammer or baseball bat than an assault weapon.
    You are 2x more likely to get strangled to death than being killed by an assault weapon.

    So if you were making a responsible good faith effort to reduce gun homicides, where would you focus your efforts? On the fraction of 1% caused by so called assault weapons or handgun murders in the inner city where about 50% – 60% of all gun homicides occur?

    The simple fact that the anti-gunners are ignoring these relationships proves that they have some other true agenda than simply reducing violence.

  21. Larry Ledwick says:

    Sorry EM should have used the code rather than pre tags to preserve formating

  22. E.M.Smith says:


    You want them inside [blockquote] tags? Or what? I don’t find [pre] a problem, but can edit if you had something else in mind…

  23. Larry Ledwick says:

    Maybe block quote would preserve the white space in the numbers list, I know the code tag should.
    Every time I try to do a list like that on a forum I seem to screw it up because they seem to all use different tags.

    Reply: I just took out some spaces. Looks to me like a ‘tabs to spaces’ conversion was screwed up by WordPress in the ‘paste’… I’ve had it happen often in postings, but then I get to edit ;-) You might try pasting into an editor and turning tabs to spaces, then pasting into a posting. As you can see, the tag wasn’t the change. I could change it to blockquote and it would just shift to italics most likely. But sometimes the shift does work as the tabs are interpreted a bit differently… -E.M.Smith ]

  24. Larry Ledwick says:

    Numbers should all align in a vertical column and there should be a line break between 48 and parenthetical statement .
    (included in rifles above ie about 1/5 of all rifles used)

  25. E.M.Smith says:


    Very true. Sad in a way. When I was a kid, folks would toss their shotguns on the car seat and drive through town, stopping to pick up ammo at the hardware store – no I.D. needed – and head out to pheasant hunting. Shootings of people were nearly unheard of. Now it’s different…

    I suspect carry permit applications to rise dramatically in the coming years… I’ve even thought of getting one and I’d have to say “Pardon, can you wait a minute while I put my earplugs in?” prior to shooting! ;-)

    @Punmaster: I added in [ ] a couple of words I think you intended… if not, I’ll take ’em out.

    Per “ugly”: While it is entirely in the eye of the beholder, there are common trends. Wood and other natural surfaces are “prettier” than black plastic. Smooth curvaceous figure is more attractive than irregular and disrupted surfaces. Simple is more elegant than complicated and edgy. Plus a few more. This is especially true with respect to folks who do not normally use a particular object, but are just looking at it de novo.

    On all of those measures, the M1 Garand “prettier” and the AR-15 is more “utilitarian”. In an ideal world a tool is both highly utilitarian and esthetic pleasing to the sense of art.

    (For that same reason I like to “pretty print” my code. AFTER it works and functions as intended, I go back and smooth off rough edges, make variable names more pleasing, take out ‘work arounds’ and mainline them, and generally just make it “smooth and curvaceous”. I remember one or two commenters noticing that about code I’d posted ;-)

    So while I have nothing against the AR-15, and would love to have one [ but at present can’t afford to spend that much for a lark ] the simple fact is that with a nice deep rose wood grain stock and some smoothing of the surfaces it would be “prettier”. I’d also add a grey / light mud /black cammo pattern parkerizing to the metal surfaces, but that’s just a personal esthetic ;-)


    We saw that tactic used very effectively on the French train. Military guys. I guess we need more gays in the military so that there is a sufficient number of military trained in the gay bars… This population was heavily weighted to the young and the non-military, with the obvious result.

    Perhaps we need to start training kids in how to do a military style take down of a ‘lone shooter’. I’d thought everyone was “instructed” via the train event, but I guess not. Maybe some TV shows can work it into the plot to reach the millennials…

    I’d also fault the police for waiting a full 3 hours to do an entry. They lost the “golden hour” for many… I understand their reasons, and it was dogma for decades in “hostage situations”, but I’d thought we also learned these are not hostage situations, they are murder in progress zones… even if shots have stopped, the timer is running on the wounded.


    It is “less valuable”, but the media does still have worthy content. Just ignore the “positioning”. There is video of the event. (Ignore the “interpretation” being fed to you and look AT the video). There is context from interviews ( Ignore the spin from the questioner, listen to what the person is saying). Then there are also “negative space” nuggets you can pick up. The film shows police “waiting to enter” and the announcer says nothing about them waiting a long time: “Why are they waiting, what is not being said about that?”. The person being interviewed starts to say something about, oh, Radical Islam and and the interview questions cut them off and redirect to “guns in the hands of unstable persons”: You just learned about that station bias…

    It’s all in how you consume the news. Passive absorber of “information” or critical evaluation of data points and editorial decisions made… As a passive info source, yeah, the main stream media has plunged. (That’s why I ‘drink widely’ and watch Fox, R.T., MSNBC, D.W., CNN, BBC, and a few others… each tends to cover what the other leaves out… then assemble the real picture.)

  26. u.k(us) says:

    Imho, the wounded were hit early in mayhem (everybody running around), then most of the dead were killed execution style.
    (this is just a guess).
    I heard the gunman spent 2-3 hours in the club, choosing victims ???
    At some point don’t you gotta say enough is enough, and everybody rushes him, you might lose 10 people in the rush, but the survivors get the satisfaction of tearing him limb from limb.

