[x]Blackmoor Vituperative

Thursday, 2018-03-22

You are what you do

Filed under: Firearms,Politics,Society — bblackmoor @ 10:32

You are what you do, not what you say you’ll do.

For example, if you are vocal in your defense of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny, but you also voted for, and continue to support, a vulgar habitual liar who has expressed nothing but contempt for the US Constitution and the limits of his legitimate authority, it is clear what you do when confronted with tyranny, and you did it without using a firearm: you support it. You even buy the hat.

Friday, 2016-06-24

So you want to make the world safer, part 2

Filed under: Civil Rights,Firearms,Philosophy,Society — bblackmoor @ 09:08

From time to time, people who either don’t own firearms themselves, or who are protected by armed guards, call for “reasonable gun control”: licensing, registration, training requirements, and other bureaucratic hurdles. These calls usually follow highly publicized but statistically rare incidents of mass murder.

There is no criminological evidence to support the idea that registering firearms or licensing the people who buy them would prevent murders. Nor would requiring training.

And really, think about it: the Orlando mass-murderer had no criminal convictions. If he could legally buy a firearm, then he could also legally obtain a license. And registering his firearms would not have prevented any of his murders — we know very well who killed his victims. As for training, his marksmanship appears to have been excellent. None of the measures introduced under the banner of “reasonable gun control” would have reduced the body count in Orlando.

Who would be impacted by “reasonable gun control”? The poor. Who would not be impacted? Murderers, and the wealthy.

Consider this: about two-thirds of the intentional homicides in the USA are committed with firearms. If 100% of those were prevented (and not committed using some other weapon), the USA’s intentional homicide rate would still be higher than Denmark’s, Ireland’s, the UK’s, Norway’s, Sweden’s, Italy’s, Australia’s…

That fact might lead one to suspect that our problems have a deeper cause than merely the weapon most murderers choose. One might even think that our intentional homicide rate might be a symptom of a serious sickness in our society. But no one wants to hear that.

Thursday, 2016-06-16

So you want to make the world safer

Filed under: Civil Rights,Firearms,Philosophy,Society — bblackmoor @ 16:35

(Note: I have linked to supporting references throughout this. These references are, with one exception, respected news outlets, scholars, and the US government itself. The one exception is a link to what “gun owners know”, which is a link to a pro-gun web site.)

You have heard about the mass murder in Orlando, and you have decided that this is a tragedy. You are right: it is a tragedy. 49 people were killed or mortally wounded in about ten minutes. It normally takes over a day for that many people to be murdered in the USA (about 27 hours, actually).

So you want to take action and do something about it, to prevent mass murders like this one from happening again (and perhaps prevent the isolated murders of 45 or so people every single day, as well).

Mental Illness

Perhaps you think we need better treatment for the mentally ill. You are right: we do. How we treat the mentally ill (or rather, don’t) in the United States is deplorable. Far too many mentally ill individuals find themselves ensnared in our prison system (I think we can all agree that what we have is not a “justice system”).

However, as a group of people, those with mental illness are far more likely to hurt themselves — or be hurt by someone else — than they are to cause harm to anyone. Being a young male is a far more reliable indicator of someone posing a danger to others (a young, poor, uneducated male even more so).

So while we do need better support for those suffering from mental illness, would that support have a significant impact on violent crime or intentional homicide? No, it wouldn’t. So if that is our goal, we must look elsewhere.

Assault Rifles

You have heard from countless entertainers and politicians that assault rifles are the cause of so much death. You want to ban them. No civilian needs a “weapon of war”, right? However, there is a problem with that argument: these weapons have already been banned from civilian ownership.

It has been illegal since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own assault rifles without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. They are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry. To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of “reasonable necessity,” and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant “would be consistent with public safety.” The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant’s residence.

Additionally, civilian purchase of newly manufactured assault rifles was banned entirely in 1986 (Firearms Owners’ Protection Act). Assault rifles which were manufactured prior to the Act’s passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians at all. And since the number of assault rifles that may be owned by civilians (subject to the long list of requirements above) is fixed or decreasing, the price of those weapons is quite high: $10,000 or more, typically.

