Search This Blog
Tuesday, March 21, 2023
Epstein and Justice For Dummies
Thursday, March 16, 2023
An Evening With His Toy
Warning: This post is definitely NSFW and contains explicit descriptions of sexual intercourse between two consenting partners along with mild BDSM themes. If either offends you, please close the window. If you are under the age of 18, please close the window. If you are named Jason, please close the window.
Below is a true story about one particular evening with a former sub of mine. She was fun.
Per his instructions, she rang the doorbell at exactly eight p.m. Looking through the side glass of the door, he could see her standing in her tie closure spring coat, with her conservative knee length skirt and flats; she exuded confidence. To anyone who passed by, she looked all the part of the accomplished university professor she was, the epitome of prim and proper. Well, a very attractive university professor. At just under five feet tall, and weighing ninety pounds on an off day, she was petite in every way. Most of her friends knew her for her keen intellect, endless optimism, and joie de vivre. Only he knew of her other side; the side he created at her request. He opened the door and she glided past him, not stopping until reaching the great room. Catching up to her, he helped her with her coat. Her attire underneath was a pleasant surprise; she wore a flowered, yet completely transparent top, her pert breasts unspoiled by a bra. She knew he loved such surprises and did her best to please him, because that was her job. She was his dirty slut, his property, and she took that role very seriously.
Wednesday, March 1, 2023
Giggle Switches - The Real Gun Problem No One's Talking About
In the shooting community, the term "giggle switch" refers to the select fire lever that takes a gun from semiautomatic to full auto fire. Shooting full auto makes most grown 12 year old men practically giggle, hence the name. A 1986 amendment to the Gun Control Act banned any further manufacture of full auto weapons not for military use. Therefore, there are a finite number of machine guns and that makes them expensive. A garden variety Uzi will set you back 40k$!!! Even a garbage machine gun, like an M11, will set you back $10-15k. Also, legally obtaining a machine gun requires a lengthy and costly background check. Owning an automatic weapon without the proper tax stamp is a felony and carries a lengthy prison sentence.
Of course, not everyone wants to go through that hassle and some semiautomatic guns are super easy to convert to full auto. The traditional gun for conversion was the AR-15, but it's been eclipsed by Glock pistols, which is even easier to convert.
The part that instantly turns a semi auto into a full auto is an auto sear and the Glock version is becoming way too popular. In fact, getting a Glock auto sear is a piece of cake. If you have a 3D printer, there are plans on the web for you to print them. If you don't, they're made by the thousands in China and shipped here. Because they're small and frequently not identified by customs, they slip through without issue.
The video below shows what an auto sear is and how easy it is to install.
Here's a better picture of one hanging off the back of a Glock pistol.
Full auto Glocks are extremely dangerous in two different ways. First, in close quarters, they concentrate a lot of rounds into a tight space, which has been deadly for law enforcement attempting to gain entry into homes or when attempting to arrest a suspect. The bad guy can literally spray bullets at their target; statistics say one will hit an area not protected by body armor.
The greater danger comes from lack of control. Because a long time friend is a gun dealer in Pennsylvania, I've had the opportunity to shoot a few full auto guns, including an M11, AK47, and M16. On full auto, these guns were impossible to control beyond the first few rounds. Keep in mind the last two were rifles, which can be held by both hands. For that reason, today's battle rifle, the M4 (an M16 variant) has no full auto option; only three round bursts.
Now, imagine the recoil forces in a pistol, where you don't have two hand holds. The dork in the video below provides a perfect illustration - watch the gun jump around in his hands.
The inability to keep the gun on target, while dumping a 50 round mag, dramatically increases the risk of standers by being hit with an errant round. And let's be honest, the individuals who use these guns aren't at the shooting range, honing their skills. They've always been the type to spray rounds, which was already deadly to bystanders with semiauto guns, but with full auto, it's become even more perilous to be nearby when they decide to shoot someone.
My typical entry concludes with my thoughts on a path forward, but I don't see one with these devices. They're cheap, easily obtained or made, deadly, and way too easy to get ahold of.
About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing. He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA. Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses. He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.