  27. Larry Ledwick says:

    Even if he did get a few, the battle field casualty studies of both Vietnam and the gulf show that if you can get them to a trauma center in the first hour with a pulse and respiration, they have a high 90% chance of survival.

    The reaction is the difference between people acculturated to being taken care of by others (call 911 and hide under the bed), and those acculturated to taking care of themselves (grab a knife in the kitchen and do something active to solve the problem.

    FBI studies show that a person with a knife who is closer to a shooter than 21 feet will almost always kill or seriously wound the shooter, even if shot, and the shooter is expecting the charge. Human reaction time gives the charging person about a 1/3 – 1/2 second advantage in action and about 1/10 second in perception that he/she is charging. That is why cops shoot subjects holding knives who refuse to drop them and are agitated.

    A couple tossed beer bottles or chairs and a group charge would likely have changed the outcome dramatically with only a single shooter.

  28. Larry Ledwick says:

    Personal story to support that theory. About 20 years ago, I was working part time in a Domino’s pizza shop to get some extra money to pay down some bills. One evening as I was leaving the building on a delivery I noticed a guy in an army field jacket just loitering in front of the business.
    It was a warm windy day, so warm that no one else was wearing a jacket. Something about him triggered alarm bells and I made a point of getting in the car very slowly and making eye contact with him. When I came back from the delivery he was gone. I wrote it off as just an odd occurrence until the next day when I was off and not making deliveries.

    He came back walked in the shop stepped around the end of the counter and exclaimed it was a robbery and “give him the money”. Our manager Matt S. said “what?” and the kid shot him in the head with a .357 magnum at point blank range. The assistant manager said he would get the money and hurried to the back to open the safe. The robber stayed at the front door counter area and the other worker was standing behind the center aisle cutting board where pizzas were cut and boxed next to the oven. That worker decided that the kid was going to kill them all after he got the money, he picked up the pizza peel spatula, and pushed the stack of boxes on top of the counter over onto the shooter then came around the end of the aisle and proceeded to beat the crap out of the guy. The assistant manager came up from the office and joined the party and the two of them took him down just outside the front door and held him until the police arrived.

    The shooter is now serving time for first degree murder.

  29. E.M.Smith says:


    We practiced a bit of ‘weapons training’ in my Karate class. One key learning “Every weapon has a range”. That includes hands and feet. A gun has best range at 10 feet to 50 feet. (Yes, you can get further, but takes skill and the right kind of gun – we mostly were dealing with handgun as the assailant). Inside 10 feet, a kick is best (about 4 feet to 10 feet – yes, 10, you step up as you launch the kick…) and at 0 to about 6 feet, hands and knife are excellent… In our practice, even as lowly 5th to 7th kyu rank (when we started this part), had “knife inside 10 feet beating gun”…

    Part of why I tend to have an ‘edge’ close to hand when inside and not a gun… (IF they are more than 15 feet away, I’m just gonna run away anyway… as long as there is some distraction and I’m outside… otherwise I’ll attack with whatever I have. Decide NOW you will attack. It saves the “think time” later…) IF in a group, I’ll shout “ATTACK!” to the group as I head in, in the hopes someone else catches clue… or I can nudge them out of their think time stupor…

  30. p.g.sharrow says:

    Some people attack danger and others run and hide. Just the way it is. People that attack are the ones that generally join the police or military. LGBT people, like most Liberal Progressives are runners and demand “others” protect them. Self-defense is not something they wish to consider. Run and hide is a matter of personal survival instinct. Attackers instinct is to protect the group. The Fear involved is the same for both, just a difference in direction for the solution in dealing with the danger.

    I’ve been there and generally opt to attack. Someone needs to be the Guard Dog for the group…pg

  31. E.M.Smith says:


    I guess I need to expand on my “run vs attack”… This came directly out of the training. Beyond about 20 feet, a guy with a handgun will most often miss a fleeing person and / or just forget about bothering to shoot. You can get from 10 feet to 20 feet before they can decide to shoot and aim. So you run. Inside that range (or if you are not outside), to attack is best – though it is better to ‘sidle up’ as close as you can get prior to launching the attack, so more fully inside ‘hands and feet range’ and compressing ‘gun range’. At that point, a “step off the line of attack” of the guy, while launching your own deflecting block / strike, has a very high odds of success.

    IFF you are not alone and there are others there you care about (i.e. family and friends without clue to martial arts), the decision is 100% attack from the first moment a threat is whiffed. All that is undecided is best strategy and timing… I’ve already “written off my life” in that circumstance and my only goal is to get a throat crushing grip on them and assure they die from tracheal swelling even if my grip is gone. I.e. “rip their throat out” prior to bleeding out. So 20 seconds is more than enough time and I’ve likely got at least a minute even if shot.

    So yes, your observation is generally correct, but training can modify the instincts with a strategic overlay and pre-decided decisions.

  32. Larry Ledwick says:

    We did similar in my martial arts training. One time I was working with a gal who was working on knife defenses for a higher belt (at the time I think I was a blue or green ie 3 or 4 level in that school). I had a rubber knife and she told me to try and stab her so she could practice.

