Miami Face Eater not a "Bath Salt" Zombie.

The toxicology results for the Miami Face Eater were released today. The only drug found in his system was marijuana.

Face-Eating Attacker Had Only Taken Marijuana

The Miami police and their fellow travelers in the media were quick to link this attack with a designer drugs known as "Bath Salts". Now the truth is known maybe the media will find another cause du jour.

I'm a wimp when if comes to intoxicants. The most powerful recreational drugs I use are Southern Comfort and Jack Daniels. I have a prescription for Vicodin ES but that is for gout not for fun. So I'm not too knowledgeable when it comes to the illegal drug scene.

It seems to me the the guy making these designer drugs are damned good chemists. In a civilized world they would be working in a laboratory somewhere doing something useful like discovering the next generation of antibiotics or inventing a cure for politics. Instead the huge profits from the black market in drugs allows thugs to hire these guys to design new ways to get high.

Where is the sense in that?

People want their intoxicants. Just as I like a to have a drink in the evenings, some people want to smoke a joint or snort cocaine. I think the only reason synthetic marijuana and bath salts exist is because the damnfools in government keep actual marijuana and pharmaceutical grade narcotics tightly controlled. Decades of watching the government fight the drugged war have inevitably led this reasonably sane author to this realization:

If people cannot get unadulterated and known dosages they will buy something cooked up by smart, educated semi-underground chemists. Take you pick.

Or, I guess, we could turn the whole business over to the Mexican cartels.

Welcome to the Party, Pal!

I'm a little late to this party but, apparently, the blogosphere was briefly abuzz with opinions on this article by Gabe Suarez. A choice quote:

When I was on SWAT our view is that "We will always win....even if we have to burn down your entire house by bombing it....we will win". Losing is not an option. That again is reality....to expect less once the event kicks off is simply stupid. Period.

Read the whole thing for yourself then ask, does it really have any new information in it? Be honest now.

Sure he admits we live under a condition any rational, sane person would call a police state but that is not much of a revelation.

Sure it certainly looks like Mr Suarez likes living in such a state but I think anyone who has read his writing on social issues will not find that particularly surprising.

Even his solution is nothing new. With the deleted parts put back in, it goes something like this:

1. Get a job
2. Make money
3. Pay taxes. A police state is expensive to maintain
4. Get a nice home where police activity is not needed
5. Make more money because the police state is even more expensive than you thought and we need the taxes
6. Find a nice girl
7. Marry her
8. Make babies and raise them up to be the next generation of taxpayers because the cost of a police state only goes up

In return the state will let you live in relative peace. If you live long enough it may let you retire for a short while before you die. If you are really good, it will even let you keep few guns so you can pretend you are free.

As long as you continue paying those taxes.

If you can't pay your "fair" share, well, then of what use are you to the state? A drain on resources better used to pay for booze, drugs, hookers and little boy whores. Sure a few of you "useless eaters" will be hurt or killed without any moral justification but at least the enforcers will get the opportunity to sharpen their killing skills. You can die, comforted by the knowledge that your death will serve as a warning to the taxpayers of what their future will be like if they stop paying.

Nothing new here.

Edit:

I found the following in a post on Suarez's Christian Warrior Ministries blog entitled Spiritual Warfare. Not directly related but does make me want to say, "Hmmmmm".

Being a bold Christian means, as much as you are able, defending the faith, standing up for Christ, challenging false teachers, using the tools of this earth to defend the faith and promote the spread of the Gospel.

Brave

La Esposa and I just saw it this weekend. We both enjoyed it.

It is basic Disney fare with the princess coming-of-age but there were a few twists that make a different story from previous tales: Merida (the heroine) is not Cinderella. All the basic elements are there except it was the Princess who saves the day and she does it by growing up some not by falling into the overused stereotype of most Disney princess movies. I liked that.

The action sequences were well directed and the script had everything it needed and nothing it didn't. One thing I appreciated was that the king, Fergus, was a both loving father and a uxorious husband without coming across as a wimp or a buffoon.

Now if only Pixar would take on an animated version of The Stealer of Souls.