Wednesday, February 22, 2023
The Missing J6 Footage
I'll begin this post with a universal truth. Under no circumstances is it ever legal or morally right to storm / enter the United States Capitol by force, short of Red Dawn happening.
The right wing was so proud of themselves on January 6th, 2021. They'd shown the world they weren't going to stand for an election being stolen from their idol, Donald Trump. Thousands of photos were posted to social media by those who stormed the Capitol by those who declared themselves to be patriots. Then, they realized maybe not that they'd done something wrong, but that the majority of the country despised them for their actions. The social media posts came down and the participants couldn't account for themselves on J6. I don't for a moment think any were shameful about what they'd done; they just didn't want to go to jail.
Under no circumstances is it ever legal or morally right to storm / enter the United States Capitol by force, short of Red Dawn happening.
Once they regrouped, the search began for mitigating factors. In other words, they were looking for scapegoats to blame for their actions. First, there was Ray Epps. Why they chose him, I have no idea. But he supposedly ushered the insurrectionists inside and was an FBI plant. There were dozens of undercover FBI agents leading the charge, they said. We weren't there; it was Antifa, they claimed. That's my favorite one. Clamoring all over these scapegoats is an implicit admission by the right wing looneys they don't think for themselves.
Unfortunately for the insurrectionists, none of these lame diversions have stuck, so they're down to their last excuse, which is the tens of thousands of hours of security footage from that day. They claim there's a reason that footage has been kept under wraps and that reason will absolve them of their blame.
Under no circumstances is it ever legal or morally right to storm / enter the United States Capitol by force.
There are two logical explanations why the footage hasn't been released. First, beyond the hours of the siege, there's a whole lot of nothingness on the video. Only an idiot would fight for the release of 10 hours of footage of the door to the ladies room that no one uses. The second, and most important reason, is that there are most certainly cameras that show the routes to the safe rooms used by the members that day. In other words, it would provide valuable information for their next try.
The bottom line is this: Unless there were signs posted at an entrance saying "Welcome Rioters", along with a tray of cookies, no valid excuse will ever exist for storming the United States Capitol.
It doesn't matter if Jesus himself was in the building, spurring people on; it's still illegal.
Finally, it's dangerously close to treason in anyone's book to take over a chamber of Congress, smear shit on the walls, erect a noose and scream to hang the Vice President, or perform a B&E into Nancy Pelosi's office and trash it. Any reasonable person knows doing so is flat out wrong and illegal.
While we're on Pelosi, if you think she orchestrated it, congratulations, you're a fucking moron. Trump held the rally, the speakers got the monkeys fired up, then Trump told everyone to converge on the Capitol. Now, tell me again how Pelosi's to blame.
Right wingers stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow a free and fair election. But it seems the party of personal accountability has become that of whining and blaming others for their horrible actions.
Thursday, February 16, 2023
The Impact of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban
TLDR: The 1994 Crime Bill accomplished absolutely nothing because it did almost nothing. Mass homicides remained at the same level and AR-15's were actually used in more of them during the time it was in effect.
Many folks I interact with point to the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) as an example of a successful measure in reducing gun related homicides and mass shootings. They posit that similar success would be a reasonable expectation with a repeat of the legislation. I thought it might be a good time to explore the bill's accomplishments, from a data perspective. Having begun shooting competitively during the ban, I'll also share firsthand insight in how it changed market dynamics.
For reference, the bill went into effect September 13, 1994 and sunset on the same day in 2004.
Assault Rifles - What we've (incorrectly) come to refer to as assault rifles weren't banned outright. Instead, they were watered down to not be so scary. Rifles with detachable mags were only permitted one of the following list of attributes: pistol grips, bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, or flash hiders, and grenade launchers. Threaded barrels were banned. As with magazines, those already manufactured or imported prior to 9/13/94 were grandfathered in. There were other rules, but they weren't applicable to the topic at hand.