Would placing even stricter limitations on the civilian ownership of these weapons have a significant impact on violent crime or intentional homicide? No, it wouldn’t. So if that is our goal, we must look elsewhere.

“Assault Weapons”

Perhaps you have done your homework, and have learned the difference between an assault rifle and an “assault weapon”. An assault rifle fires multiple rounds while the user holds down the trigger. An “assault weapon” is an ordinary rifle that cosmetically resembles an assault rifle. So if we ban “assault weapons”, that should make us all safer and save lives, shouldn’t it?

Unfortunately, there is a problem with that. While “assault weapons” cosmetically resemble assault rifles, they are functionally no different from ordinary civilian rifles. This rifle…


… and this rifle…


… are functionally the same. Banning one but not the other would be like banning red lead paint but not blue lead paint. They are, for all practical (rather than cosmetic) purposes interchangeable. So would banning “assault weapons” have a significant impact on violent crime or intentional homicide? No, it wouldn’t. So if that is our goal, we must look elsewhere.

High Capacity Magazines

There is one functional difference in the two photographs above: the second rifle has a larger magazine, which is the container that holds the ammunition. Perhaps limiting the size of the magazine would have an impact on the number of people murdered. Unfortunately, there is a problem with that. There already was a ban on larger magazines, enacted in 1994. From 1994 until 2004, there was a ban on the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds (as with the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, existing magazines were grandfathered in). The result on violent crime? If there was one, it was too small to measure.

Furthermore, mass-murderers are not deterred by small magazines: they just bring more of them. One of the two murderers responsible for the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 carried 13 ten-round magazines. The murderer responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 carried a backpack filled with 19 ten- and fifteen-round magazines for his pistols. To my knowledge, it has not been reported how many magazines the murderer in Orlando carried, but since he fired at least 200 rounds of ammunition, it is certain that he reloaded several times.

We shall have to look elsewhere if we want to save lives.


So if assault rifles are already banned, and “assault weapons” are nothing more than ordinary civilian rifles, and banning “high capacity magazines” has no measurable effect, perhaps what we want to do is ban all civilian rifles. Surely that would save lives, right? It might. Around 4.5% of murders in the USA are committed with rifles. But that leaves over 95% of all murders committed with something else. Surely we can do better?

All Firearms

If we want to hope for even a single-digit percent reduction in the number of people murdered in the United States, and we want to accomplish that by banning (or drastically restricting the ownership of) something, then it is clear that we would have to target all firearms: rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Approximately 68% of murders are committed with a firearm. While that still leaves a large number of murder victims on the floor, at least if firearms were made unavailable, it should have some impact on the majority of them, shouldn’t it?

But we can’t grandfather in existing weapons, as the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act did. Recent studies have found that only 3% to 11% of criminals who used a firearm during the commission of a crime purchased the weapon legally. The rest obtained them illegally, and the easiest way to illegally obtain something is to steal it. So to cut off the supply of the 89% or more firearms used in crimes, we would need to not only ban the sale of new firearms, we would need to confiscate all or most of the hundreds of millions of firearms which are currently legally owned.


Would confiscating all or most of the firearms in the United States truly save lives? Opinions are divided, but I suspect that it might. Would the cost be worth it, for our legacy as a nation once “founded on the natural authority of the people alone“? I am not so sure. Is it legally feasible? Not with our current Constitution, no. Regardless of one’s opinion of the history or intent of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the legal reality is that it does guarantee a right to keep and bear arms of some kind to individual citizens. Eliminating that legal right would require the repeal of that Amendment. It isn’t impossible: A Constitutional Amendment has been repealed before. I do not think it would be easy, but I could be mistaken. Would the individuals who currently own those weapons voluntarily hand them over, without resorting to violence themselves? I suspect not. On the other hand, the TSA gropes and ogles travelers by the millions, and we as a nation have permitted it with barely a complaint, so perhaps I am mistaken about that, as well.