Immumerancy on the Internet

In a blog post by Andrew Tuohy entitled Revolvers Are Not Perfect, Or, The Problem With Revolver Fanatics I learned that thinking the revolver is still a relevant fighting tool and in private sector self defense is sometimes superior to the autoloader makes me insane.

I would urge anyone who still believes, in the 21st century, that revolvers are superior to automatics as defensive or fighting handguns to strongly consider the facts about revolvers and the state of automatic pistols today. Also, you're insane.

That is a serious accusation. Insane people are generally considered not mentally fit to own much less carry a firearms. It is possible that the last sentence is just empty rhetoric by Mr Tuohy intended to drive traffic to his blog. On the other hand he may actually mean what he wrote. I'll leave it the reader to decide if was hyperbole or honesty.

Normally, I ignore jokers like that. IF Mr.Tuohy want to think I am insane well I am equally free to think him incredibly stupid and ignorant. However, just as a broken tooth draws the tongue, I found myself reading the damn comments. A few posters tried to defend the revolver's relevance but, face it, that is an exercise in futility. Someone who considers you insane has already created the perfect excuse to ignore any evidence you might present.

Nevertheless I continued to yield to my inner masochist and read on until I came across a comment that really is -- well -- the word "stupider" comes to mind. The part that really bothered me is this:

I tried to attach a bunch of statistics online (mostly are police related shootings), and you are correct in that most engagements are around 3 rounds. But also over 3/4 of those are against people that were not shooting. Once officers were on the 2-way range, and being shot at their hit percentage goes down to 13% (NY Times), basic math will tell you that statistically that is zero hits from a 5-6 shot revolver, let alone a killing shot

OK, people like to toss out statistics. Most people who use statistics to "prove" things usually just display their ignorance. This guy is using them so badly, however, he is flaunting it.

Perhaps I am insane but I also remember my sophomore statistics and the binominial distribution. It is not really hard to use and every spreadsheet for the past decade or so can do it for you so you don't even need to remember the formula. Perhaps since it was first described in the 17th Century it is also too old and outdated to be relevant in the modern world.

Anyways, for a constant hit probability of 13%, the odds of making least X hits in N shots can be calculated by a simple binomial distribution and the cumulative probability.

In percent:

	Minumum number of hits
Number of shots	1	2	3
1	13	0	0
2	24	2	0
3	34	5	0
4	43	8	1
5	50	13	2
6	57	18	3
7	62	23	5
8	67	28	7
9	71	33	10
10	75	38	13
11	78	43	16
12	81	47	20
13	84	52	23
14	86	56	27
15	88	60	31
16	89	63	35
17	91	67	38
18	92	70	42
19	93	73	46
20	94	75	49

So the real statistic for at least one hit is not zero percent as alleged but 50% for five shots and 57% for six.

Man Shoots Self Through Head with Spear Gun.

Really

I once was given some good advice about always keeping a gun pointed in a generally safe direction. "Generally safe" meaning that, should the gun unintentionally discharge, it will not harm me or another person. It is not clear from the article just who shot whom but I'm pretty sure it happened because someone did something stupid.

As proof that the gods really do favor fools,

And miraculously, the three-foot shaft somehow missed every major blood vessel in the brain and pierced the right, not left side of his brain, sparing his speech.

"His words are actually, amazingly easy to understand," Bullock said. "He can, for example, he says he's not having pain. He's worried about the fact he can't use his left-side properly."

Fortunately a neurosurgeon was able to remove the shaft from the brain. Too bad common sense cannot be injected as easily as a spearhead.

Two from Greg Ellifritz

A couple of good articles by Greg Ellifritz over at Active Response Training

The first covers ways to conceal a weapon using a shopping bag and how to spot it.

The Bag Trick…how to easily conceal a weapon in public

The second briefly covers the use of a cane as a weapon. As an older specimen of humanity I can appreciate this article.

Can a walking cane be an effective weapon?

Depraved sex acts by penguins.

Rape! Homosexuality! Necrophilia!

I just knew there as something wrong with those cute little birds.

Accounts of unusual sexual activities among penguins, observed a century ago by a member of Captain Scott's polar team, are finally being made public.