    At close range, 1-2 steps distance I almost always succeeded in stabbing her in the stomach before she could counter. It was driving her nuts. She asked me what I was doing and I told her the only thing I was focusing on was stabbing the knot on her ghi belt.

    The body always goes where the hips go, if you do that, hand and head and upper body fakes don’t work.

  33. E.M.Smith says:


    Martial Artists, Brewers, Folks Who Actually Make Stuff… I think I’m getting an interesting “profile” of what makes a Global Warming Skeptic… Folks who are strongly “reality focused” ;-)

  34. Larry Ledwick says:

    A histogram of interests of your usual participants would be an interesting snap shot wouldn’t it.

  35. Larry Ledwick says:

    The hierarchy of response to threat is supposed to be in the following order:
    freeze (hide and observe)

    Freeze to evaluate and hope to avoid being spotted.
    Flight if evaluation determines that is a good option (ie good exit or hopeless to fight)
    fight if evaluation determines you are likely to win or you have no other option to protect yourself or others.

    As you mentioned by pre-evaluating some options of likely scenarios you can pre-program certain responses and shorten that evaluation decision loop.

    Going back to martial arts, once you have learned a defensive motion for a certain action and practiced it a few times it shifts from conscious command to respond to primitive lizard brain and muscle memory response which is a much faster response. You don’t have to ponder long to decide to pull your hand away from a hot pan after you have been burned a few times. It happens even before your conscious mind has fully evaluated why you have a pain sensation.

    In computer language terminology it is an immediate jump to a new routine without any logic evaluation. “If hot goto pull (hand back)”, no consideration of how hot or why it is hot or even if pulling your hand away is a good idea (elbow complains after getting banged into work bench).

  36. u.k(us) says:

    Assess (quickly), try to rally the troops, take out the aggressor by any means at your disposal.

    All while hiding under a table, shaking like a leaf as the flood of adrenaline takes effect.

    Ain’t been trained for this kinda shite………

  37. Larry Ledwick says:

    This just showed up on my twitter feed, security video of a Seattle school shooting where the subject was pepper sprayed and taken down by a bystander after firing one shot.

  38. p.g.sharrow says:

    @u.k(us) says:
    15 June 2016 at 10:55 pm

    If you are “under a table shaking like a leaf” you are likely done for as an attacker.
    My experience is, attack first and then shake like a leaf after it is over. My slow response to fear must have been the result of caused by brain damage. ;-)…pg

  39. u.k(us) says:

    I knew that came out wrong.
    I would hope if I was caught in that situation, I would be thinking tactics.
    Thus, behind the table, that would give me a minute to think.
    Always a bad idea when I think.

  40. Larry Ledwick says:

    The psychology and physiology of attack and defense is an interesting topic. As pointed out above, yelling attack or something similar accomplishes two things. It functions as a command to others who are still undecided on what to do to break them out of their mental evaluation loop, and it also serves to momentarily lock up the opponent, much like the yell taught in many martial arts schools to accompany a strike.

    The reason we use a starting gun in track and field is hearing has one of the fastest reactions to and triggers for the startle reflex. For a track runner who is expecting it the bang of the gun is a release (ever see the movie Man on Fire and his training effort to get the young girl off the blocks for her swimming events?). If unexpected it causes a brief switch of focus back into the “WTF just happened” loop which in the case of an attacker adds just another small increment of time in favor of the person who is attacking over the defender in the decision tree.


    Note above the latency of the startle response in the legs is 145-395 milliseconds or 1.5 to 4 tenths of a second. That means the person who is startled cannot even begin to move to react in less than about a 1/3 of a second. A top boxer can strike with a punch speed (jab) of 30 ft per second.
    If his total reach is 4 ft (arm plus lunge) he goes from 0 – 30 ft per second in 4 ft. or a total punch execution time of about 1/4 of a second. If you watch this video super slow mo of his punch you see his first motion is not his fist but his hips and lead knee as he sinks and begins hip rotation and a step into the opponent, then after he has begun to shift his weight then he begins to move the striking fist.

    The five ways of attack outlined by Bruce Lee

    A motivated individual can quickly lung forward about 2 – 3 strides in under a second. If the defender (our hypothetical shooter) is in any way distracted or focused on some other person, anyone within that 2-3 stride range can lunge and make contact before he can react, and since a lunging person can reach and “jam” the motion of his firearm before he can bring it to bear, their forward motion will likely run over him and drive him back.

    The problem is folks who have not participated in contact sports or martial arts like sports like karate, fencing, boxing etc. Don’t know that, and give away the advantage to the shooter at close range.

    That is not saying folks will likely get hurt if such a last ditch defensive attack is used but it is after all a last ditch effort at survival all other effective options are gone if that is the choice of action.

  41. E.M.Smith says:

    @Larry: BINGO!