I hope that you have learned something from this. If nothing else, you have learned that neither assault rifles nor “assault weapons” have a statistically significant role in the deaths of innocent Americans. They are, at most, emotional phrases used to grab your attention. You have also learned that the phrase often used to placate gun owners, “No one wants to take your guns”, is a falsehood. It must be, because no other course of action based on tighter regulations would have even a hope of making us safer from the risk of being murdered with a firearm (and that is our goal, is it not?). Most people pressing for stricter regulations on firearm ownership know this. Gun owners know it, as well. So hopefully you will not be repeating any of these phrases in the future.

I have little doubt that the Second Amendment will eventually be repealed. I do not think I will live to see it. When or if it happens, I hope the people responsible for carrying out the ensuing police actions, and the people against whom those actions will be taken, will be wiser than we are.

See also: So you want to make the world safer, part 2

Wednesday, 2013-08-28

Kel-Tec KSG 12 ga. shotgun

Filed under: Firearms — bblackmoor @ 11:37

If I hadn’t just dropped way too much money on a couple of courses, I would seriously consider picking up one of these. I haven’t bought (or even wanted to buy) a new firearm in years, but this is a really neat design. I don’t hunt, so the fact it wouldn’t be legal to hunt with is not important to me.

Saturday, 2013-04-20

A letter from a leftist to the gun control Democrats

Filed under: Civil Rights,Firearms — bblackmoor @ 11:06
teach gun skills

The author of this letter to “gun control” Democrats is a left-leaning supporter of reproductive rights “who participated wholeheartedly in the Occupy movement and in the national campaign to expose ALEC”. They make six suggestions on how to better present the argument for gun control in the USA. It’s worth reading.

Saturday, 2012-12-15

Tragedy and perspective

Filed under: Firearms,Society — bblackmoor @ 21:16
Tears in the rain

“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”
— Joseph Stalin

From time to time, terrible things happen. When the terrible thing is something which no amount of human action could have prevented, such as floods and hurricanes, people tend to blame human action or inaction anyway. Some people use the phrase “god’s judgement”. Other people pray. This is all pointless, but understandable. Humans are irrational.

Sometimes the terrible thing is the result of human action. When this happens, the natural response is to place blame. Because we are people, we are reluctant to place the blame on the person who committed the terrible thing. If that person could do something so terrible, then any person could do a terrible thing. That is unthinkable. So we look for other explanations. The presence or lack of superstitious observance by the criminal or among the victims. The failure of society to ingrain certain individuals with a moral compass. The failure of society to protect the poor, the weak, the oppressed, the powerless. We are too lax, or not lax enough. We are too libertine, or not libertine enough. And so on.

The world is not perfect. It will never be perfect. Terrible things happen. Terrible things will always happen. The world is neither fair nor unfair.

But I am as irrational as everyone else. I want answers. I want to believe that I can prevent the next terrible thing. So I think about terrible things, and what causes them.

I think about firearms. More often than not, when a terrible thing is the result of human action, and people die, firearms are involved. Would the terrible thing have been avoided if our society was willing to restrict firearm ownership? It’s easy to place blame on that. We are told, repeatedly, how violent our society is, that we have too many guns in the hands of too many people. And we do have a lot of firearms. Hundreds of millions, at least. We could outlaw them. Australia did (although Australian firearm ownership was already severely restricted before that happened). Would that reduce the violent crime in this country? Comparing our rates of violent crime and intentional homicide with the rest of the world, most of which has much greater restrictions on firearms than the US, doesn’t seem to support that hope.

What would reduce the amount of violent crime in the USA? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rates of violent crime have been dropping steadily for decades, up until the past couple of years. Why has it rebounded in the recent couple of years? Could it be the years-long recession which we are still struggling to crawl out of? The double-digit unemployment? It’s said that desperate people do desperate things. Could it be that simple? I don’t know. Even if that were the case, I’m not sure I could do anything about it. I have been consistently outvoted at every presidential election I have ever voted in, at a ratio of at least 99 to 1. The American populace does not share my opinions when it comes to … anything. It’s unlikely any solution I have for our economic problems would be accepted by the hoi polloi.

