Read this first!!!
There are a couple different ways that you could look at this particular story. If you are relying on the police to save you... You are in for a bad time.
You could look at this story from a point of view typically held by Democrats, and say, that if the government had more money, there would be more cops, and therefore the dispatcher could send someone to help.
We could look at this story from the point of view typically held by Republicans and say that the cuts made by the county could have been made in other areas, away from police, and the dispatcher could have sent someone to help.
Unfortunately... The man was breaking in as the person was making the call, so from call to dispatch, to response that is anywhere between 5 and 30 minutes. A lot can happen in 5 to 30 minutes. Meanwhile a woman is being beaten and possibly killed.
In both cases more money for police, or funds removed from other services, would not have helped this woman.
What would have helped this woman? Evil guns. She knew which door the man was attempting to break in through. She had ample time to find a defensible position. She had ample time to set up her defensible position with reloads, and to position herself under cover and prepare to fire. When the man broke in... Blam.
Guns are not the solution to every problem. But in the case of a deranged, drugged up, drunk, or simply determined home invader, they are a big part of the solution. The number one rule in defending yourself with a gun, is to HAVE A GUN. It is tragic that this woman, sitting defenseless in her home, had to go through this attack. She didn't have to. She relied on the state to protect her. The state has no such obligation. Even Vice President's asinine Shotgun purchasing advice would have helped this woman.
Be safe... Be armed.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Acoustic Joe
Joe said that he has always been afraid of playing acoustic guitar, because it is so unforgiving. Afraid or no, he nails this version of Jockey Full of Bourbon.
I bought this entire performance at the Vienna Opera House. It is awesome. I thought I would miss Joe's long solos and electric guitar mastery. He more than makes up for it with just a strong musical performance.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Calories vs Nutrition
I got in to an interesting discussion about calories at the gym. People seem to be misunderstanding what calories are, and how they work with food.
First and very foremost, a calorie is a scientific unit of ENERGY. Put in to scientific terms, one calorie is equal to 4.184 joules. This is very important to keep in mind. When you are talking about calories, you are talking about energy. More specifically we are talking about both Thermodynamic Energy. One calorie is the amount of energy it takes to raise one gram of water one degree centigrade. However, in one of those unknown twists of the American weights and measures system, the calorie that you see on food packages is actually a kilocalorie, or 1000 units of the calorie described above (just like 1000 grams is equal to 1 kilogram, get it?). Because it really isn't important to the conversation at this point, we are going to use the American system ('MERICA!!) and call the kilocalorie a calorie, ok?
So, we are talking about thermodynamic energy. Let's equate this to heating water, because, well... that is exactly what calories measure.
It takes a certain amount of energy to raise the temperature of a given amount of water at a given temperature to 50 degrees C (ignore pressure for the time being, or you can just assume that everything takes place at sea level). It stands to reason that if the water is frozen, it takes more energy to raise it to 50C than if the water were at room temperature. Given that the temperature of the water is the same, and volume of water remains the same, it will always take the same amount of energy to get it to 50C. It is simply a matter of adding the energy.
If I don't put enough energy in, the water does not reach 50C. If I put too much energy in, the water rises above 50C. Pretty elementary right?
The converse relationship is true in your body. You take in a certain amount of calories. Your body uses a certain amount of calories. If you take in fewer calories than your body uses, you loose weight. You have to. The body needs the energy, and if it is not in the food you have eaten, it has to go to its stores. If you run out of energy, you die. The body doesn't want to die, therefore it will do what it has to do to get the energy.
Now how you get the calories doesn't matter, from an ENERGY standpoint. If your body uses 2000 calories a day, and you take in 1000 calories in a day, no matter what it is, it could be all in bacon fat (mmmmmmmmmm bacon fat), you will loose weight. You have to. You have a deficiency of 1000 calories.
Now... Nutrition. Nutrition is how the body uses the FOOD it takes in. Not the calories. Calories are energy units. The body will take energy from any source that is available, fat, muscle, whatever.
Let's go back to the bacon fat example. If your only source of food is bacon fat, you may be skinny, BUT you will not be healthy. The body will process that bacon fat and will do some very bad things with it. This is how you can be thin, but very unhealthy.
