kimmy

This is a subject I've been interested in for a while. Are you finding this book to be helpful? I might order it myself. -k

The short overall length would no doubt be handy. However, to me it seems like it would have to be held in a way that would lend to a less accurate shooting position than a traditional rifle layout. -k

On Sylvia Browne: Personally, I think that if somebody puts more credence in something Sylvia Browne predicts than something a random stranger on the street predicts, it's their own fault. In this case, it appears that Amanda Berry's mother went asking for Sylvia Browne's help, on the Montel Williams show, no less: While I certainly feel that Sylvia Browne is a scumbag for trying to dupe gullible people into believing she has magic powers, and Montel Williams is a turd for promoting that crap on his TV show, ultimately it's Louwana Miller's own fault. She went and asked some idiot what happened to her daughter, she got an answer she probably didn't want to hear, and that's the end of it. Does Sylvia Browne offer any sort of warranty or guarantee of accuracy? I highly doubt it. On whether psychics actually ever help police solve crimes: This article says it's been studied and found to have no merit. It points out that while psychic predictions were not found to be statistically more accurate than the control group, the psychics made a lot more predictions and were found to place a high emphasis on correct predictions and ignore their failures. -k

TV commercials promoting the economic action plan grate on me. Maybe part of the economic action plan includes direct stimulus for broadcasters, advertising agencies, actors, and production studios? -k

I actually have not been following the Benghazi stuff because as far as I can tell it seems like a bunch of Breitbart/Tea Party nonsense. I gather that the far right are convinced that there must have been some kind of secret "stand down order that came straight from the White House" that prevented the military from acting, much like the 9/11 Truthies are convinced that there was some kind of secret "stand down order that came straight from the White House" on 9/11 that prevented the military from acting? Here's your chance, Fox/Breitbart fans of MLW: present a reasonable argument about why more people should be paying attention to the Benghazi stuff. -k

And that's a dumb analysis, and your misuse of the "you didn't build that" speech was a dumb way to make a point. While the Free Market Heroes and their sycophants like to present "you didn't build that" as if that was all he said, but everybody who bothered to actually learn the context of the comment understands that the message was "you didn't build that on your own." Or as it was stated in : Now... you want to apply this idea that we all helped the Tsarnaev brothers commit their attack on the Boston Marathon? Sure, if one fancied himself to be some kind of idiot, he could certainly make the same argument in regard to the attacks on the Boston Marathon or the World Trade Center. Sure, it's correct. It happened on a public street that wouldn't exist without a society that chose to build it. It happened at a huge event that couldn't happen without a cooperative society. The brothers used materials they couldn't have build themselves, information they gained through the internet, education that was funded at least in part by US taxpayers. We as a society do all this stuff- build streets, fund schools, manufacture goods for sale, provide almost unlimited access to information, create an environment where people can host and attend massive gatherings of people. We as a society do all of that stuff, and much more. For the most part all of us are much the better for it. For the most part, people use all of those facilities for their own benefit and sometimes to the benefit of all of us as a whole. Sometimes, whether it be the Boston Marathon bombing or a car crash, those facilities are used in ways that cause harm. We do those things anyway. If you're wondering whether we'd be better off if society didn't provide any of these facilities and let Rugged Individuals do everything for themselves, just remember: There's no Mogadishu Marathon. There's no Mogadishu Trade Center. -k

Are you sure? Because that's what your argument seems to boil down to. If there's no regulations, then there's no such thing as "criminal negligence". If I liked to get drunk and play with my guns, I think any reasonable person would say I'm being irresponsible. But following your logic, if I'm drunk and playing with my guns and my neighbor gets hit with flying lead... serves 'em right. They're the ones being irresponsible-- if they'd man up and take responsibility for their own safety, they wouldn't be living next door to me in the first place. We don't need regulations that say a girl shouldn't shoot her guns while she's tanked, we just need people to take responsibility for their own safety and not live near somebody who might do something like that. And the roads and schools and police and fire department all just appear by the Magic of Freedom, and nobody has to pay any taxes! -k

I'm not doubting that Texas is indeed a low-regulation and business-friendly environment, I'm just suggesting that Texas residents may have a new perspective about how good of a thing that is. As for suing the fertilizer company... well, it turns out they have a grand total of $1 million of liability insurance. (you and I have more than that from ICBC.) So if and when they are successfully sued by the survivors, they're not going to pay anyway. They're just going to declare bankruptcy. The survivors won't get a cent of compensation from this company. Hopefully their own insurance coverage is adequate, because the fertilizer company's certainly isn't. And I'd say that whatever compensation they could get from a lawsuit is a poor substitute for the lives and limbs they've lost. -k