I think about children. The worst of all terrible things involve children. No one wants bad things to happen to children, aside from the people who do terrible things to them. How can we protect children? Would they be safer if we made schools into armed fortresses? Would children be safer if teachers were armed? That seems to fly in the face of common wisdom. We are ingrained with the story of the careless gun owner who injures himself or others. That’s actually not an accurate picture of the average gun owner, but I confess the idea of children surrounded by armed adults makes me profoundly uncomfortable. Is that rational? I can think of several terrible things that could have been far less terrible had there been armed adults between children and someone who wished them harm. That’s not the picture of the world I want to live in, but unfortunately, the world is not what I would wish it to be.

I think about death. The terrible things that make the most news involve a large number of people being killed at the same time. “Large” is a heavily fraught term. I hear “5” or “15” or “30” and I think that’s a large number. I can picture 30 people being killed, and it’s horrifying. I’m outraged. Other people are outraged. They make their Facebook profile pictures black to express their sorrow. But yesterday, 19,000 children died of preventable illnesses. 19,000 died again today. 19,000 will die again tomorrow. And the next day. And the next day. 19,000 children, every day. And the handful killed in what is, in reality, an isolated and increasingly rare incident seems… I don’t know. Not trivial. Tragic. Of course it’s tragic. But it’s so small compared to what happens every single day. That 19,000? That’s not the exact number. The number could be 19,030. Those 30 children are just as dead, and we leave them out of the “19,000” because they hardly seem to matter when the number is so unthinkably high. But 30, just 30, makes national news. Vigils are held. Politicians vow action. Activists make accusations, and attack. Other activists declare innocence, and attack right back. Meanwhile, 19,000 other children have died, and no one seems to care.

But that’s world wide. Maybe that’s too big. I can’t do anything to protect children in the Saharan desert. Okay, so what about the USA? Five children die every day in the USA of abuse and neglect. Five yesterday. Five today. Five tomorrow. And honestly, while I don’t think there is anything that will prevent one terrible person from doing one terrible thing (such as the Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6), I think we can probably make a difference when it comes to the five children who die every day from abuse and neglect. Better programs for at-risk children. Better training for social workers. More money. (Yes, libertarians do see a role for government when it comes to protecting the life and liberty of nonconsenting others. If you thought otherwise, now you know better.) If that number could be reduced just 20%, from five per day to four per day, that would be 365 children alive at the end of the year who might not have been otherwise. So maybe I could focus on that? Would that be a worthwhile use of my time and outrage?

I think about accidents. More children die in accidents in the USA than from any other cause. Could we make their world safer? It already seems so much safer than the world I grew up with. Fewer adults smoke. Everyone uses seat belts. The dangerous toys I grew up with are no longer available. What is left to endanger children in today’s round-edged, non-toxic, car-seated world? And yet, the rate of accidental deaths among children in the USA is one of the highest in the developed world despite the fact that it’s dropped by a third in the past ten years: roughly 24 a day, every day. 24. Every. Day. Most of those children die in automobile accidents. That’s horrifying, but honestly, I don’t see how I could do anything about that. Maybe that’s why I don’t see people on Facebook calling for the abolition of private vehicle ownership. But people do call for the abolition of privately owned firearms, which do far less damage (and which may in fact do some good).

I really don’t blame people for that. It’s well-intentioned, and I think good intentions are too rare in this world to condemn anyone for it, misguided or not. But we aren’t good at setting priorities. I’m not any better at it than anyone else. I am as heartbroken by a single, senseless act of violence as anyone else is. I’d like to find answers. I’d like to make sense of the senseless. I’d like to know how to keep terrible things from happening. But we aren’t primates screeching at shadows. We know that some things are more terrible than others. We can measure cause and effect. We can measure the relative danger of different things. We can focus on the terrible things with the highest body count. We can focus our efforts where they will have the greatest effect.

