More on Britain

From Say Uncle went to here, which led to here and here. Another of Uncle's posts led to here. Put it all together, and you remember that big fork sticking out of the island?

Short version, with all handguns and most shotguns and rifles banned, those not banned highly restricted, the crime rates in Britain, including gun crimes, are still going up. "As much as 50 percent" in some areas. Right now I'm taking their 'reduction' in gun deaths with a large grain of salt; couple of years ago, as I recall, a reporter had to basically sue the government to get the true numbers of how bad it was(they were saying "things are improving" then, too). And one thing that came out recently- can't remember where I read it- is that they still play with the numbers; for instance, if somebody is killed but it's plea-bargained down to manslaughter or something, it doesn't go on the books as a 'murder', and so forth. So someone explain to me again just why the example of Britain is a good thing to follow?

And remember this from Alphecca's post when someone talks about 'safe storage laws':
"Hargreaves admits to being "devastated by the news" that the gun had been involved in a homicide and almost as devastated by the fact there is now a warrant out for his arrest for unsafe storage of those weapons -- despite the fact they were stored in a 771-kilo concrete-and-steel safe and that it took the industrious thieves two days using blowtorches and sledge hammers to gain access to it.

"I went far and beyond what was legally required," said Hargreaves, indicating the vault was so heavy "that the elevator dropped 15 cm when the safe was loaded on."

"It was hardly unsafe storage," he said."
Except to the Canadian police. If a vault like that cannot be considered 'safe storage', what do you think Schumer and Feinstein and the VPC would like to force you to buy? With surprise inspections to make sure you're using it right, of course. Wankers.

And be sure to check out the street prices for guns over in 'gun-free Britain'. If I'm remembering the conversion right, you'd be damn happy to find prices like that on legal guns over here on some of them. Except that I thought those weren't allowed in peaceful Britain? At all? A pump shotgun for less than $50?

Add it all up, and it just points it out again; if you let the government disarm the honest people, and make the few arms you're allowed to keep be restricted this way, and the government takes over all power over your safety... this kind of crap is what you get.

Update: Over at Kim's, I found a link to this piece of crap. It's enough to sicken you; the hoods have taken over the place, and "Despite plenty of witnesses, and evidence, no arrests were made because the police wanted to catch the suspects in the act."
The obvious question would be "THEN WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU WHILE THIS WAS GOING ON, YOU USELESS BASTARDS?!?" Good God, I bet since no arrests were made this counts as some of the 'better news' from the British government. Or something. I'm afraid of the answer, but my question is just how bad is it going to get before the good people tell the government to fuck off and do something about it themselves? And what happens then?

Well, crap

The white ferret of the bloodthirsty duo I posted on the other night died this morning. From what my daughter says, it was simple age; she'd been weakening the last few weeks and losing weight, but no sign of sickness.

They buried her with a small bottle of Ferretone, because she loved the stuff. She was a good critter, and she'll be missed.

Proof a big fork is sticking out of Britain

Check this out from Kim. From the last Olympics held there: "Shooters were escorted from Heathrow under armed guard and their guns were taken in an armoured vehicle to the national shooting centre at Bisley. Spectators had to watch events behind screens, and shooters were guarded by armed officers even during training.

This is exceeded only by the crap in Japan. Every gun had to be locked in a vault as soon as the event was over(no time for cleaning, etc), was only allowed to be checked out just before an event, and each competitor had to find and turn in every fired cartridge case. Apparently the idiots thought some yakuza would find them and reload them. Oh, that's right, the bandits just use guns smuggled in. Never mind, they couldn't let those evil bits of brass lay around where some innocent might find them! Etc.

I wouldn't even be able to remember what sport was on...

If all meds worked this well,

I wouldn't be so picky about the damn things. Started the stuff the doctor prescribed yesterday afternoon, and my back is better than it's been in almost two weeks. And the elbow I banged up before that is better, too.

It's a anti-inflammatory and a steroid. I read the warnings and 'watch out for this' stuff, and between those and the 'possible' side-effects, it's enough to scare you off taking anything. So far no bad signs, though. And the steroid has a warning that you CANNOT(yes, they emphasize it) just stop; you have to taper off. The directions are 4/day for three days, then 3/day for three days, then 2/day for two days, then one the last day.

Only bad thing is the anti-inflammatory has this sticker on the bottle: Do NOT drink alcoholic beverages when taking this medication. So I'm on the wagon for a bit. Don't drink that much anyway, but it's still annoying. But if it works this well, it's worth it.