They get coyotes, wolves, and bears too. Are you really saying you think a teenaged girl would be safer fighting wild predators with a hockey stick than with a rifle? So based on your own experience, you've declared the entire premise a myth? That seems rather presumptuous, to say the least. If you grew up on a farm, you know that there are a vast number of potential accidents inherent in that environment, of which firearms are the easiest to prevent. If preventing accidents were a legitimate policy goal, there's a long list of things we'd start banning. I certainly don't want to be in the position of defending the intelligence of Kentucky residents. If a 5 year old had killed a 2 year old with a kitchen knife, a lawnmower, a power saw, or any number of other potentially lethal items, we wouldn't have even heard about it but she'd still be just as dead. -k

And yet you declined the opportunity to explain which two items on Moonlight's 3 item list you don't consider important functions of the penal system. Even Rick Perry could get to two, August. I wish I could say that comparing the penal system to McDonald's is the silliest thing you've said this week, but I don't think it's even in the top 5. Blatchford appears to be arguing against a lynch-mob mentality and pointing out that peoples' information about the Parsons' case has come mostly from the Parsons' family's version of events. I'm unable to access the comments, but I assume that it did not go well for her. Are you sure it is The Left that pilloried Blatchford? I heard some of the Charles Adler show shortly after Parsons' suicide, and Adlers' right-wing audience seemed enraged too. What do you mean "and yet"? Supporters of Trudeau want Dzokhar Tsarnaev locked away forever too. Who *doesn't* think that Russell Williams should be locked away forever? Who *doesn't* think Tsarnaev should be locked away forever? The only people who'd disagree are people who'd prefer they be executed rather than locked away. This whole premise that people who want to understand what motivated Tsarnaev don't think he should be punished is just stupid. But I guess on Planet August where prisons are like McDonald's, the idea that we could learn to identify or prevent future radicals from studying Tsarnaev is just too radical. "No tickee no washee" indeed. -k

The the rich continue to do very, very well. The idea that Obama hates business and hates the rich is so hilariously wrong. -k

That's a ridiculous straw-man. -k

Wrong, as MH's link indicated. There's a principle called "public accommodations" where if your place of business serves the general public, you're not allowed to exclude members of the general public for arbitrary reasons. "He smelled horrible" is a valid reason to kick somebody out of your restaurant... "he was Jewish" isn't. "His presence was upsetting to the other customers" is somewhat of a grey area, IMO. I think that Curves and Spa Lady can exclude men for the same reason that the Augusta Golf and Country Club and the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo can exclude women. I think that gyms are operated as private clubs rather than places of public accommodation. -k

I think that an individual who says they don't appreciate things like law and order, a credible legal system, functional infrastructure, and an educated society is probably a big fat liar. -k

OSHA isn't the only agency that could have looked into the plant (and they're badly understaffed anyway, because you can't go around spending taxpayer money on job-killing safety inspections!) There's a Texas Department of State Health Services, a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and an Office of the Texas State Chemist. The Dept of State Health Services is the one that interacts directly with the plant to collect records. The Dept of State Health Services did know the plant had 270 tons of ammonium nitrate, but didn't forward that information to other agencies. I read that Texas is the only place in America where zoning laws would let you to build a fertilizer plant right next to a school and a residential neighborhood and a nursing home. The week after the fertilizer plant exploded, Rick Perry was touring the country telling businessmen in other states they ought to relocate to Texas because of low regulations. And one expects that after Bangladesh cracks down on factories over fire regulations and building codes, Rick will be booking a trip to Bangladesh too. -k

So on Planet August, prisons would only do one thing? Tell us which 2 of Moonlight's 3 functions you consider unimportant. I have no idea what that even means. Is everybody who disagrees with you part of a "team" or a "hive mind"? Is that what you're saying? I don't believe you. You're currently the #1 guy on the board at trying to divide the world into "teams" and "hives" (you'd normally be #2, but it looks like Shady has been given another "vacation".) "Leftists think this and this and that! That's why I'm not a Leftist! hur de dur!" And you still haven't gotten around to attempting to defend the premise of the opening post, probably because you've realized that it's beyond hope. -k

This isn't a democracy. It's a privately-owned message board. You have the constitutional right to express yourself, but you don't have the constitutional right to express yourself on Greg's forum. When you joined Greg's club, you agreed to accept the club's rules. -k

Yeah, low-regulation Texas, where they don't bother with job-killing regulations like inspecting fertilizer plants. Business is BOOOOMING!!! -k