Or we can screech at shadows. And with as much disdain as I say that, I know that most of the time, I am right there, screeching along with the other primates.

P.S. These are worth reading:

Thursday, 2012-07-26

The Blackmoor Hound

Filed under: Firearms,Movies — bblackmoor @ 10:24
Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection

I typically have DVDs or something from Netflix streaming in the background while I work. As it happens, today I am running through the Universal Frankenstein movies. The movie currently running is Bride Of Frankenstein, which is actually my favorite of the series.

So I am typing away, adding validation to web forms (not a sexy project, but important nonetheless), and I notice that the sound of howling hounds is really loud. I stop and listen, and then I pause the DVD — the howling continues. The howling is coming from the woods behind Castle Blackmoor, out toward the creek that feeds the moors. Curious, I went outside to look and see what was doing all of this howling.

I got to the edge of the path which leads off down to the outpost, and the howling stopped. Not abruptly, mind you: it just sort of faded away. As I stood there, the woods were eerily silent, somehow made even more eerie by the bright sunny sky above. The sounds of wildlife, birds, churring insects and so on gradually came back, and then a bit later, I heard the howl again, so far away that I could barely hear it.

At which point I realized that I’d come outside without even taking along a pistol, much less a proper rifle, as one might reasonably do when investigating a mysterious howling on the moors. Imagine how foolish I’d have felt if I’d found the source of the howling.

It’s easy to criticize the behaviour of victims in horror movies when they do foolish things: going into dark basements alone, going outside to investigate strange noises, chasing an escaped cat in one’s space-underwear, and so on. It’s much easier to make foolish choices than we’d like to think, particularly when the sun is bright and the sky is clear and we are in a familiar environment where a monster has never attacked us before.

Friday, 2011-09-16

Speak Out With Your Geek Out

Filed under: Firearms,Gaming,Movies,Technology — bblackmoor @ 20:17
Speak out with your geek out

I have been a geek pretty much from the day I opened my eyes. My mother tells me that I would sit in my playpen and watch Dark Shadows. When I was 10 or 11, and visiting my grandma Roma for a few weeks during the summer, I discovered The Lord Of The Rings at the local library (where I spent most of my afternoons — it was free, and it was air conditioned). I read the second and third books first, because the first book was loaned out at the time. I recall thinking that it was interesting, but really dry.

Shortly thereafter, I discovered vampires and werewolves and witches. (I never thought I was one. I was a geek, not a delusional loser.) Around the same time, two other things happened that confirmed my path toward geekdom: the debut of the Dr. Madblood show on channel 10, and the release of Star Wars. I would stay up late with my mom and wait for the end of The Midnight Special or Saturday Night Live or whatever sports event had preempted regularly scheduled programming that week, when we’d be rewarded with the baseline from “Green Eyed Lady” and the opening credits of Dr. Madblood. And Star Wars… ah, the good old days, before “A New Hope”, before “Episode IV”, before Greedo shot first, before Darth Vader was retconned into Luke’s whiny-ass father and the creator of C-3PO… back when Star Wars was Star Wars… back when Star Wars was good. Between the bad movies shown every Saturday by Dr. Madblood, and my infatuation with Star Wars, the first of my lifelong geeky pursuits was added permanently to my repertoire: movies. I saw Star Wars at the movies over and over (I stopped counting at nine), my parents bought me action figures, and I carried the novelization (George Lucas’ name was on the cover, but it was actually written by Alan Dean Foster) around with me until a bully on the bus took it away and tore it in half.

Such is the life of a young geek.