| Figure 1 |
On the mass murder piece, Table 1 shows that there were the same number of incidents during the AWB as the decade prior. There was a slight decrease in the number of fatalities. However, the standard deviation on mass murder fatalities per event of 24.3, there's no statistical difference. AR's were used in more mass murders during the AWB than in the decade prior.**
For clarity, I use the FBI definition of a mass shooting (murder), which is an incident in which four or more people are shot and killed, not including the shooter, and the victims aren't related to the shooter. (i.e. excludes domestic violence)
| Table 1 |
Table 2 breaks out the numbers of incidents and resulting fatalities, across various time periods, between mass murders committed with AR's versus those that used another firearm. You can see that the AR became more popular with mass murderers but didn't didn't become the most commonly used firearm until the most recent half decade. I'll come back to that later.**
| Table 2 |
Congress was seriously miffed and pulled in the heads of Colt and Bushmaster to explain themselves. I recall the president of Colt testified something to the effect of, "We're in compliance with the law; don't whine to us when you did a shitty job of writing it."
There were other dumb loopholes, as well. The most egregious was the exemption for the Ruger Mini 14, which fires the same cartridge at the same rate of fire and holds the same number of rounds as an AR-15. Just as lethal, but less scary.There was another interesting loophole in that if you already owned hi cap mags, you could repair them (i.e. buy replacement components) if they were damaged. I "heard stories" of my fellow competitors using this loophole to build new hi caps from components. I will neither confirm nor deny doing so myself to support the new competition racegun I had just built.
Ultimately, the numbers prove the AWB had almost no impact in reducing overall gun violence or the number of mass murders because it didn't really do anything meaningful. You could still buy anything you wanted on the secondary market, at a higher price. In reality, the AWB made the AR-15 more popular. I've already written how a gun dealer friend of mine said that he had droves of first time gun buyers come in to his store to buy one. He told me there were a few that literally walked in and wanted "whatever the government doesn't want me to have." While this may be anecdotal evidence, consider that when the bill took effect, there were two manufacturers (Colt and Bushmaster) supporting 95% of the market demand for AR-15's. After the bill sunset, new ones began coming online every year to support the spike in demand. Now, there are no less than a thirty major manufacturers making AR-15's, which have become the most popular gun in the country. The author of the AWB was of course, Joe Biden. Maybe a bit of irony the person who drove the greatest spike in popularity for a gun now wants to outlaw it.
The facts above haven't prevented those who want semiautomatic guns banned from posting falsehoods and nonsense data. The one I see most frequently is the chart showing how mass murders rapidly increased after the AWB sunset. Anyone who understands cause and effect / the scientific method recognizes the chart as the bullshit it is. The AWB was meant to decrease gun violence; was there a drop after the bill was put in place versus the decade prior? That answer is obviously NO.
In order to not perpetuate the falsehood that this piece of legislation was successful in its goals, I will no longer refer to it as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban...it was the 1994 Crime Bill.
Update: I've been made aware of at least two studies that contradict my findings with respect to the bill's impact on mass homicides. The recent video from Robert Reich you may have seen relies on one of these. Both clearly had an intended conclusion they were seeking and backed into it in some sketchy ways. I'll address each and explain why I don't care about them.
1. A Study Conducted by Stanford Law: This is the one Reich used for his video. This study utilizes the same dataset as I do, but alters the criteria of what a mass homicide is to SIX or more fatalities. They justify this via someone's book I'm not paying $18 for. My position is if the FBI's definition is good for the FBI (and is the standard most entities use), it's good enough for me. We can all manipulate the data and reach any conclusion we want, which is why I'm transparent. FWIW, another author called BS on their findings and this was the article responding to it. In addition to data manipulation, they show a complete lack of understanding of how the bill impacted someone looking to purchase a gun (it didn't). Plus, they were bitchy and petty about being called out.
2. A column by some guy in the Ohio Capital Journal that references some nebulous studies by Dimaggio: This guy copy pasted a chart from the Dimaggio study and provides a link for the data. Said data only includes fatalities by year, with no detail, and those are hopelessly understated (by almost fourfold) versus the FBI's data. Yet, he claims to have referenced Mother Jones, which if you read the footnotes, is the exact same source I use for mass murder data. The data being wildly off and no detail on methodology make this piece a joke.