As I mentioned above, and in American Woman's status updates, I think that the idea of a "learner's gun" has merit. I agree with AW that a 5 year old shouldn't have a gun and is too young to start learning to shoot. 5 year olds are just plain stupid. However, with that said, I think that in an environment where firearms are commonplace, I think that teaching children about firearms is a good idea, once they're old enough. And I think that a gun designed specifically for a young shooter is a good idea: -it could have features designed to reduce the chance of accidental discharge, as with Derek's Mossberg above. -it could be appropriately sized to make it easier for a young shooter to control more easily than a full-sized gun. I don't know for sure that the Cricket rifle has either of these qualities, but as I said before I think that the idea itself has merit. When or if I have kimlets of my own, I would certainly consider buying a "learner's gun" when they are old enough to start teaching them to shoot. And it goes without saying that I would not let them use the gun unless I was there to supervise. You can rest assured that I do have a kid to teach to shoot, I am not going to start teaching them with my full-sized, full-power weapons. I'll pick out an appropriate gun for a small person, and a Cricket rifle sounds like the sort of thing I would look for. So while a lot of people seem to be extremely upset by the idea that Cricket makes "a gun for kids", I think that criticism is unfair, and that the real villains here are not Cricket at all, but the people who left a gun just lying around in a house with two toddlers. There have been other stories where children have killed people with guns stored recklessly, but this one seems to be getting extra attention because of the Cricket angle... and to me that is exactly the wrong way to look at this. All of my guns are kept in locked cabinets, and they are also disabled with trigger-locks or cable-locks to make them inoperable even if somebody gets into the cabinet. And I don't even have toddlers; I have one cat and one Texan, neither of which are likely to shoot anybody by accident. -k

Update: former RCMP officer and face-kicking enthusiast Geoff Mantler has been sentenced to 18 months probation for the assault in the above video. It goes without saying that without the above video, Mantler would have faced no consequences for the above assault, and would still be on active duty kicking other faces in the Kelowna area. -k

hmm? Instead of trying to respond to the question, you just have some passive-aggressive quip? Well you prefaced that point with a bunch of WAAAHmbulance-grade whining about how the heroic Job Creator is being "marginalized", and I couldn't let that go without comment. I believe it is patently obvious that each and every successful business in Canada, the United States, and every other modern democracy has benefited from doing business in nations that provide law and order, reliable infrastructure, legal systems and contract law, and educated work forces. You and the other Free Market Heroes seem to think that the heroic Job Creators would be better off working in a society that didn't provide any of those things. So if this government-free paradise you envision is such a great environment to do business in, why is Mogadishu a lawless hellscape instead of a Free Enterprise Utopia? -k

My cousin's children-- now 15 and 13-- have been shooting for years, and go hunting with their parents. The 15 year old now has her own 30-30, which was once my grandfather's gun. She told me at Christmas that she used it to chase a lynx out of their yard. Neither she or her brother are going to shoot anybody by accident, because they know how to treat firearms. They didn't start out with Cricket™ rifles, but they started shooting with a .22 when they were young. Probably older than 5, but before 10 for sure. Guns are quite a different issue for rural people than city ones. If you're a country kid, a gun is a mundane item, a tool, something your mom and dad use, something your dad has shown you how to use too. If you're a city kid, a gun is something you see in video games and action movies. It's fetishized, it's a magic forbidden fruit. I think it's kind of like a kid whose parents have let him drink alcohol at family gatherings, versus another kid who has never touched alcohol, turns 19, and goes on a bender. People seem offended at the idea that Cricket makes a rifle designed for children. I understand why, but I think they are looking at it the wrong way. In an environment where guns are going to be common-- rural areas-- I think educating children about firearms would be much wiser than hoping that kids never find a firearm. I am not familiar with a Cricket rifle... I would assume a gun designed for children would be a single shot, light, easy to handle, have a safety that is easy to recognize and operate, and probably have a trigger that is hard to pull unless you really mean to. I would expect that a gun designed for children would be one designed to help parents in teaching, and could incorporate safety features to reduce the chances of accidental discharge. It could be a good teaching tool, safer than trying to teach your child to shoot a gun designed for adults. The idea of a rifle designed for a child is not inherently bad. The problem in this Kentucky incident is not that Cricket builds a rifle intended for children. The problem is that parents left a gun leaning against a wall in a house with a 5 year old and 2 year old. That is so astoundingly stupid that it's incomprehensible. Their response "yeah well we didn't think it was loaded" is also incredibly stupid, because the #1 rule of firearms is to *NEVER* assume it's not loaded. This is just parenting failure. People seem to have latched onto this "Cricket Guns For Kids" angle, but leaving *any* rifle leaning against the wall in a house with a 5 year old and a 2 year old was a recipe for tragedy. -k

Oh for the love of... You know, it seems like the Rugged Individualists have become the biggest crybabies in our society. Tell me this: if a society where the government does nothing and everything is up to the individual is the optimum environment for the heroic Job Creator to function in, then why isn't Mogadishu the Free Enterprise Capital of the planet? Why haven't John Galt types flooded into that area to create the free market paradise that you think they could if only the government would unshackle them? -k

That's laugh-out-loud funny. That right there is brilliant marketing. If I was him, I'd move coins around when nobody was looking. Depending on the demographics of his area, I think I'd move cash out of the Christian, atheist, and agnostic dishes, and put it into the Muslim, Hindu, and pagan dishes. Because probably most of the passersby will be Christian, agnostic, and atheist... and they'd hate to be shown up by Muslims, Hindus, and pagans. -k

None of which has anything to do with this ridonkulous idea you've come up with that the Boston terrorists haven't been condemned by those who want to know the root causes, or that those who've condemned the Halifax rapists aren't interested in root causes. -k