In my early teen years, I discovered my next geeky hobby: Dungeons & Dragons. There was an “activity day” at my school. Groups of older kids hosted various activities, and we younger kids wandered around and took part and learned about them. Kind of like Pledge Week, without the humiliation and the homoerotic undertones. I joined in on a game of Dungeons & Dragons because a girl named Jade was sitting at the table, and I thought she was so cute. She had octagonal glasses, and her name was Jade. How cool is that? I had never heard of role-playing games, of course, so I had no idea what I was doing, but I had a great time anyway. I recall I used a “Pyrokinesis” spell to keep a dragon from breathing fire. I had no idea what the spell was or what it did, but it was called “pyrokinesis”, so it just stood to reason that I could keep a dragon from breathing fire, right? The GM agreed.

Well, I was hooked right there. Role-playing games became the second of my lifelong geeky pursuits. Jade never played with us again, but I played at lunchtime with my friends in school off and on until I graduated high school. I was never mocked or hazed for playing D&D. The only problem I can recall was toward the end of my senior year, the day after prom: my mom found my D&D books and burned them.

Such is the life of a young geek.

The third of my lifelong geeky pursuits was added in my sophomore year of high school. Our school got a set of TRS-80 Model III computers. I don’t recall how or why I started using them. It may have been an elective class. What I do know is that I immediately started writing computer programs in Basic. Dice-rolling programs (for D&D), a psionic combat resolution program (also for D&D — psionic combat resolution was a task well suited to a computer program), and so on. The TRS-80 Model IIIs were replaced by Model IVs in my junior year, and then by IBM PCs in my senior year. That was the year I started the Computer Club at my high school. (I’d started Philosophy Club the year before, and the D&D Club the year before that.)

In retrospect, starting clubs has always kind of been my thing. I like to create things that bring people together. That’s why I started RPG Library and PBEM News. Just recently, I started a YahooGroup forum/mailing list called Game System Workshop, devoted to tinkering with role-playing game designs, to share ideas about new game systems and to tinker around with existing ones. (Feel free to join it, if you are so inclined — it’s an open group.)

Walther P99

Years later (too many years later), I am still as much a geek as I ever was. I am a computer programmer working for DriveThruRPG (combining two of my geeky pursuits in one). I still play role-playing games, and I still like sharing my gaming ideas and seeing what other people’s ideas are. I still love movies (mostly bad movies). I maintain a Digital Archive Project torrent server for Mystery Science Theatre 3000 (only the episodes that aren’t commercially available), and I even had the slide of my Walther P99 plated with brushed stainless steel to resemble the pistols used by Kate Beckinsale in Underworld 2. That’s my pistol you see there on the right.

My name is Brandon Blackmoor, and I’m a geek. I’m married to the person I love, I can have all the sex I want, I make good money doing work I enjoy, and life is good.

Such is the life of an adult geek. 🙂

Saturday, 2011-03-05

Body armor and ammunition

Filed under: Firearms,Security,Technology — bblackmoor @ 13:40

A friend showed me this graphic at Simple Survival Skills, showing the protection afforded by these different types of protective vests. I thought it was interesting.
Body armor categories

Here is another chart, from Body Armor News.