One more reason to hate lawyers

Found a link to this earlier today:
"An Army judge advocate general (JAG) temporarily banned Army and Marine Corps snipers from using a highly accurate open-tip bullet. "

You're probably aware that the Geneva Convention or some other agreement we never signed on to forbids the use of bullets designed to mushroom or upset upon impact. Well, a long time ago Sierra bullets started making a match grade that has a small hollow point. Not for expansion; if you read the box, it specifically says NOT to use this bullet for hunting as it will NOT upset. These bullets are specifically allowed for military use because of that. Part of their manufacturing process uses a small rod to hold the bullet for part of the shaping, when the rod is removed it leaves a hollow. What happened here is some JAG lawyer heard 'hollow tip' or 'hollow point' and had a fit without bothering to find out what they were talking about.

There ought to be some kind of regulation that before some REMF(to borrow a phrase) can make a ruling on equipment/actions, they have to run it past somebody who actually knows their ass from a hole in the ground. Won't happen, but it should. And please note in the article that the sniper who blew the whistle was screwed over for making noise, even though it corrected a real problem. Idiot bureaucrats in uniform are still idiot bureaucrats.

On a side note, I read years ago that when the U.S. first began using the .223 cartridge in the M16(ok, 5.56x45mm if you're going to be picky and metric) Sweden had diplomatic fits because the little 55-grain bullet will sometimes, if velocity is high enough, not only yaw and tumble after impact but break apart at the cannelure(the grooved band running around the waist of some bullets), thus causing worse wounds. Turned out that while they were bitching at us, the .30 caliber machinegun ammo they were making for their forces was specifically designed to do just that.

The JAG lawyer had the same attitude that kept many police departments from using hollowpoints for many years; screw whether it stops the bad guy better, we think they're mean. Difference being that the cops were wanting actual designed-to-mushroom ammo; the snipers were using already approved ammo that this idiot couldn't bother to find out about before taking fingers to keyboard.

Just because I'm tired, and the new meds are working,

I give you a friend's imprisoned predator pack:



















Not the glinty eyes, the barely visible tips of the flesh-tearing fangs... Scary little beasts, aren't they? I'm told they answer the Vashka and Puck. The third of the pack is sleeping off the effects of the kill napping. Sneaky little beasts, they manage to escape from damn near everything except this high-tech holding facility.

'Fluffy Bunny' syndrome

I can't remember where I first heard that, but it does cover it; Peter Capstick called it 'Disney syndrome' as I recall. 'It' being the "the nice animals won't hurt you if you're nice to them", "the bear will happily graze and not hurt you/the other animals unless provoked" type attitude.

Little earlier this evening was watching a Nature episode on PBS about the Monteray Bay aquarium having kept a small Great White shark for some months. Of itself, a neat thing, and a lot of people got to see it. But the narration and the attitude was annoying. They kept hitting on "will it stay calm or will it start hunting/killing other fish in the tank?". Finally, after it had attacked two other sharks, killing the second, and was 'actively hunting/stalking' other animals in the tank, they decided they couldn't risk it and released it at sea.

Question for you; if you had the apex predator of the sea in a tank, why would you be surprised when it started hunting? Why would you not expect it to? If these biologists actually thought that having it in a tank and feeding it would keep the base instincts from ever coming out, they're not as smart as they're made out to be.

It's like what happens when a bear whacks somebody, and especially if it eats them. Animal lovers come out of the woodwork telling how it must be the fault of the digested, they must have done something to provoke it, etc. Well, bullshit. Bears are big, powerful, omnivorous predators that will eat pretty much anything they can find or kill; sometimes that turns out to be some human. Doesn't make the bear evil, it's just being a bear. Same with cougars, when they don't have any fear of humans some are going to notice that these two-legs are easier to catch than deer. A book that came out a couple of years ago, The Beast in the Garden, covered it nicely. It's about the buildup to the first modern maneating by a cougar in CO. When the cats started coming into town, and eating pets, things got split between the "Shouldn't we make them scared of us so they'll leave us alone?" people and the "The cougars were here first! You don't like it, then leave!" people. These Aquarium people were apparently hoping the hunting instinct wouldn't come out in the shark; to quote Jayne from Firefly, "Nice move, dumbass".

Side note: after California banned hunting of cougars, the game department wound up killing more 'nuisance' cougars than were killed by hunters. The screaming when this was pointed out and some asked why not allow hunting again? told everything; the screamers didn't care how many they game department had to kill, they just didn't want anybody hunting them.

