Canine Contrition - It Does Exist

 So-called dog experts have long since held the position that dogs are in capable of feeling guilt or remorse for doing something naughty.  

This position was confirmed as recently as January of this year, by the AKC.  The stance is and has been that when dogs demonstrate body language typically associated with shame or contrition, it's the result of them cuing in on their owners, who are upset over whatever transgression they committed.  Owner discovers shredded pillow, owner gets upset (even to a small degree), dog knows owner is unhappy about dog's behavior, dog offers contrite body language.  While I agree that's the most typical scenario, it's not always the case.  

I've called bullshit on this 'expert opinion' for years, particularly after a situation with a previous dog.  Today, I received another data point and call the so-called experts out as morons.  

Here's a quick review of my experiences.  The first was with my border collie, Isabel, who could recite Pi to 112 places and drive a car.  Don't call me a liar; she could dammit.  Anyway, when we first rescued her, she suffered from frequent urinary tract infections and would have occasional accidents in the house.  My first data point is from one such accident.  I was working from home, one day.  Isabel was sleeping just outside my office, but not where I could see her.  We were alone in the house.  From nowhere, she quickly walked into my office and glued herself to my side, her body language screaming 'I love you, Daddy!'.  Being Daddy's girl, it wasn't unusual for her to show the most affection to me, but this was over the top.  I suspected something was up and went to investigate, finding she'd had an accident.  Her body language couldn't have been a response to my reaction to her accident, because I wasn't yet aware of it.

Today, my dog Sadie offered very similar behavior, but I couldn't figure out why.  That is until I got a good look at her.  For the second time, she'd decided to roll around in her own shit.  Somehow, that I'd missed that little tidbit when she came into the house.  Still, she knew what she'd done was being a bad doggie, from the previous time she pulled that move, hence the contrition.  Again, body language of contrition offered before I was aware of her transgression.

In both cases, it was clear to the dogs that the behaviors were unwelcome, from reactions to their previous occurrences.  Be clear that neither were punished; that's a dumb way to modify a dog's behavior.  But there were cues that the dogs picked up on.  For example, Sadie got tossed right into a bath.  When they repeated the behavior, they knew they did something that didn't make their owner happy.

These were completely different dogs, with dissimilar demeanors.  While Isabel was insanely smart and loved her Daddy, but had some behavioral challenges, relative to strangers and was afraid of containers.  Sadie is a complete saint and the most even tempered, loving dog I've ever had, but she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  

In conclusion, the experts don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Additional source material here.

Gratuitous doggie pictures below.

Isabel

Sadie

When Guns Aren't Such a Good Idea

 Despite our relationships being destroyed by manipulation from their borderline mother, I still feel some emotional attachment to my former step kids (see previous post Down in Flames II).  Rather than subjecting myself to the ultimate vulnerability of reaching out to them, I sort of keep an eye from afar.  In today's society, that means occasionally popping by their social media accounts.

The one of note today comes from my former stepdaughter, who posted to see if anyone knew someone who could sponsor her for membership in a gun club, back in Pennsylvania (where I lived until separating from her mother).  My initial thought was that I could drop a quick email to one of my old shooting compatriots and get her sponsored into the club to which I previously belonged.  The idea of helping her brought a bit of joy, for the brief moment until I realized how much of a mistake that would be.  If you've read the Down in Flames entry, you know that my dawter has become a borderline, just like her mudda.  Those who are unable to regulate their emotions and occasionally wander into sociopathic waters probably aren't what I would consider responsible gun owners.

So, I remained silent and silently wished her well.

Annual Dating Profile of the Week

It's been some time since I've posted a dating profile of the week.  This can be attributed to two factors.  First, I'm not actively looking and second, not much surprises me at this point.  The 'here are all the things I hate' profiles that share nothing about the person themselves, the half sentence profiles...they all run together at this point.  However, I recently stumbled upon a profile that made me stop in my tracks.  