Details, including "sexual coercion", recorded by George Murray Levick were considered so shocking that they were removed from official accounts.

However, scientists now understand the biological reasons behind the acts that Dr Levick considered "depraved".

The Natural History Museum has published his unedited papers.

Read the rest here

The Treeby "Chain Gun"

This is really just too cool to pass up. A muzzle loading, percussion cap fired, belt fed rifle. Built in 1854.

H/T to Grant Cunningham at The Revolver Liberation Alliance

Dumb Down Under

The Australian Olympic swimmers, Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk, stopped at a gun shop reportedly in Santa Clara, California. There the evil gun virus infected their brains and prompted them to be photographed inexpertly holding firearms.

Monk posted the image to his Facebook page.

Predictably, Swimming Australia and Gun Control Australia immediately started pissing in the pool. Swimming Australia demanded the picture be removed from Facebook. GCA spokeshole John Crook called it a new low commenting, "If ever there was a photo of two kids playing macho boys this is it."

Australian Olympic swimmers Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk pose with guns in Facebook photo

Wow! A couple of healthy males posing with guns. Are Australians now afraid of photographs? I suppose the pair will be sent to a re-education camp to have their attitude adjusted to be more in line with what the ruling class in Australia wants it to be.

H/T to David Codrea over at The War on Guns

See also: Australian Olympic swimmers in hot water after gun photo

Well, Crap!

I just saw over on Drudge that Ray Bradbury is dead at only 91 years old.

Along with Heinlein and Asimov, Bradbury was one of the most important influences on my misspent youth. I still think his tale of the automated house in "There Will Come Soft Rains" (PDF) is the most powerful contrast between hope and despair in the nuclear age ever written.

Ave Atque Vale.

A Lesson From The Zimmerman Case.

In an article posted over at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, the author, Marty Hayes, discusses the recent evidence dump from the Zimmerman Case in Florida.

• Pg 5-Zimmerman Case
• Pg 6-Zimmerman Case
• Pg 7-Zimmerman Case

In addition to the strengths and weaknesses of the case he mentions that the autopsy on Trayvon Martin found "soot and stippling" near the entry wound and what the implications of that might be.

There is more evidence adding to the validity of Zimmerman’s story. There was soot and stippling on Martin’s body at the wound’s entry point. This indicates a close gunshot. Some reports say 2 to 4 inches; some estimates extend the distance out to 16 inches.

At 2 to 4 inches it would be pretty clear that Zimmerman fired from nearly contact distance which is consistent with his story that Martim was beating on him when the fatal shot was fired.  A 16 inch distance might be a little harder to defend because a prosecutor could argue that Martin was trying to disengage when he was shot.

How to settle it?

To firmly establish the likely distance the gun was from Martin’s chest, the defense needs to conduct ballistic tests with the gun, firing the same type of ammunition through a sweatshirt against a test surface to record the stippling pattern.

The lab will try to get samples of the ammunition from the same lot or, failing that, from a lot the manufacturer can certify as being identical.  The ammunition will then be tested under conditions that simulate the alleged conditions and possible distances.  From that, the actual distance the shot was fired at can be more accurately estimated.

What makes this testing possible is the existence of the careful records and the "exemplars" from each lot that some ammunition manufacturers keep. More importantly, these records are presumed to be unbiased. While the same kind of testing can be down on reloaded ammunition, it would be difficult to get it admitted into evidence precisely because the record are not unbiased. Even if it was admitted, the prosecution could argue to the jury that the handloads tested cannot be assured the same what was used in the actual shooting thereby casting doubt on any defense claims that rely on forensic data related to the ammunition used.

I know that the choice of what ammunition to carry is a contentious issue. The fervor in caliber wars approaches the religious and which brand and bullet type within a caliber are like unto interdenominational squabbles. The argument over carrying factory ammunition versus handloads is no less acrimonious.

If you choose to carry a gun for self defense I won't tell you what to carry or what kind of ammunition to use in it -- we each are entitled to our own mistakes. I do encourage you to remember that the thug you may have to shoot is a less dangerous and less implacable foe than a legal system that may want to make an example of you for political purposes.

H/T to Grant Cunningham at The Revolver Liberation Alliance