    Eliminate the decision loop lag by pre-deciding. Eliminate the reflex lag by practicing martial arts. Eliminate the evaluation lag via both, plus kumite (battle or sparing) practice. After a couple of years of that, my “response time” would be about 1/3 second… including the prayer… which would be issued slightly after I realized the medula had launched me on a suicide attack…

    FWIW, I have had the experience of my hand gripping the throat of an attacker (surprise!) and deciding NOT to rip his throat out as an “interrupt” to the behaviour in process by predetermined program… though in retrospect, a bit more crush would have been better… so this isn’t exactly theoretical…

    It is an interesting thing to be “just a passenger” in your own actions… I know that I would realize I was in full attack about 2 seconds in… because I have been there…

  42. E.M.Smith says:

    @UK (US):

    If you are under that table you are already about 20,000 milliseconds late. The evaluation and response ought to be done in 250 ms and without any change of location or posture other than a reflexive launch at the threat… if you are in a 20,000 ms loop, you are a couple of orders of magnitude too slow…

    And yes, it took me a few years of martial arts training to reach this state…

    As a Buddhist thing… the hardest part is learning to NOT be involved and just let yourself move… and observe it as the empty vessel, devoid of attachment… and after the fact of the movement.

  43. Larry Ledwick says:

    FWIW, I have had the experience of my hand gripping the throat of an attacker (surprise!) and deciding NOT to rip his throat out as an “interrupt” to the behaviour in process by predetermined program… though in retrospect, a bit more crush would have been better… so this isn’t exactly theoretical…

    I have had a similar experience, responded in pure reflex mode and really surprised someone who made a loud screeching noise in my ear. He realized it was a bad idea as he bounced off the wall behind me. I don’t even recall getting out of the chair, only finding myself facing him ready to pounce when the conscious evaluation loop completed and I realized it was someone I knew playing an ill advised prank.

    I will never forget the wide eyed “WTF just happened??? ” look on his face.

  44. E.M.Smith says:

    Only those who have been there understand…

  45. Serioso says:

    What can I say about another foolish blast from the keyboard of “E.M. Smith?” He attacks the MSM, he tells us that is is smarter and more knowledgeable, he tells us that there are other ways of inflicting mass casualties, he tells us that Islam sanctions mass extermination. Congratulations! And what does he not tell us? How we can protect ourselves. Bartenders with guns? How about what Australia did, forbidding semi-automatic weapons? No mention! But of course. The ChiefIO is interested in self-promotion, not solutions. So vote for Donald. He needs people like you.

    You had your chance to say the right thing. You blew it. As I expected. Shame on you. Shame.

    But I suppose I am the last of your subscribers who has enough respect for you to hold you to account. You are a smart fellow. But, probably, a waste of my time.

  46. Another Ian says:


    Check email

  47. Another Ian says:


    Try reading

    Larry Ledwick says:
    15 June 2016 at 5:12 pm

  48. E.M.Smith says:


    I’m sorry but you are sounding stupid.

    This guy had a high rank firearms license beyond “concealed carry” and had passed a high level background check. He was a security guard for a living. Just how do you think banning ME from having a semi-auto weapon and allowing security professionals to have them would have prevented a security professional from having one? The stupid, it burns… Or are you advocating disarming security personnel? Really?

    I understand the emotional need to “do something”, but please, think for just a moment too. Are we going to ban semi-auto weapons from security personnel? Really? The problem isn’t solved by banning, the problem is solved by fixing the background check system and getting those with his ideology out of the pool…

    Oh, and read your Koran. It does say to slay the infidel. Many many times. It isn’t ME saying that, it’s the Koran. I’m just the messenger.

    Also, do note, at no time did I say I was smarter or more knowledgeable. I simply did an analysis of the situation. I’m also NOT interested in “self promotion”. I get no money from this, and I get no fame. (Total ‘tip bucket’ rake has been about $400 over a half dozen+ years and less than I’ve spent on ‘stuff’ to support postings. i.e. a net loss). My name is basically “Anonymous Anonymous” so even if I were to have a lot of “name recognition” it would be for nothing. (There were 5 folks with ‘my name’ just at Apple, alone, when I was there…) I do have a passion about keeping a ‘tidy mind’ and doing in depth understanding. Sorry if that offends you, but “not my problem”.

    Now, in the interest of full disclosure: I am Mensa qualified and at the 99.9% intelligence rank on tests. That does NOT mean I’m especially gifted nor better than anyone else, it is just a fact. Much of the truth I have learned was from folks of more modest ability, and much of the bullshit I’ve had to shovel out of my life has come from those ranked the brightest. Our colleges and universities are presently awash in people with high intelligence and poor software and data… the ‘brilliantly stupid’. I’ve frequently stated my belief that the very intelligent are more able to deceive themselves and believe utter trash. Intelligence isn’t all it is cracked up to be, IMHO. So do note that I have no ego wrapped up in my scores. I have good hardware, but it is a constant fight to keep the software and data clean from the crap our society swallows every day. I take no pride in that.

    But, to repeat something I’ve said many times, but that you seem incapable of understanding:


    I consider myself basically irrelevant to the world. I’m a nobody. If I disappeared from the world tomorrow, it would not notice and there would not even be an obit in the local paper. I’m not even a footnote in history. Got it?

    That’s the POV I bring to issues and problems. IF I can see something wrong in the general flow of what passes as understanding, I’ll point it out. If not, I have nothing to say. Because it isn’t about me, it is about finding truth and extirpating error. Nothing more.