This profile belongs to 'Bibbity' on Plenty of Fish and represents the essence of what Trump and willful ignorance does to people.  Unfortunately, the neither the website nor the app codes profiles as text anymore, which prohibits copying and pasting.  So, much as I'd like to share more of her lengthy profile, there was no way I was transposing the complete raft of garbage.  You'll have to make due with the snippets I did retype, which I did verbatim.  You can see it here - Profile

Bibbity is a 47 year old hair stylist from the same suburb in which I live and says:

If you are covid vaccinated please do not message me.  Im (sic) not interested in being with you...ever.  #mybodymychoice 

Full blown Trump supporter

But honestly if you hate him, please do not message me for as we will have zero in common.  I don't pander to snowflakes in la-la land.  Just tells me you are a follower, going with the flow and can't critically think for yourself.  Big fighter for freedom and truth.

Not only does this ignoramus want to risk getting Covid, but she won't be happy unless you do as well.  Apparently the idiotic hashtag only applies to her and not you, should you wish to date her; and I can't see why you wouldn't, considering her immense charm.  Seriously, I don't recall hearing any of the conspiracy fucktards spouting that being in contact with someone who's vaccinated could be harmful.  Perhaps she's a special breed of idiot.  

I'll skipe further commentary on this section, mostly because it makes my head hurt when I have to read the 'can't critically think for yourself' section.  

And why do people insist on putting hashtags where they aren't searchable?  

She goes on:

Don't send me hunky professional pics all the time and refuse to send a current. I WILL ASK YOU FOR A PICTURE DOING SOMETHING I ASKED YOU TO DO TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE NOT SOME JERK CATFISHING ME. HOLY SNIKEYS!!!!!!! For example... Take a FACE selfie holding a spoon..... 

If a women demanded that sort of thing from me, regardless of whether she was a Trump supporter, I have just the photo I'd respond with.  

Guns Part 468 - Breaking Down Biden's Speech Part Deux

Because I ran into the conundrum of illustrating rifles, pistols, SBR's, and Any Other Weapons (AOW), this one's taken more time, even though it was the first of the two entries on Joe's speech.  

As expected, Joe decided to take action against things that are stuck in his mind, yet won't yield a damned bit of good.  Let's read what Joe had to say and attempt to make some sense out of it.  

He starts out strong with a complete lie.

"But you go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want and no background check." 

As I've previously noted in other entries, this is utter bullshit, and everyone who goes to gun shows knows it.

He continues - 
"...we want to treat pistols modified with stabilizing braces with the seriousness they deserve. Stabilize the embrace [inaudible 00:13:35] essentially makes that pistol a hell of a lot more accurate and a mini rifle. As a result, it’s more lethal, effectively turning it into a short-barreled rifle. That’s what the alleged shooter in Boulder appears to have done."

In all fairness, I can't say for certain whether Joe's lying or just has absolutely no clue what he's talking about.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and default to the latter.  

Regardless, one of the President's spokespersons openly stated the above was solely a reaction to the Boulder shooting.  Because as we know, being reactionary to one minor thing makes Joe feel good.  Except the gun used in the Boulder shooting was not modified with a stabilizing brace; it came from the factory with one.  Ruger, like every other major manufacturer of AR-15's equips their complete AR pistols with a stabilizing brace.  Again, standard, stock, out of the box, not modified.  At this point, you're probably wondering what's the difference between an AR rifle and an AR pistol as well as what the hell a brace is.  The main difference between a pistol and rifle is barrel length.  Rifles have barrels at least 16 inches and pistols, less than 16 inches.  Pistols are forbidden to have stocks installed on them, whereas rifles may have stocks.  A gun with a barrel shorter than 16 inches and stock installed is considered to be a short barreled rifle, or SBR.  Unless your gun has a tax stamp, possessing an SBR is a felony.  Pistols may have a brace installed, the use of which is shown below.  

It's designed so a shooter can effectively fire the gun one handed, but everyone shoulders the brace like a stock.  Quite frankly, is a workaround to not make it an SBR.  I have a brace on one of my guns, although I always use it in the manner in which it was intended.  If you're not sufficiently confused, I've taken the easy way out and gone with a movie that illustrates how fucked up the rules are.   