SO, if you just want to lose weight, eat less. You will lose weight. IF you want to be healthy, you need to watch what you eat so you can be sure that what you take in will be used by your body with only good aftereffects.
First and very foremost, a calorie is a scientific unit of ENERGY. Put in to scientific terms, one calorie is equal to 4.184 joules. This is very important to keep in mind. When you are talking about calories, you are talking about energy. More specifically we are talking about both Thermodynamic Energy. One calorie is the amount of energy it takes to raise one gram of water one degree centigrade. However, in one of those unknown twists of the American weights and measures system, the calorie that you see on food packages is actually a kilocalorie, or 1000 units of the calorie described above (just like 1000 grams is equal to 1 kilogram, get it?). Because it really isn't important to the conversation at this point, we are going to use the American system ('MERICA!!) and call the kilocalorie a calorie, ok?
So, we are talking about thermodynamic energy. Let's equate this to heating water, because, well... that is exactly what calories measure.
It takes a certain amount of energy to raise the temperature of a given amount of water at a given temperature to 50 degrees C (ignore pressure for the time being, or you can just assume that everything takes place at sea level). It stands to reason that if the water is frozen, it takes more energy to raise it to 50C than if the water were at room temperature. Given that the temperature of the water is the same, and volume of water remains the same, it will always take the same amount of energy to get it to 50C. It is simply a matter of adding the energy.
If I don't put enough energy in, the water does not reach 50C. If I put too much energy in, the water rises above 50C. Pretty elementary right?
The converse relationship is true in your body. You take in a certain amount of calories. Your body uses a certain amount of calories. If you take in fewer calories than your body uses, you loose weight. You have to. The body needs the energy, and if it is not in the food you have eaten, it has to go to its stores. If you run out of energy, you die. The body doesn't want to die, therefore it will do what it has to do to get the energy.
Now how you get the calories doesn't matter, from an ENERGY standpoint. If your body uses 2000 calories a day, and you take in 1000 calories in a day, no matter what it is, it could be all in bacon fat (mmmmmmmmmm bacon fat), you will loose weight. You have to. You have a deficiency of 1000 calories.
Now... Nutrition. Nutrition is how the body uses the FOOD it takes in. Not the calories. Calories are energy units. The body will take energy from any source that is available, fat, muscle, whatever.
Let's go back to the bacon fat example. If your only source of food is bacon fat, you may be skinny, BUT you will not be healthy. The body will process that bacon fat and will do some very bad things with it. This is how you can be thin, but very unhealthy.
SO, if you just want to lose weight, eat less. You will lose weight. IF you want to be healthy, you need to watch what you eat so you can be sure that what you take in will be used by your body with only good aftereffects.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Always Have One In The Chamber...
I post a lot about how Concealed Carry can save lives. BUT... A gunfight is one of the most UNforgiving situations you can ever be in. A single tactical error, and you are dead as Dickens. This is why you can not get enough good training. Listen to those that have been in gunfights, or who gunfight for a living on how to survive a gunfight and how to make the correct tactical decisions.
Recently a CCW holder was killed during a Jewelry Store robbery. It was recorded. This is a graphic video. It shows a man being shot and killed. Don't watch it if you can't stomach it.
This man makes a couple of serious tactical errors.
Double Action/Single Action pistol.
The external safety and hammer are on the rear of the gun. After the safety is off there is a long trigger pull for the first shot as the hammer is cocked, the subsequent shots are a very short light trigger pull. I like the "tactical" style Double Action Only pistols. No external safeties, and no external hammer.
No external anything. Same trigger pull for each shot.
With the tactical pistol, there is nothing external to worry about. You just pull the trigger. Each trigger pull is the same weight, so there is consistency in your training, and in real life. Everything is the same all of the time.
For the same reason I keep a round in the chamber, I don't want to be using up time worrying about an external safety, I don't want to be thinking about adjusting aim points for a long trigger pull or cocking the gun if I want the same pull each time. I want to be worrying about aligning the sights on my target and getting safe!