    To the point of Australia:

    I don’t give a damn that Australia banned a given class of weapon. That makes no difference to the problem at all. It is a ‘distractor’. On the GMAT test (yes, I scored ‘way high’ on it, but no, that doesn’t drive me, and yes, I was offered a position at Wharton based on those scores but I had to turn it down due to not having $50,000 / year and having just started a relationship with my spouse-to-be. All of which is not relevant, but you seem to like irrelevancies…) there is a class of problem where you are presented a list of things, only some of which are relevant to the problem. The test has you mark what is relevant and what is irrelevant. One must be good at identifying the distractors. It is a critical thinking skill highly valuable in business and management and important to getting the MBA. My score on that portion of the test was very very high. I don’t mention this to brag (frankly I hate braggarts) but to point out the background I have for my statement that Australia is orthogonal to America. Different populations, different histories, different cultures. We almost share a language ;-) ( “Shall I knock you up in the morning” from the hotel clerk was a bit of a surprise while ‘down under’… meaning ‘do you want a wake up call’…) Australia and their law is just a distractor.

    But, just what makes you think that a semi-auto ban would result in lower casualties? Do you know that with a bit of practice one can run a revolver (with speed loader clips) at about the same speed? That a pump shotgun can send more pellets of the same caliber down range faster than a semi auto? And a dozen more… It is a fools errand to assault the ‘assault weapon’ and the semi-auto (so I guess that explains why you’re hot for it…)

    BTW, forbidding your own access to defensive weapons is usually a poor way to increase your ability to defend yourself. Yet you want to do that, then insist I tell you “how we can protect ourselves”. OK: Get martial arts training. Get weapons and keep them close to hand. It has worked for a few thousand years now… “A running man with a sharp knife can kill 1000 in a night” is a very old truth.

    I prefer the best weapons I can get, you prefer inferior weapons only (as you wish to ban the better ones). The banning has NEVER worked in all of history, it just shifts what weapons are used. (So go ahead and quote statistics that when FOO is banned less FOO is used in crime… it omits the Non-FOO increase…) In the case of the Orlando event, it is very clear that the crowd was seriously deficient in folks with martial arts training. It is also clear that having a ‘gun free zone’ meant they were unable to use guns to defend themselves but that the “bad guy” was able to use guns to kill them. He could have done just as much (or more…) damage with a nice shotgun and a brace of revolvers. (Do note that police used revolvers predominantly up to about 1980 and were very effective…and still use the shotgun as the long gun of choice in most jurisdictions. FWIW, my sister participates in “western action shooting” using an old style revolver; and I’d not want to be on the wrong end of it in her hands.) Using a speed loader, I can reload my revolver in about 1 to 2 seconds. Faster when practiced. (In case you don’t know, a ‘speed loader’ is a metal ring that holds the cartridges in a circle matching your revolver. It lives in a pouch on the gun belt and can be grabbed with one hand and stuffed into the cylinder that the other hand holds open.) I would be very happy to have a revolver as my only weapon…

    Finally, I take it from your position that you have little firearms experience. Anyone with firearms experience knows that the semi-auto isn’t much different in speed from any other. FWIW, my “go to” long gun is a lever action rifle. Smaller and lighter than my semi-autos, it handles better in a hallway. It also lets me feed more ammo into the ‘loading gate’ on the side AS I SHOOT, so a bag of ammo makes it an effectively massive magazine. I NEVER have an ‘outage’ to change magazines. Shotguns work the same (though the gate is generally on the bottom), so it is my second choice. Neither one even needs to be kept loaded. Just a bag of ammo next to it and you are “good to go” for a few hundred rounds of rapid fire. But even it is not next to the bed. It lives locked most of the time. Closest to hand is a Japanese short sword. Throughout history, from the Roman Gladiolus to the the Zulu short spear to the Japanese short sword; a ‘knife’ or ‘spear’ of about 2 1/2 foot or 2/3 meter length has been superior in close combat. A person skilled with it could have done just as much killing in that club in Orlando, as it has done just that throughout history. But just one person with a revolver could have stopped him, be he armed with a short sword or an ‘ugly semi-auto’. That you don’t understand that is your loss, not mine.

  49. u.k(us) says:

    @ E.M. Smith,
    I see this post made the “front page” at the blog: http://americandigest.org/
    Do you read it ??

    Also, practice makes perfect (or close enough) :

  50. E.M.Smith says:

    @U.K (us):

    I hadn’t found that site, thanks for the pointer.

    Love that video, BTW. Especially the part where she is doing walking reloads as she guns down all sorts of targets using a shotgun… nicely illustrated that “big bag magazine” effect…

    Did make me miss the days of taking my son and daughter to the skeet range and watching them beat me at hitting clays ;-)

    Now if only she had been at the bar in Orlando and able to carry… Perp would have been gone on about his second shot.

    What the gun ban folks forget is that it is the moral and disciplined guns that keep the nutcases out of places. The nutcases are typically just bright enough to realize they can’t make the news in the way they want when they are dead on first draw. Many stores have a gun behind the counter for just that reason. I’ve seen ’em. They work. The local gun store has the clerks doing “open carry” behind the counter. They’ve never had a problem with robbery… The key point is NOT that shooting perps works, but rather that when perp-wanabees know guns are around, they decide not to be perps… Or go to a “Gun Free Killing Zone”…

  51. Larry Geiger says:

    Eight or nine years old. Was reading “Shane”. He comes into the cabin for the meal and immediately sits down in dad’s chair. In the corner with his back to the wall. With both six shooters still on his belt. Dad takes a seat somewhere else and never says a word. Kid wonders why that was. Don’t remember the rest of the details but even then I “got it”. Be observant. Pay attention. Stand with your back to the wall.