Returning to Joe's comments:
"I want to be clear that these modifications to firearms that make them more lethal should be subject to the National Firearms Act. The National Firearms Act requires that a potential owner pay a $200 fee and submit their name and other identifying information to the Justice Department, just as they would if they went out and purchased a silencer for a gun."

If you're wondering, the The National Firearms Act, or NFA, was enacted in 1934 as a response to all the naughty gangsters, running amok in the US.  It made things such as machine guns (full auto anything), silencers, and short barreled rifles and shotguns illegal to possess without the proper tax stamp.  The law was basically a knee jerk reaction to the mobsters - 'anything you guys have been using, and whatever else we feel like throwing in, are now illegal unless you pay a $200 tribute to the crown for the tax stamp'.  The short barrel stuff was a direct response to a gangster, whose name I've forgotten, who used a sawed off shotgun to commit robberies.  Incidentally, the cost hasn't changed since the law's inception; it's always been $200.

Some thoughts on the NFA, from others and myself.  First, even the ATF has said silencers shouldn't be on it; not necessarily germane to this topic, but dammit, I'm tired of dealing with the shit every time I want to build a can.  Second, the law is antiquated and a knee jerk response to events almost a century ago.  That crossing a line on a tape measure requires a tax stamp is ludicrous.  You can trust me, being as close to a gun expert you can have, short of paying for the analysis, a shorter barrel rifle may be slightly easier to maneuver in tight spaces, but not a whole lot more than a gun with a 16" barrel.  This is especially true in the more open areas where mass shootings typically occur.  

Oh, and if your plans include a mass shooting, I'd hazard a guess that you're not so concerned about committing a felony ahead of it, so you can throw a stock on your gun in 15 seconds for under $30.  

AR-15 Stock

All of the above aside, our illustrious leader wants to make over a million law abiding citizens into felons because of an event that represents roughly 1% of all mass shootings!  

Finally, I return to the fact I highlighted in a previous entry - were Colorado a participant in the NICS system, the gun wouldn't have made it into the shooter's hands in the first place.  

In conclusion, I applaud Joe for latching on to dumb details and getting worked up over them.  I have a feeling we'll be reminded quite a few more times that his primary quality that got him elected was he wasn't Donald Trump.

If you want me, I'll be pondering whether to give our government another $200 for the privilege of exercising my rights.

Guns Part 137, Breaking Down Biden's Speech

Because there's both bullshit and kernels of goodness in Joe's gun speech from last week, and I'm passionate about the subject, let's break some of it down.  Lest you think I'm being too hard on him, there were things he brought up that I find encouraging.  First, he acknowledges it's not just the guns, stupid. 

"...there are proven strategies that reduce gun violence in urban communities, and there are programs that have demonstrated they can reduce homicides by up to 60% in urban communities. But many of these have been badly underfunded or not funded at all of late."

He also wants to take action against 80% guns.  I hate the focus group formulated term, 'ghost gun', which he uses to portray them as evil.  As I revealed in my previous entries, despite ignorant people claiming to the contrary, guns aren't inherently evil.  Back to the speach - 

"Much more need to be done, but the first, want to reign in the proliferation of so-called “ghost guns.” These are guns that are homemade, built from a kit that include directions on how to finish the firearm. You can go buy the kit. They have no serial numbers, so when they show up at a crime scene, they can’t be traced. And the buyers aren’t required to pass a background check to buy the kit to make the gun. Consequently, anyone from a criminal to a terrorist can buy this kit and as little as 30 minutes put together a weapon. I want to see these kits treated as firearms under the Gun Control Act, which is going to require that the seller and manufacturers make the key parts with serial numbers and run background checks on the buyers when they walk in to buy that package."

Two points on this one.  The most important is that the Gun Control Act does not prohibit a person from building their own firearm, so long as it's for personal use only, the type is not regulated by the NFA (i.e. machine gun), and the individual isn't otherwise prohibited from owning a gun (i.e. convicted felon).  Furthermore, the GCA requires neither the gun to be serialized nor a background check passed.  So, I can go out into my machine shop and legally create as many guns as I wish, so long as I don't sell them to anyone else.  