Next, he stood up directly in the line of fire. Always get safe first! He had some benches that he finally took cover behind, but that should have been the first thing he did. Get safe, draw, acquire target, fire. Getting safe can mean simply getting to a position that is unexpected for the bad guys. Going to one knee is a good example of this. Your opponents are thinking about a standing target. You are immediately out of the line of fire and, while the bad guys attempt to adjust their aim points to you, you are shooting.
Finally, when his gun malfunctioned, he stood absolutely still and tried to clear the malfunction. One of the things you should be doing at the range is having someone else loading your magazines. They should be putting one or two dummy or expended rounds into the mag. This will help in a number of ways. It will diagnose flinching and other problems during the trigger pull, but it will also force you to clear the malfunction. When you clear your malfunction, you should be thinking about getting to cover. If your range allows it, when the malfunction occurs, go to one knee to clear it, or, better yet use an adjacent empty lane to quickly move in to, go to one knee and clear the malfunction. This will teach you to get safe before attempting to rack your slide. It will also put a little bit of stress on you so that you can work to control your adrenalin during your shooting.
This guy was trying to be safe. He was trying to help the others in the store. He made some mistakes and ended up paying for it with his life. If you carry a gun, you must train with it. You must not only practice shooting it, but you must also train to be tactically aware. When you walk into a store, look around you, and find the places where you can take cover. Run scenarios through your head to come up with tactical solutions. Think about how you could survive if a bad guy were to come in shooting. Then train so that your reactions are good no matter what the situtation.
Recently a CCW holder was killed during a Jewelry Store robbery. It was recorded. This is a graphic video. It shows a man being shot and killed. Don't watch it if you can't stomach it.
This man makes a couple of serious tactical errors.
- He carries his automatic pistol without a round in the chamber. He must draw, rack a round, remove safe, acquire the target, then fire.
- He does not make himself safe. He stands straight up, and only thinks about cover when he can't get his pistol working.
- When his weapon malfunctions, he does not find cover and does not move. He stands right there, just as he would at the range, and attempts to clear the malfunction.
Double Action/Single Action pistol.
The external safety and hammer are on the rear of the gun. After the safety is off there is a long trigger pull for the first shot as the hammer is cocked, the subsequent shots are a very short light trigger pull. I like the "tactical" style Double Action Only pistols. No external safeties, and no external hammer.
No external anything. Same trigger pull for each shot.
With the tactical pistol, there is nothing external to worry about. You just pull the trigger. Each trigger pull is the same weight, so there is consistency in your training, and in real life. Everything is the same all of the time.
For the same reason I keep a round in the chamber, I don't want to be using up time worrying about an external safety, I don't want to be thinking about adjusting aim points for a long trigger pull or cocking the gun if I want the same pull each time. I want to be worrying about aligning the sights on my target and getting safe!
Next, he stood up directly in the line of fire. Always get safe first! He had some benches that he finally took cover behind, but that should have been the first thing he did. Get safe, draw, acquire target, fire. Getting safe can mean simply getting to a position that is unexpected for the bad guys. Going to one knee is a good example of this. Your opponents are thinking about a standing target. You are immediately out of the line of fire and, while the bad guys attempt to adjust their aim points to you, you are shooting.
Finally, when his gun malfunctioned, he stood absolutely still and tried to clear the malfunction. One of the things you should be doing at the range is having someone else loading your magazines. They should be putting one or two dummy or expended rounds into the mag. This will help in a number of ways. It will diagnose flinching and other problems during the trigger pull, but it will also force you to clear the malfunction. When you clear your malfunction, you should be thinking about getting to cover. If your range allows it, when the malfunction occurs, go to one knee to clear it, or, better yet use an adjacent empty lane to quickly move in to, go to one knee and clear the malfunction. This will teach you to get safe before attempting to rack your slide. It will also put a little bit of stress on you so that you can work to control your adrenalin during your shooting.