    On the issue of why a rifle and not a handgun or shotgun. I think that a lot of folks are gearing up for when it’s time to protect their home. Unlock safe. Remover AR. Accurately shoot mob leaders in the street, front yard and back yard. Usually more than 20ft away. If they make it to your front door and you have a handgun, that’s good. Begin to eliminate the threat at a further distance might be better.

    I have one of these next to my bed:
    Not sure that a sword would be useful for me. However, if I start swinging this thing they better shoot me because it’s going to do some damage.

  52. E.M.Smith says:


    The Battle Axe and Battle Hammer were preferred over the sword for most of history… for a reason… they are more effective. I’d have one, but I already own the sword ;-)

    As for “crowd in the street”: I can see that if you live somewhere with range. In the suburbs where I’m at, it’s all “cheek by jowl” and I’d rather have less penetration and less need to aim. Max range is about 200 feet, and that is diagonally to a house across the intersection.

    That said: I have a rifle barrel with iron sites on one of the shotguns… I can hit a clay on the move at a distance with a regular barrel… “aim” isn’t a problem at the available ranges ;-)

    And, if it ever came to it, I do have a very pretty wood stock no-pistol grip “nice” gun that meets all the “not an assault weapon” rules of Kalifornia: The SKS Carbine… Just as effective as the AK, but using stripper clips instead of a detachable magazine (which I find just as easy or easier to use and cheap to own a dozen of them…) IFF for God only knows what reason I need to reach out beyond 100 yards (I did the DCM qualification using the SKS…) then I have that lever gun with scope on it. But frankly, anyone more than 50 feet from the sidewalk, we’ll just get in the car and drive away…

    All of it generally locked up in a very large very heavy steel box… so the longest lag time would be remembering the combination ;-) Thus the sword …. But in a SHTF moment, I suppose I could go open the thing early ;-)

  53. Serioso says:

    The point about Australia and its change in gun ownership law is simple and relevant: The number of gun homicides (and suicides) dropped sharply after the law was passed. Hardly a ‘distractor.’ I’d call it evidence than gun laws can have beneficial results.

  54. E.M.Smith says:

    Australian gun law passed in 1998:


    Homicides went UP from 1996 to 1999, then returned to the 1996 level by 2002.

    It did then drop from about 320 to 280 as I read the chart into 2006. Hardly earthshaking and not out of line with any aging population. I also find it hard to attribute a decline in homicides in 2006 to a change that didn’t have any impact for a half dozen years…

    Death by gun did drop about 20%, but folks just found other means. As I’d asserted above would happen.

    USA Homicide rates dropping too, since about 1993… so I guess that proves that firesale massive gun purchases and a society swimming in guns reduces homicides…

    Peak homicide rate in 1981 roughly matches earlier peak in 1933 ( 11 vs 10) Lowest modern point was post W.W.II from about 1945 to 1963 when a load of gun laws were passed ( 5 ) then it shot up, so I guess that proves that banning machine guns and restricting all kinds of interesting other guns (like pistols with a rifle stock) just doubles homicides. Right?

    The simple fact is that an armed society is a polite society and doesn’t do a lot of killing (see early part of second graph with near 0 up to 1903 when the “militia” (and every man with a gun at home) was replaced with the National Guard and guns locked up…

    I’m sure you will find all sorts of ways to try and spin the statistics, so get to it.

  55. Larry Geiger says:

    I’m on an acre. But I don’t have a rifle. Other members of the family are on 2 – 20 acres. They all have rifles. Often several. From conversations with them, aside from hunting, the rifles are good for protecting property. I’m absolutely no expert on any of that.

    My acre, however, is closer to urban areas that might erupt negatively (think Chicago, etc). Right now, however, being treated for Myeloma, firing any kind of rifle with any sort of kick would probably break my shoulder again (already broke my collar bone picking up something) so none of that for now.

  56. E.M.Smith says:


    There are a lot of “no kick” guns that are plenty powerful enough. Partly it comes down to the particular bullet style. One example:

    The .32 Colt ACP is generally considered to be about as useless and wimpy a caliber as one could ask for in a handgun. Barely more than a .22 LR. Yet there are two particular bullets, one is the Winchester Silver Tip, that have a fascinating statistic. Their “one shot stop” is almost identical to the .45 ACP Military Ball. A round that is generally regarded as pretty fierce…

    So the Beretta Tomcat in .32 ACP is roughly the same one shot stop as a Colt 1911 with Mil Ball. And disappears in my palm…

    Another is that the .22 LR is used by various assassination teams. It silences well, and they don’t care about “one shot stops”, they care about 3 or 4 shot stops… Nearly 100%… from a handgun no less.