Now you're saying that I just proved Joe's point, that these 80% lower receivers should be treated as firearms.  Except they're not firearms!  These lower receivers are typically missing critical holes or aren't machined out the whole way, so they can not be used as a firearm.  Furthermore, they aren't kits that you 'put together a weapon'.  

Case in point, here are photos of an 80% lower and a completed lower.

Still a lot of work to be done on that first one before it can go bang.  

Then, we jump on the downward spiral into stupidity - no holes drilled, features not machined, and so on, until you're left trying to classify the item below as a firearm.  

Let's not forget 3D Printers, which have become quite affordable and can print guns all day.  Do we regulate those as well?  

Change the damned law so that all finished firearms require serial numbers and the owner to pass a background check.  Heavy penalties for those who don't comply.  Easy peasy, you anti gun, fuck head.  

"Finally, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the key agency enforcing gun laws, hasn’t had a permanent director since 2015. Today, I’m proud to nominate David Chipman to serve as a director of the AFT. David knows the AFT well."

I think I join many people in wondering what the fuck the AFT is Joe keeps talking about.  Old Dave Chipman knows the ATF well and is quite well known for his anti firearm leanings as well as his bullshit claims that the Branch Davidians shot down two helicopters during the Waco seige.   

Guns, The First and Last of a Series

 The Gun Owner's Mind

This entry will serve as the finale to the firearm extravaganza I've written over the past few weeks.  It's intended to provide a bit of illumination into the minds of gun owners, which may be helpful for those who don't live abroad or believe we buy guns in order to stoke the evil in our hearts.  

By now, you know I like to deal in facts, so I'll start with some additional statistics relevant to this discussion.  According to a 2019 Pew Research poll, 44% of Americans say they either own a gun or live with someone who does.  Among those who own guns, 66% report owning more than one gun, with 29% owning more than five guns.  32% admit to providing a lower number to reflect what they've told their wives.  I may have made that last one up.  At 67%, protection is the number one motivation for gun ownership, followed by hunting (38%), sport shooting (30%), gun collecting (13%), and because it's required for their job (8%).  

The piece of data that I think brings illumination into the mind of a gun owner is that roughly half grew up with guns in their household.  I know a lot of folks that fall into this category, including myself.  My grandfather had guns and he taught me how to shoot at an early age.  He had a lever action 22 rifle (which is now in my safe) and we'd go shoot cans on his property.  It was a lot of fun, learning how to aim, properly pull the trigger, and satisfying when you hit what you were aiming at.  He heavily stressed gun safety, along with being responsible and cleaning your gun immediately after you were done.  

How Gun Owners See Firearms

This is the meat and potatoes that I think is important for those not familiar with guns to read.  There is one important concept the reader needs to if not grasp, recognize.  Most of us who own guns find shooting them to be enjoyable.  Yesterday, I grabbed a couple of guns and went to my club.  It was both relaxing and rewarding to put four bullets through the same hole at one hundred yards.  Once I'm fully vaccinated, I'll begin competing again.  If you read my original entry where I outline that decision, you already know I did it for the social aspect as much as the shooting itself.  

In order to drive my point home, I'll share one additional experience for those who still think we're nuts for enjoying these death machines.  A few of the women I've dated, including my now ex-wife, were hardcore anti gun liberals.  They didn't want anyone to have a gun, particularly an evil AR-15.  In each of those instances, I offered to take them shooting, so they could experience the AR-15's dearth of evil for themselves.  All took me up on the offer (partially because they knew I would have dumped them had they not) and said roughly the same thing to me:  When can we go again?  Shooting is fun, people! 

As an ambassador for gun owners everywhere, I'm willing to make the same offer to any other attractive women who've never been shooting and want to sleep with me.

Recognizing shooting as a legitimate and non-evil hobby brings us that much closer to a meeting of the minds.  With that established, it wouldn't be unreasonable for those in that hobby to want a variety of guns to enjoy.  Guns are typically at a median price point where you won't bankrupt yourself for acquiring more than one; $800-$1,500.  But prices run across an entire spectrum.  The least expensive gun I own is a Russian Makarov I bought when they first became available in the US.  I bought it because 'first Russian gun you can buy in the US and it's only $100'.  That gun is worth $550 now, which illustrates another point; you'll almost never lose money on one.  You can spend a whole lot more, obviously.  A custom 1911 can set you back up to $8k and taken sixty steps further, a pair of shotguns built by Holland and Holland can set you back close to half a million dollars.  They'd better come with a concierge blowjob service for that money.  