This guy was trying to be safe. He was trying to help the others in the store. He made some mistakes and ended up paying for it with his life. If you carry a gun, you must train with it. You must not only practice shooting it, but you must also train to be tactically aware. When you walk into a store, look around you, and find the places where you can take cover. Run scenarios through your head to come up with tactical solutions. Think about how you could survive if a bad guy were to come in shooting. Then train so that your reactions are good no matter what the situtation.
Tax Freedom Day 2013
Tax Freedom Day for Oklahoma is the 6th, and Alabama the 5th. That's good!!! Tax Freedom Day is, on average, 5 days later this year than last year... That's bad!!!!
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Rape, Guns, and the Left
With the debate in Colorado over guns now effectively over, I now have a new understanding why the Left dislikes guns and their seemingly baffling mindset on self defense.
The simple truth is that the Left has utter and complete disdain for the individual. So deep is this contempt, that the very concept of NOT using the State for absolutely EVERY facet of life, including the defense of it, is unthinkable.
What brings this fact to the front? The way that the Left argues about perhaps the most violent and heinous crimes that can be committed, rape. At the very center of the civilized human is their sexuality. It is where they can connect with the very base of their animal side, yet in the act, express the highest of emotional evolution, love. It is allowing an other human being access into your body. It is intimate. It is the very closest two people can be.
Rape destroys the intimacy. It violates the self. It forever mars the act with violence and violation for the rest of the one who was raped's life. It is a crime that strips the very soul from the body.
So, how do you defend yourself against this act? How can you prevent it? Well... If you are on the Left you defend against rape by:
How is this more empowering than this???
I don't understand. An empowered woman is one that is confident in herself and in her abilities to live on her own. If I have daughters, I want them to be the woman in the second picture.
Then it dawned on me. It isn't that the Left wants women cowering behind the state. It is that the want to extinguish the thought of individuality from the public mindset. Guns, and self-defense are the ultimate expression of the individual. When you own a gun, you own the ability to ultimately disagree and stand up to the state. Gathering like minded people to your cause, and you have the ability to overthrow the state.
Defending yourself against harm is the ultimate repudiation of the social contract of the state. By defending yourself, you are stating that the state does not own you. YOU own you. This statement says to all, I am a sovereign person, and I will defend my sovereignty.
This declaration of sovereignty is what the Left is so afraid of. If you decide that the defense of your person is up to you, you may start thinking that other things are up to you as well. Once that happens, their power, derived from the eroding of personal sovereignty, begins to crumble. So, for the Left, it is indeed preferable that you "lie back and think of England," and remain a surf of the state, than to take up arms, defend your person and step in to the light of freedom. Indeed, it IS morally superior to be raped. For if you defend yourself, you take away their power.
The simple truth is that the Left has utter and complete disdain for the individual. So deep is this contempt, that the very concept of NOT using the State for absolutely EVERY facet of life, including the defense of it, is unthinkable.
What brings this fact to the front? The way that the Left argues about perhaps the most violent and heinous crimes that can be committed, rape. At the very center of the civilized human is their sexuality. It is where they can connect with the very base of their animal side, yet in the act, express the highest of emotional evolution, love. It is allowing an other human being access into your body. It is intimate. It is the very closest two people can be.
Rape destroys the intimacy. It violates the self. It forever mars the act with violence and violation for the rest of the one who was raped's life. It is a crime that strips the very soul from the body.
So, how do you defend yourself against this act? How can you prevent it? Well... If you are on the Left you defend against rape by:
- Telling your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
- Vomiting or urinating
- Scream
- Use the buddy system
My very favorites are "Passive resistance is your best defense", "Be realistic about your ability to defend yourself", and "Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm." In other words "Lie back and think of England" as the rape occurs. Would this be the advice that you give a loved one of yours?
What I find most fascinating is that some of the biggest supporters for the disarming of the law abiding public are women's empowerment groups, like the National Organisation for Women. How does making women defenseless empower them? Is there nothing MORE empowering that the ability to protect one's self, property, and loved ones from harm? No! Says NOW. The state should be relied upon for that. This mindset baffles me. I advocate for empowered women, only to have them cower behind the State?
How is this more empowering than this???
I don't understand. An empowered woman is one that is confident in herself and in her abilities to live on her own. If I have daughters, I want them to be the woman in the second picture.