In conclusion, I'm done with this topic. I lived it as a gun buyer. I easily and legally bought the shit it was supposed to ban, so I know how it impacted the availability of the guns it targeted (it didn't). The data is what the data is and further debate on the subject is a waste of time.
Tuesday, February 14, 2023
Can We Ban Guns?
Every mass homicide brings out those who want to ban guns altogether in this country. Unfortunately, reality says it won't happen, at least not in any of our lifetimes. Rather than debate in 140 characters or less, I decided to put together a quick and dirty list of hindering factors. There may be others, that I've missed.
2nd Amendment - It's not going anywhere and it guarantees the right to own firearms
Most members of Congress won't touch it - The topic is widely considered a third rail and an instant way to prevent yourself from being reelected.
Gun lobbies - They make massive contributions to GOP members of Congress, who don't want to lose that stream of funds.
The population doesn't want a ban - Obviously, there is a portion of Americans who support a ban on guns, but it's a far cry from the much louder majority.
The US isn't other countries - The gun culture is ingrained into American society, as I wrote here. That entry also talks about banning guns.
If we confined a ban solely to scary AR-15's and similar weapons, we can probably skip the section above, because such a ban may come in the form of an executive order (that would be overturned by SCOTUS, but that's beside the point.
For the purpose of this entry, I'm working within the context of an outright ban, with nothing being grandfathered in.
Enforcement / Confiscation - What happens when the government sends out their ATF jack booted thugs to collect guns? First, it would be a matter of time until some junior ATF agent gets shot on someone's front porch. Second, the folks tasked with confiscation would be the most likely to oppose such a ban. "Nope, didn't find any this week." Sheriffs in some communities have already stated they won't enforce a ban just on AR-15's. That number would skyrocket in the event of a total ban on guns.
Costly - The US government would be required to reimburse gun owners for the value of what was confiscated. 400 million guns in the US at a median cost of $800, means $320 billion for reimbursement. There are some really nice and rare (read expensive) guns in peoples' safes that won't go anywhere without compensation being involved.
Finally, let's not forget the 50,000+ Americans who would be suddenly out of work, because of the ban, because that's the number who work in the firearms industry.
Now, can we get back to the real work of addressing why people pull triggers?
About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing. He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA. Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses. He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.
Friday, February 10, 2023
The Founding Fathers, AR-15's, and Goals
Following President Biden's SOTU speech, the topic of banning this, that, and the other firearm has come to the fore once again. Inevitably, this has brought out the anti gunners tossing out their usual talking points. I've already covered how it's not guns that are responsible for the increase in gun violence, along with other fallacies. Because of how inane it was, I refused to waste time on one particular claim, but someone pissed me off on the internet and here we are.
This particular talking point pertains to "assault weapons" (i.e. AR-15, AK47, etc.). The argument is that when they penned the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers couldn't have envisioned something so vile as an AR-15. The follow on is that they wouldn't approve of such a firearm being available to civilians.
Anyone who thinks that possesses zero grasp of the Constitution and the history of the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the states to maintain militias, for the sole purpose of preventing a tyrannical central government from overreaching. (I already wrote a lengthy entry on the 2nd Amendment; go find it). Therefore, the Second Amendment specifically applies to weapons of war, whatever they may be. It's ludicrous to suggest the Founding Fathers would have confined these militias to using muskets, knowing technology improves everything, weapons included.
With SCOTUS's latest ruling that the 2nd Amendment applies to personal gun ownership, any ban would be unconstitutional and shot down by the corrupt right wing judiciary.
And in case you've forgotten, the AR-15 isn't used in warfare; the M4 is, with its three round burst capability.
At this point, I'll once again, ask those who want a ban on AR-15's what they're attempting to achieve. I've previously pointed out how these guns contribute to a very small percentage of firearm related homicides. In 2021 (2022 data isn't available yet), ALL RIFLES accounted for <600 homicides, so AR-15's would account for considerably fewer.
In conclusion, I'm not unsympathetic to the cause of decreasing gun violence, but as I've said previously, it's abundantly clear some aren't interested in root causes, but attempting to achieve a pipe dream. Furthermore, such flawed talking points are useless in changing any minds, because they're flawed.
About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing. He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA. Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses. He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.