Other side note: in the year they had this shark(roughly 8 month old female), it grew by something like 17" and 100 pounds. Impressive, I'd say.

And while you're at it,

go congratulate Jawa for his part in getting a bin Laden buttmonkey thrown out of the country.

Don't you just love how this stuff works? I started at

Curmudgeonly & Skeptical, which led to Mean Mr. Mustard which led to Relapsed Catholic which led to this place from which I found the Mark Steyn piece that started it all. Damn, by the time the year's out I should be back in fine fettle as a tracker.

Basically, Steyn points out that feminism should be very damn interested in the war on terror as it has freed a hell of a lot of women to do something other than either wear a tent and be escorted to go to the market or be easy prey to be dragged to a rape room. Doing so with his usual humor causes Murney to have a bad case case of the vapors; it seems that Steyn made mock of holy Feminism and was downright racist to boot. As someone once said(or should have) "If this be misogynism and racism, kick it up a notch, boy!"

Said vapors leading to statements such as "It is obvious that Steyn is a misogynist, and hates feminism, which means he opposes gender equality. How barbaric.", and, referring to the 'torrent of hate' directed at feminists, "That hate will climax when the United States Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, which will likely be in the not too distant future."

Never mind that if Roe vs. Wade is thrown out, that will not outlaw abortion; it will put the issue back in the individual states. That's not putting a matter into the hands of the state's voters, it's 'hatred for feminists'. To quote the Catholic, "This man actually publicizes the fact that he's a Women's Studies minor at the University of Regina (insert Beevis "heh") and has something called a Certificate of Administration in Continuing Education Development.

Meet the future of Canada, folks.

And the kicker: He calls himself a Libertarian. Kids, you can have 'im. Kate, I insist that you distance yourself from this Saskatchewan libertarian!"

No more need be said.

Carnival of Cordite #44

Up over at Gullyborg.

The bin Laden tape

Assuming it's him and not dummied up(I'm still wondering why, if he's still in operation, no video?), lets see... You're not hurting us, we're gonna get you, we're winning but we'll offer a truce to rebuild Iraq.

Translation: "We're getting stomped, every time we come out to play you kill us, we haven't been able to pull off a real operation in America in years, so please accept our 'truce' offer and stop killing us. Don't you know you unbelievers are supposed to LOSE?"

I know it's an estimated time, but damn!

FedEx was supposed to be delivering a package today. Checked the tracking data last night, showed estimated time of delivery 10:30. Ok, great, I'll be home then.

I get home from work at 9:15 to find the "you weren't here" note on the door; they'd been here at 8:10.

I understand 'estimated time', but dammit...

Oh, the wonders of the ACLU

You know, that wonderful organization that defends civil rights? As long as they're approved of civil rights and/or plaintiffs, of course. Well, they've filed suit against the U.S.G. to stop the wiretapping of al Queda-related phone calls. Aside from the bullshit about 'widespread bugging of American's phones', there's some problems with the people in the ACLU doing this. Found this at Debbie Schlussel's blog:
"I'm not referring to the famous Plaintiffs about whom you've heard: For example, Christopher Hitchens, the well-known Vanity Fair writer who is tight with convicted felon lobbyist Jack Abramoff's money launderer Grover Norquist. (Norquist's receipt of thousands from Saudi charities raided by Customs for billions in Al-Qaeda money laundering is well-known, and Hitchens wrote glowingly of Norquist's efforts on behalf of radical Islam)." and goes from there:
"I'm referring to ACLU lawyers Noel Saleh, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad, the ACLU Plaintiffs named in the yesterday's Complaint, attorney William Swor, a member National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Nazih Hassan--all named in the lawsuit. They are exactly the kind of people whom the federal government SHOULD be watching, but probably isn't. One of these men admitted to funding Hezbollah, one was accused of tampering with a witness, and a third signed a document contradicting statements he made in the lawsuit. Not to mention, one of these men engaged in exactly the same "spying" (on me) that he now opposes when done by the NSA."

Yeah, some people in some branches of the ACLU have done some good things; and many people in many branches have done bad things. If the ACLU actually cared about justice and honesty, they'd throw these clowns out of the organization.

Further, check this out at Stop The ACLU for more information.

I need to put this up at work

Rendezvous!

Not the black-powder kind this time. Well, mostly not. Mr. Completely is putting together a meet in Reno NV in November, details here.