    The necessary corollary to this is that from a .22 Rifle they would be even better. Now realize that the .22 Magnum Rimfire is “way way better” than that, and with near zero “kick”… And they often have a gigantic tubular magazine or you can get some with 25 to 50 round plastic detachable magazines…. There really isn’t any reason to use a .308 Nato…

    BTW, most any “varmint caliber” has near nothing kick too, and many of them are more than enough for defense. The .223 started life as a varmint caliber. I’ve shot it in a hand held Thompson Contender 14 inch Bull Barrel “off hand” and it wasn’t bad… In a bull barrel rifle you would never know it was there… IMHO. Besides, the extra mass makes a great club ;-)

    IMHO, a Ruger .22 LR with the oversized magazine is a perfectly adequate home defense rifle against anyone not in kevlar. With a scope on it, I can pick walnuts off a tree “a ways away”… Then again, the Rugur .22 semi-auto pistol with a 7 inch bull barrel also has near zero kick as a hand gun and with target sites, what a joy… Some folks put scopes on them too ;-) Israeli defense is reputed to put silencers on them…

  57. Larry Ledwick says:

    I highly recommend the .22 Magnum Rimfire, the FMJ bullet will punch a clean hole in 1/8 inch thick mild steel angle iron at 100 yards, will easily shoot a nickle size group at 50′ and slightly over 1″ at 100 yards. It is a good varmint and small game cartridge out to about 125 yards

    In a short barrel (like the .22 WRM derringer) it has a stunning muzzle flash and a very sharp crack report. Not recommended for night fire in the house as far as night vision is concerned by the bad guy will have absolutely no doubts that you are shooting in his direction. Even in a rifle length barrel it has muzzle report that makes people think you are using a center fire. At 100 yards it is essentially equivalent to a .223 at 250 yards or so ( the .223/5.56 is militarily effective out past 400 yards).

    A while ago I picked up a laser range finder and played with it for a while, and for practical purposes you will never take a shot over 300-350 yards in any environment other than open prairie.
    In common rural areas 100 – 150 yards is probably the practical maximum anyone would need.

  58. u.k(us) says:

    Way out of my depth here, but if you de-tune a .22 so it doesn’t break the sound barrier and shoot it thru a silencer, all anyone nearby will hear is the action reloading the next round ??
    Or does this only happen in the movies ??

  59. Larry Ledwick says:

    All most, silencers do not completely silence the round but very close in the small caliber subsonic rounds. Subsonic projectiles make a whoooshing noise in flight and the muzzle blast is not completely eliminated. It is reduced to something like a loud airgun so it is hard to locate and not instantly identified as a gun going off. In really clandestine situations they make special autoloading pistols modified so they can lock the slide when silenced so the slide does not function when fired. (becomes a manual single shot). You are right, the physical cycling of the action is louder than the muzzle report on those weapons.

  60. E.M.Smith says:

    Think soft hand clap with a metalic shlink clink…

  61. Larry Ledwick says:

    Last comment posted to the wrong thread should have been here rather than the British MP thread

  62. Larry Ledwick says:

    This is the suppressed High standard pistol used by the US.

  63. E.M.Smith says:

    Hmmmm… been a while since I looked at what’s out there…

    Ruger bolt rifle now in everything from .22 Magnum (9 rounds) to .22 LR to .17 HMR a WMR necked down to .17 caliber. It ought to have essentially no kick, but be louder…


    at one time they made a WMR semiauto, but I’m not seeing it on a quick search

    http://www.ruger.com/search/ enter WMR on the right..

    yet these folks claim to have it


    Along with the 23 rd aftermarket magazines.

    For a no-kick effective rifle, one of those with 46 to 92 rds in a few magazines would be formidable. .. Like an AR15 at 250 yds at any range that matters in the real world…

    Now I need to buy 5 rural acres to justify buying one! 8-)

  64. Larry Ledwick says:

    In a bolt action or other locked breach firearm the .22 WRM is a great cartridge but is problematic in auto loaders. As I understand it Ruger discontinued that 10/22 WRM because of those problems. Occasional fail to extract, and possible blown cartridge heads due to the bolt not supporting it as well in a simple blow back auto action as a bolt action. If you solve those problems the gun is too expensive to sell into that niche as you need to charge what a low end AR-15 family would cost like the Ruger AR556 which right now is selling for $699 or so but I have seen it on sale at $629 just prior to Orlando.

    Another option is the lever action chambered in .357/38, longer barrel gives better velocity and the long tube magazine holds 10 rounds, and the side port reloading has much the same advantage as the pump shotgun in that regard. As you mentioned in a pistol the .357 is one if not “the” top man stopper, The Henry Big Boy lever action goes for the same price as the low end AR guns and would not be seen as an assault rifle if you lived in CA or other locations that want to restrict them.

  65. E.M.Smith says:


    I like the Marlin .357 Magnum lever, With scope… Dump a couple of boxes into cargo pants pockets and start stuffing the gate while you assess… Also not likely to go through too many walls and cars in a suburban setting. (Takes .38 Specials for lower power. The .357 is really too much unless it’s a real battle end of civilization thing. Or you need to stop a Buick ;-). We seem to have evaluated to the same point ;-)

    The WMR interests me mostly because there is an exemption in some gun laws for .22 rimfire (though I’d need to figure out if that included WMR or was more restrictive… I suspect they just say .22 rimfire…) So I’m curious about it as an ‘edge case’…

    Realistically, though, I’d likely not get one due to the blow back action in that size cartridge… I generally prefer locked breech.