Then it dawned on me. It isn't that the Left wants women cowering behind the state. It is that the want to extinguish the thought of individuality from the public mindset. Guns, and self-defense are the ultimate expression of the individual. When you own a gun, you own the ability to ultimately disagree and stand up to the state. Gathering like minded people to your cause, and you have the ability to overthrow the state.
Defending yourself against harm is the ultimate repudiation of the social contract of the state. By defending yourself, you are stating that the state does not own you. YOU own you. This statement says to all, I am a sovereign person, and I will defend my sovereignty.
This declaration of sovereignty is what the Left is so afraid of. If you decide that the defense of your person is up to you, you may start thinking that other things are up to you as well. Once that happens, their power, derived from the eroding of personal sovereignty, begins to crumble. So, for the Left, it is indeed preferable that you "lie back and think of England," and remain a surf of the state, than to take up arms, defend your person and step in to the light of freedom. Indeed, it IS morally superior to be raped. For if you defend yourself, you take away their power.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Something Wicked This Way Comes
Things are about to hit the fan in Cyprus. Cyprus is a small country that is suffering from Greece's financial woes. It is a member of the EU, and the EU has laid an ultimatum at their feet. The EU will bail out Cyprus, but only if Cyprus is willing to participate in their own bailout. So, the Government of Cyprus has decided that it will seize 10% of the "rich's" cash deposits in banks.
Who is the rich? Anyone with an account that has more than about $26,000.
Of course there is some push back on this, and it looks like the number will be pushed up to 100,000 Euros, that is the maximum that is insured by the EU bank. The thought being that anything over the insured amount is fair game.
What is this doing? It caused an immediate run on all of the banks in Cyprus. So much so that the Government of Cyprus ordered all banks, and ATMs, to be shut down until Thursday 3/21/2013. What is going to happen on Thursday? Anyone with a bank account is going to be trying to pull their money out. The banks are going to close and Cyprus will have riots on their hands. The government will have caused their own banking system to collapse.
This is spooky just because it is actually happening in the Western world. What is more spooky is that Politicians here in the United States are thinking that this is a really good idea. They already tax interest income, what about taking a percentage of the account? Again, you only do it on the "rich." The problem is, that it prevents ANYONE from saving ANYTHING. You think we have a retirement problem now? Start doing this crap.
I have to admit that this has really got me spooked. I would like to say that our government would never pull a stunt like this, but with all of the talk on Capital Hill of taxing 401(k)s and ending the Roth IRA and IRA exemptions, I don't know if there is anywhere that I can keep money without forking over a huge chunk of it to the Government. I am frightened that I won't have anything to live on when I am older. It might be time to buy gold coins and bury them in the yard.
Check out the latest.
Who is the rich? Anyone with an account that has more than about $26,000.
Of course there is some push back on this, and it looks like the number will be pushed up to 100,000 Euros, that is the maximum that is insured by the EU bank. The thought being that anything over the insured amount is fair game.
What is this doing? It caused an immediate run on all of the banks in Cyprus. So much so that the Government of Cyprus ordered all banks, and ATMs, to be shut down until Thursday 3/21/2013. What is going to happen on Thursday? Anyone with a bank account is going to be trying to pull their money out. The banks are going to close and Cyprus will have riots on their hands. The government will have caused their own banking system to collapse.
This is spooky just because it is actually happening in the Western world. What is more spooky is that Politicians here in the United States are thinking that this is a really good idea. They already tax interest income, what about taking a percentage of the account? Again, you only do it on the "rich." The problem is, that it prevents ANYONE from saving ANYTHING. You think we have a retirement problem now? Start doing this crap.
I have to admit that this has really got me spooked. I would like to say that our government would never pull a stunt like this, but with all of the talk on Capital Hill of taxing 401(k)s and ending the Roth IRA and IRA exemptions, I don't know if there is anywhere that I can keep money without forking over a huge chunk of it to the Government. I am frightened that I won't have anything to live on when I am older. It might be time to buy gold coins and bury them in the yard.
Check out the latest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)