Ballistic chart

Ammunition From The Chart

1. .22 Magnum 40 gr. JHP (1209 FPS / 369 MPS)
2. .32 ACP 60 gr. Silvertip JHP (936 FPS / 285 MPS)
3. .380 ACP 95 gr. FMC (902 FPS / 275 MPS)
4. .38 Special 125 gr. Nyclad SWHP (1009 FPS / 308 MPS)
5. .38 Special +P 110 gr. JHP (1049 FPS / 320 MPS)
6. .38 Special +P 140 gr. JHP (869 FPS / 265 MPS)
7. 9mm 124 gr. FMC (1173 FPS / 358 MPS)*
8. 9mm 125 gr. JSP (1121 FPS / 342 MPS)
9. 9mm 147 gr. Black Talon (1010 FPS / 308 MPS)
10. 9mm 147 gr. Golden Saber (1083 FPS / 330 MPS)
11. 9mm 147 gr. Hydra Shok (1011 FPS / 308 MPS)
12. .357 Magnum 158 gr. JSP (1308 FPS / 399 MPS)
13. .357 Magnum 110 gr. JHP (1292 FPS / 394 MPS)
14. .357 Magnum 125 gr. JHP (1335 FPS / 407 MPS)
15. .40 Caliber 180 gr. FMJTC (992 FPS / 302 MPS)
16. .40 Caliber 170 gr. FMJTC (1095 FPS / 334 MPS)
17. 10mm 155 gr. FMJTC (1024 FPS / 312 MPS)
18. 10mm 170 gr. JHP (1137 FPS / 347 MPS)
19. .41 Magnum 210 gr. LSWC (1141 FPS / 348 MPS)
20. .44 Magnum 240 gr. LFP (1017 FPS / 310 MPS)
21. .45 Long Colt 250 gr. LRN (778 FPS / 237 MPS)
22. .45 ACP 230 gr. FMJ (826 FPS / 252 MPS)
23. 12 Ga. 00 Buck (9 pellet) (1063 FPS / 324 MPS)
24. 9mm 124 gr. FMJ (1215 FPS / 370 MPS)*
25. 9mm 115 gr. Silvertip JHP (1252 FPS / 382 MPS)
26. 9mm 124 gr. Starfire JHP (1174 FPS / 358 MPS)*
27. .357 Magnum 158 gr. JSP (1453 FPS / 443 MPS)*
28. .357 Magnum 145 gr. Silvertip JHP (1371 FPS / 418 MPS)
29. .357 Magnum 125 gr. JHP (1428 FPS / 435 MPS)
30. 10mm 175 gr. Silvertip JHP (1246 FPS / 380 MPS)
31. .41 Magnum 210 gr. JSP (1322 FPS / 403 MPS)
32. .44 Magnum 240 gr. SJHP (1270 FPS / 387 MPS)
33. 9mm 124 gr. FMJ (1440 FPS / 439 MPS)*
34. 9mm 115 gr. FMJ Israeli (1499 FPS / 457 MPS)
35. 9mm 123 gr. FMJ Geco (1372 FPS / 418 MPS)
36. 9mm 124 gr. FMJ Cavin (1259 FPS / 384 MPS)
37. .44 Magnum 240 gr. LSWC (1448 FPS / 441 MPS)*
38. .44 Magnum 240 gr. HSP (1320 FPS / 402 MPS)
39. 12 ga. 1 oz. Rifled Slug (1290 FPS / 393 MPS)
40. 12 ga. 1 oz. Rifled Slug (1254 FPS / 382 MPS)

Bullet Abbreviations

The following standard abbreviations are used to designate types of bullets or projectiles contained in the rounds tested.

FMC/J Full Metal Case/ Full metal Jacket
FMJTC Full Metal Jacket Truncated Cone
HSP Hollow Soft Point
LRB Lead Round Ball
LRN Lead Round Nose
LSWC Lead Semi-Wadcutter
JHP Jacketed Hollow Point
JSP Jacketed Soft Point
LFP Lead Flat Point
SJHP Semi-Jacketed Hollow Point
SWHP Semi-Wadcutter Hollow Point

Friday, 2011-03-04

Be yourself no matter what they say

Filed under: Firearms,Music,Society — bblackmoor @ 11:21

This song played while I was working this morning. Every time I hear this song, I am somewhat chastized, because it reminds me that I don’t live up to my own goals for my behaviour.

Modesty, propriety can lead to notoriety
You could end up as the only one
Gentleness, sobriety are rare in this society
At night a candle’s brighter than the sun

Takes more than combat gear to make a man
Takes more than a license for a gun
Confront your enemies, avoid them when you can
A gentleman will walk but never run

If, “Manners maketh man” as someone said
Then he’s the hero of the day
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say

One of the things I like about this song is that it encourages polite behaviour, but doesn’t demonize anything I value. It doesn’t advocate weakness — it advocates strength, guided by wisdom. For example, “Takes more than combat gear to make a man / Takes more than a license for a gun” doesn’t say that someone with a gun is not a man — it says that a gun alone does not make someone a man. And I wholeheartedly agree.

So… note to self. Be a better person today.

Next Page »