Damn, I'd love to go, but this far out I have no idea if I can get the days off. Hoping, hoping...

Did I mention pain hurts?

My back is easing off, but not fast enough. I'm beginning to feel like a dis dyks dyslexic pirate; every time I bend over or stand up I go "URRRRRR".

Ah, the wonders of 'gun control' laws

Or, as Jeff Cooper refers to them, 'personal disarmament laws'.

Got a notice from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership(JPFO) about this article from San Francisco. Short version: abused woman thinks her husband may have found her, so under a CA law that "waives the permit requirement for anyone who "reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order.'', she starts carrying a gun. Accidentally leaves purse at store, gun found & police called; she went to jail because it turns out the restraining order which she thought was permanent had expired two months before.

She understands leaving her purse, especially with the piece inside, was bad; she now, because of the conviction, cannot even have a firearm in the house or pick one up for self-defense.

Joan Ryan, the writer, doesn't like guns. Here's the last paragraph:
"The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense. But so many women every year are killed by their abusive boyfriends and husbands. Restraining orders, as we know, can't stop them. The police often can't stop them. I don't know what the solution is. But something's wrong when, in trying to keep herself alive, the terrorized woman becomes the criminal."

As I said in the e-mail I sent her, Joan, you can't have it both ways. If someone has the right to self-defense, they also have the right to the means with which to defend themselves, and for most people that's a gun. Firearms are not magic wands, you can't wave one and make troubles go away; they are damned effective tools for repelling boarders who come through the window at night, or attack you in a parking lot. But it doesn't matter how skilled you are or how great your need for it, if you don't have it with you when you need it, you're screwed. And the law you think makes such good sense has now prevented this woman from even owning this means of defense, ever again.

Meanwhile, at Smallest Minorty...

I wrote a few days back about when the personal disarmament people really got my attention. Kevin read it and asked the question, and got a lot of comments.

You ought to go read them.

What I'd like to find...

Xavier was writing about what he'd like to find next. Here's what I'd like to run across:


















This beast is the Webley Mk VI revolver, in .455. Friend of mine got hold of a target model a few years ago and I had the chance to shoot it. And immediately lusted after it.

It ain't small; it was adopted by the British army- and lots of people who went out around the world- as a self-defense weapon that would put an attacker down. Big heavy bullet at moderate velocity. Easy to shoot. If you've never been around one, it's a top-break; there's a thumb lever(you can see it in front of the hammer) that you push down to unlock it. Rotate the grip section down and the ejector kicks the empties out, then you drop six more in, close it and continue.

A lot of these were modified during WWII to fire .45acp cartridges. They milled a few thousandths off the back of the cylinder and used half-moon or moon clips to hold the cartridges. Here's a moon clip from a Taurus Tracker:


















Bad thing about this: can't pick out a couple of empties and reload those chambers. Good thing: fast reloading. The other thing about this is that a .45acp bullet is a touch undersize for this bore, so it's not as accurate.

So, what I'd like is an Mk VI, with an uncut cylinder if possible, for $350-400. Which is the real problem. These pistols are out there, but with uncut cylinders tend to go for $450 and up, often going over $600; far more than I'm willing to spend. I'd settle for one with a cut cylinder; I think an unsized .45 bullet would work nicely, and handloading is no problem. I found one in my price range a while back, but close examination showed a slight ring in the barrel, about an inch ahead of the cylinder; bad juju, guys, I decided not to chance it. May not have affected shooting with appropriate handloads, but I'd worry 'bout it. So I'll keep looking.

By the way, if you've read some of my earlier stuff you'll have seen the piece on testing a later model, and Enfield .380:














Very similar design, but smaller and chambered for the .380/200, basically our .38S&W(NOT .38 Special) with a 200-grain round-nose lead bullet. This cartridge was reported to do a very good job of stopping fights; but after they decided a lead bullet violated the Geneva Convention the changed to a 170-grain jacketed bullet and results were not as good. I mentioned I found a Lyman mold that throws a 195-grain round-nose bullet, almost identical to the original for these. Dug around and- at The High Road, I believe- some suggested loads.

DISCLAIMER: This load works very well in this revolver, it might not in yours! Start lower and work up if you try this!

What I wound up using was 2.4 grains of Unique powder and a Winchester Small Pistol primer. According to what I read that gives about 650 feet per second, like the original. Good accuracy, and the bullet hits where the sights are at ten yards.

I love these old firearms.