    But the bolt version is attractive to me… ( I like levers then bolts the most… then pumps… last on the list is semi-autos. No idea why… Or maybe an idea… I think I like having more things to play with on the gun when shooting and since I only do “careful aimed fire” being able to put one in the target and 9 in the sky as fast as possible never was very attractive to me … ) Then again, I also drive old Mercedes with a clutch and manual gear box… so maybe it’s just me ;-)

  66. Larry Ledwick says:

    The other nice thing about the .22 WRM is in some cases it is a dual use firearm like the .357/.38.
    Ruger and others make a pistol (revolver) that will fire both .22 WRM and .22 LR (two interchangeable cylinders)
    In a life and death emergency you could fire a .22 LR in the .22 WRM rifles at significant risk.
    (bolt action only – don’t try this at home unless you really want to push your luck!).

    The chamber diameter is slightly larger in the .22WRM so there is a significant risk of split brass or perforated head on the cartridge, but it will likely still function. The spent brass from the.22 WRM fired in a bolt action rifle, will just slide over the spent brass of a fired .22 LR fired in its proper chamber so there is a couple thousandths of an inch difference in the chamber diameter dimension. As noted in the thread linked below this might provide a work around in an emergency situation. (proceed at your own risk)

    Discussion of this substitution here: (as noted possible but not a good idea)
    .22LR vs .22WMR
    .223 bullet dia .224
    .225 neck dia .240
    .225 base dia .241
    .275 rim dia .291
    .040 rim thick .046
    .590 case length 1.052
    .985 total length 1.350

  67. E.M.Smith says:

    Was looking at the Henry lever WMR rifle. Nice… With a Ruger 22LR WMR Single Six it would make a very nice “camp gun” combo… with good self defense function… while all being painfully PC ;-)

    At one time I wanted a 9mm rifle, but never found one that was quite right. You would think it would be easy… but most of them end up in the “Kalifornia Assault Weapon” bucket… and are meant as submachine gun lookalikes. Oh Well…

  68. u.k(us) says:

    I’ve got a Remington 12 gauge shot gun (pump).
    It measures 48″ long in its current configuration ( might be rather unwieldy in tight quarters).
    Looks like I could saw 15″ off the barrel and another 8″ off the stock.
    My question is whether or not law enforcement takes a dim view on these kind of “adjustments” ??

  69. Larry Ledwick says:

    Not sure about UK in the US we are limited to minimum barrel length on a shotgun of 18″ and over all 26″. That works out to an 18″ barrel and a pistol grip.

    (note how to use a shotgun to open a door)

  70. E.M.Smith says:

    Best practice is NOT to saw off your barrel. (Think prosecutor painting picture of you cravenly making an assault shotgun intending murder. In ANY defense use, you will end up in court.).

    Every maker sells defence barrels of just over 18 inches (never ever cut to 18, you want at least 1/2 inch extra to allow for politically adjusted rulers… but you really want the manufacturer liable for selling you the legal one). Swapping a barrel takes just minutes.

    Some makes, like Winchester, may need a different magazine end cap for some gun / barrel combos – in particular, putting the rifled deer barrel on the “defender” gun with long magazine needs a longer end cap. IFF for some reason the smoothbore defence 18.5 inch will not fit (say barrel magazine ring is beyond end of magazine) the rifled deer barrel ought to work (as they are designed for the sport gun as a two season swap…deer and birds).

    Similarly, buy a commercial stock if you want shorter. Aside from political and legal risks, cutting destroys one of the functions and demolishes resale value. An added barrel and stock increases flexibility and value.

    For most pumps and autos, swapping bbls and stocks is very easy. Remmington is supposed to be very easy. $140 for 18 in smoothbore here

    I’m particularly fond of the deer hunter kit as it is a 23 to 24 inch bbl, so only 6 longer than the minimum, the rifing spreads out shot (important at short indoor ranges) and your lawyer gets to repeatedly say “deer hunting gun”… It can also accurately place slugs at 100 yards if needed. Stock both slugs and buckshot… The Cabellas link has a 20in rifle sights cylinder bbl too.

    In all cases, check your local laws first so you can stay inside them.

  71. u.k(us) says:

    @ E.M. Smith,
    Thanks for the advice.

  72. E.M.Smith says:


    While anyone good with a screwdriver doesn’t need the wrapping, it is a nice idea:

    Remove the butt plate and use a long flat blade screw driver to turn out the butt stock screw. Make sure you wrap some sort of tape around the screw driver to match the diameter of the butt stock hole. I do this wrap at the top and again close to the bottom. This will stop the screw driver from getting on the side of the screw slot and cracking the stock.

    I presume the barrel change is familiar from cleaning drill.

    And yes, I like that polymer stock. Lets you do a pistol hold, use your arm to clamp the stock to your side, but still do aimed shoulder fire if needed. Any one thinking of shooting a 12 guage magnum with only a pistol grip hasn’t done it… IMHO. Start with dove or target loads…

  73. u.k(us) says:

    @ E.M. Smith,
    hahaha, I keep forgetting that this is the internet age.
    There are almost no dilemmas that haven’t been solved, and most of them even have YouTube videos :)
    Thanks again.

Comments are closed.