If you grew up with guns, you may have also inherited a few that live in your safe, such as the 22 lever action rifle I mentioned above or the 32 caliber revolver that my great great grandfather carried as a constable.  Those can add up as well.

Touching on owning a gun for protection, I think I'm similar to others in that I consider such as gun to be a tool.  Along with the vast majority who own guns for protection, I didn't make the decision from an imminent threat, rather something to have in case it's needed.  Unless we live in a certain type of neighborhood or are employed in a high risk job, we recognize the need to utilize that tool to be infinitesimally small.   However, just like a flashlight or fire extinguisher, it's there if we find ourselves in a situation where that type of tool is required.  

At the risk of another digression, let me address a common misperception / belief that many non-gun owners have about law enforcement.  Specifically, that only law enforcement (LE) is properly trained and should therefore be the only ones to carry guns.  In my experience, and that of many other shooters I know, LE as a whole is comically unskilled, when it comes to firearm capability and safety.  According to a friend of mine, one of the favorite past times for local shooters is to go to a particular indoor range when the Overland Park PD is about to requalify with their handguns.  Just don't be in the same room, because you'll see the cops put bullets into the floor, through the ceiling, and everywhere else, save the target they were supposed to be shooting.  When I was actively competing, I also served as the range safety officer for the squad I was with.  I only ever had to disqualify two shooters for unsafe gun handling.  One accidentally put a round into the dirt midway between the two of us (which was about 18") and the other swept my chest with a loaded gun, when they turned the wrong way during a stage (closest I've ever come to shitting my pants).  What they had in common was, you guessed it, both were LE.  

Hopefully, that answers the three most common questions to those of us who own guns:  Why do you own guns?  Do you really need a gun?  Why do you feel the need to have so many guns?

I've done my best to be a good ambassador and provide some insight to those who the concept of owning guns may be alien or unsettling.  

Culture of Fear

Perhaps I've cleared up a few misconceptions, but the media and libs continue to stoke the fear of guns.  Today provides a perfect example.  CNN is reporting that there have been TWENTY mass shootings between the time of the Atlanta spa killings and yesterday, when a gunman killed four in Los Angeles.  (I obviously wrote this a few days ago.)  Holy shit!  There really is an epidemic!  Except CNN is manipulating the numbers to make a more sensational story.  As I noted in my other entries on the topic, the FBI / Federal Government defines a mass shooting as an event that claimed four or more lives.  Mother Jones uses a lower threshold of three deaths.  However, CNN considers a mass shooting to be one that has a total of four deaths or wounded.  Others don't use the number of wounded specifically  because of how broad the definition can be.  Taking a small bullet fragment into your leg doesn't do anything but hurt (been there, done that), but it still counts as a wound.  In other words, I could fire a few rounds into the sidewalk of a crowded street and it would be considered a mass shooting by CNN, due to bullet fragments finding people's legs.  Worth noting is that the Mother Jones database doesn't list any mass shootings during the same period CNN claims twenty took place.   

One could argue that the right has stoked fear among gun owners over civil unrest and the government coming for their guns, causing them to buy and hoard everything they can get their hands on.  One could just as easily argue the left has done the same thing.  This is one area in which I'll admit to being biased.  To me, having a sufficient firepower to deal with as many zombies that come my way is called being properly prepared.  

Wrapping Up

Throughout this series, I've done my best to be an ambassador for my fellow gun owners.  Hopefully,  readers no longer view owning firearms, particularly multiples, as some sort of aberrant behavior.  That owning multiple guns makes one even more dangerous to society.  

I'm tired of being demonized by the left because they want an easy villain, instead of taking action against the real problems.  There's no way the libs can't recognize taking away guns will only cause more people to want them.  However, most Americans don't have the attention span to digest complex social issues.  They want someone or something to blame and government to make it go away.  

