Cheap Handguns

…if by “cheap” you mean something that doesn’t cost more than $500, that is.  CheaperThanDirt’s Shooter’s Blog features one such article examining the choices, and it’s quite informative so go ahead and read it.

Myself, I was struck by something else.  Here are the guns they talk about, stripped of the verbiage:

      

Is it just me, or do all these little carry guns look depressingly similar?  (We all know that they’re similar mechanically, i.e. striker-fired double-action mostly 9mm pistols.)

And I suppose that given the demands of ergonomics and what have you, these guns are inevitably going to turn out like the depressingly-similar wind-tunnel shaped modern cars — i.e. you need a microscope and micrometer to distinguish one from another — and you all know what I think of them.  (Cliff Notes:  ugh.)

No.  Frankly, my independent spirit rebels against this me-too nonsense, and especially so in the above case.  I don’t care that these guns may be a good bargain and work well, just as I don’t care that a Kia Rio / Hyundai Accent are a good automotive bargain and drive well.  I just don’t want to play simply because it’s cheaper, and I’m probably never going to own any of them, gun or car.

No.  If anything, it makes me want to go to the other extreme and carry something — ha! — iconic instead, even if I have to pay more and if necessary wait a while longer so I can save up for the thing.  To put it another way, I’d rather carry a Walther PPK than a Walther Creed because while both pistols are essentially identical in terms of their output (sends a 9mmx boolet into a Bad Guy efficiently), the PPK looks miles nicer and is worth the premium.  (And no, I don’t need an accessory rail on my carry gun.)

    

Your mileage may well differ, and as always, I welcome comments / insults on my old-fashioned attitude.

Every Day

Apparently, last Monday 19th was something called “International Men’s Day” — like National Ammo Day (NAD) wasn’t sufficient reason to celebrate the day (that, and it being my birthday).

As Loyal Readers know well, I can’t stand this custom of making up Hallmark Holidays (NAD notwithstanding) because it’s a load of old bollocks.

Besides, as has often been pointed out to me, every day is “International Men’s Day” on this website.  And just to underscore the point, here’s a completely gratuitous picture of a beautiful gun:

Also a beautiful car:

A lovely woman:

A pretty woman with a beautiful car:

And just to round it all off, here’s a beautiful woman shooting a gun:

“International Men’s Day”, my aching African-American ass.

Never A Truer Word Spoken

In his Devil’s Dictionary, the late and very-much-lamented Ambrose Pierce once wrote the following:

“When politicians speak, no matter the topic, they’re talking about money.”

…and boy, was he ever right.  Here’s an example.

For the past couple of years, governments have been talking about the “obesity epidemic” (as though getting fat can spread from one person to another over the air, instead of being the result of a conscious decision by individuals).  And of course, along with such alarums and panic from the Usual Suspects — those who Know What’s Best For You — have come clamors that Something Must Be Done.  And when people use the dreaded passive voice, of course, that means one, and only one thing:  government intervention.

So, of course, in steps Nanny Government to the rescue.  Of course, instead of pointing out that people get fat because they eat too much, or that their children get fat because their parents give them too much of the wrong foods, Big Nanny sets about punishing people for ingesting said wrong foods — and the easiest thing to target, because of its ubiquity, is sugar.

We all know that too much sugar is A Bad Thing, and if you eat too much of it, you get not only overweight but various health problems.  Let me repeat:  we all know that.

But how to punish excessive sugar consumption?  Do we (i.e. Nanny Government) ration the stuff?  No, too difficult and costly to implement, manage and police (although I would bet against it in the future — such difficulties have seldom stopped government in the past, e.g.  ObamaCare coff coff )  But sugar is not only bought and sold per se , it’s also a ubiquitous ingredient, and most egregiously so in the case of carbonated soft drinks (to normal mortals, that would be Coke, Pepsi, Mountain Dew etc.) wherein can be found the equivalent of a dozen or so teaspoons of sugar per can.  Not that this is always A Bad Thing:

So, goes Nanny’s thinking, if we punish people for drinking Cokes and reduce consumption thereof by making it more expensive to do so, the very best way to implement such policy is… to tax it.

Which brings us back to Ambrose Bierce.  And lo, there we have proof of the man’s sagacity:

The UK’s sugar tax has raised almost £154 million in its first six months, Government figures have revealed.
From April, companies selling drinks with added sugar have been taxed between 18p and 24p per litre for certain drinks containing high levels of added sugar.
The new levy was introduced in an effort to fight childhood obesity, as more than a third of 11-year-olds in the UK are now overweight and soft drinks are one of their main sources of sugar.