Thanks for making it through the long slog on the gun topic.  I hope you consider the time you spent reading these entries to have some value. 

Addressing Gun Violence - The Prequel

Based upon some of the questions and comments from readers of my previous entries on gun violence, I thought it may be of value to step back and examine the origin's of America's gun culture and why it's perpetuated.  In addition, I'll throw out some gun owner's insight on our hobby. 

Gun Culture in the USA

In order to best understand why the US has the gun culture it does, I find it helpful to explore why other countries don't.  Let's go back to the founding of this country for a quick look at the two sides that fought each other.  The bad guys lived under a monarchy and were professional soldiers for the largest empire on the planet, where the good guys, who kicked their asses, had a fledgling democratic government and were anything but professional soldiers.  This is the first glimpse of the everyman as a hero, in this country, fighting for his very freedom.  This underdog kept his musket by the front door, should he be called upon by his country again.  What about his opponent, the Red Coat?  Once he came home, and exited his service, he had no further need for a musket.  Not as though anyone was threatening to invade England.  By then, Europe was mostly stable, relative to fighting between neighboring countries.  When fighting did break out, it was conducted by professional armies.  

Wrapping that thought, I would suggest that the length of time and circumstances in which a country gained their independence represent significant factors in their views toward guns and gun ownership.  The US had to fight for its independence from another country less than 250 years ago in a war waged by everyman soldiers.  I'll contrast that with two other random countries.  France's independence came after that of the US, but they fought themselves, which doesn't count.  The country hadn't been under another country's rule for centuries by then.  Because it's been highlighted as having one of the lowest rates of gun violence, I'll pick on Iceland.  Their actual independence took place in the 19th century, so not that long ago.  However, it didn't involve any bloodshed; they essentially just informed Denmark 'you're not the boss of us anymore'.  How stable the country is overall also plays a role, with gun violence inversely proportional to the amount of internal strife (i.e. most of Central America).

Finally, I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of system of government on a country's views toward gun ownership.  Until WWI, every country in Europe was run by a monarch, mostly all from the same German family (hence the stability).  And monarchs aren't terribly fond of the general populous owning weapons that could be used to overthrow them.  The same can be said for dictators.  In any case, living in monarchies, Europe had been accustomed to not having guns for centuries.  That makes understanding America's gun culture baffling for those who live there.  

Returning to America, once freedom had been won, it was time to explore the rest of our great land.  Those pioneers and explorers carried guns to hunt for food as well as defend themselves from bears and the like.  They also carried for another reason that continues to echo today.  There's not much law enforcement present when there isn't a state, much less a town to elect a sheriff.  In other words, you were left to your own devices to defend yourself against those who may wish to do you harm, so a gun  could come in quite handy. 

Guns in Popular Culture

That segues perfectly into popular culture and the theme of rugged individualism that's echoed for a couple of centuries now.  In American pop culture, when someone is murdered or grievously wronged, the hero that brings justice to the bad guy(s) is rarely law enforcement, or at least not typical law enforcement.  In many cases, American pop culture portrays law enforcement as incapable, lacking latitude to enforce the law, or even corrupt.  Another set of random examples.  John Rambo had to defend himself from corrupt law enforcement in the first movie, then, still shunned by the establishment, goes back to Vietnam and rescues POW's and returns a hero.  Who doled out justice when they killed his dog?  John Wick, of course.  The only time when law enforcement is portrayed as the hero is when one member goes rogue.  Case in point - While John McClain was a cop, he was essentially a rogue cop, who had to contend not only with Hans Gruber and company trying to kill him, but the LAPD's incompetence.  He was the true hero of Nakatomi Plaza.  And that's what most American men want to see themselves as - the rugged hero who kicks ass.  And kicking ass requires a lot of firepower!  For most American wannabe's, the only elite unit they would be qualified for is Meal Team Six, but that's another story.  Contrast that with how law enforcement is portrayed in other countries' pop cultures, where they're shown as professional, capable, and bring the bad guy to justice as a team, through hard work and intellect.  At most, rules are bent, but never thrown out the window.  

Stay tuned for the final installment coming soon.