With that degree of success, replication must surely follow:

Raising so much money from the tax was ‘encouraging’, one expert said, but they urged the Government to extend the levy to calories in sweets [candy] as well.

And there you have it:  Nanny Government at its absolute finest.  It’s even more nasty in that with the above policy, the BritGov didn’t increase the sales tax on carbonated soft drinks — too difficult to implement, police and collect, see above — so instead they levied the tax at its source:

 There are 457 companies registered to pay the tax, and more than 90 per cent of the money came from charges on drinks with higher levels of sugar.

Much easier.  And needless to say, most of said companies simply raised the price of their product and passed it on to consumers — that would be us — to whom rising prices are a fact of modern life, and therefore the added cost went pretty much unnoticed.

Which actually makes it a perfect government tax policy:  it’s barely noticed by the public, it’s easier to collect / enforce (457 companies vs. many thousands of retail outlets), and best of all, if it fails to have the desired effect (making people drink less of the stuff), Nanny Government can simply increase the tax rate until it does — or until the supplier companies either quit or go out of business, which won’t happen because Coca-Cola / PepsiCo / Dr. Pepper / Cadbury-Schweppes etc. are collectively richer than Great Britain.  So there is theoretically no limit as to how much tax revenue the BritGov could collect from this policy.

And all because you, you fat bastards, insist on buying your kids Big Gulps and pouring  Dr. Pepper over their sugary breakfast cereals (a rant for another time, coming very soon to these pages).

And at the bottom of all this, of course is the reason why Gummint — in this case the Brit manifestation thereof — should care about fat children at all.   It’s not because they’re concerned for the chillins’ health (although that’s the figleaf), but because when obesity causes health issues, then said issues have to be covered by the foul (but government-funded) National Health Service.

Which brings us back — AGAIN — to Ambrose Bierce’s dictum.  It’s all about the fucking money.

At the beginning of this post, I said that Bierce’s death was much lamented but as I think about it, I’m glad that my favorite cynic of all time isn’t around to see all this.  He’d probably commit suicide.


And as a footnote, allow me to recommend unreservedly The Devil’s Dictionary, which under the reign of World-Emperor Kim would be a required textbook in all high-school curricula.

Fan Support: The Rest

We conclude this scholarly study of international fan support of football (soccer) teams with a quick glimpse at the world outside the Americas and Europe, starting with the Far East:

And next door:

Meanwhile in (South) Africa:

Although it should be said that in Seffrica, as in the U.S., there’s more support for the oval ball:

While the same is true Down Under:

Then there are the Turkettes:

And speaking of Muslim assholes, let’s give some special appreciation to the ladies from Iran who support their national team.  Even though they are pretty much banned from watching the matches in Iran because Islam, they can support their team in away matches:

Although it should also be known that if they wore those same outfits in Teheran, they’d be stoned to death as whores.

One wonders what the ayatollahs would think of this Muslim creature from Albania:

In Iran or Saudi Arabia, she’d be stoned to death;  here in the U.S. of A., she’d be offered a modeling contract.  Which system is better?  I report, you decide.

Iconic Handguns

The Washington Times recently published a list of the top dozen “Most Iconic Handguns”, and unusually for topics of this nature, I couldn’t find much fault with their choices.  To save you having to page through their stupid slideshow, the guns are:

  1. Colt 1911 Government (.45 ACP)
  2. Mauser C96 Broomhandle  (7.63mm Mauser)
  3. DWM P08 “Luger” (9x19mm Para)
  4. Browning P35 High Power (9x19mm Para)
  5. S&W Model 27 (.357 Magnum)
  6. Walther P38 (9x19mm Para)
  7. Colt Detective Special (.38 Special)
  8. Walther PPK (.32 ACP / 7.65mm Browning)
  9. Colt Single Action Army “Peacemaker” (.45 Colt)
  10. S&W Mod 29 (.44 Magnum)
  11. Glock 17 (9x19mm Para)
  12. Desert Eagle (.50 AE / .44 Magnum)

Like I said, I can’t find much to argue with, if you define “iconic” as “guns that are instantly recognizable to most people” either by their shape, their popularity or their place in legend / the movies.  Among gunnies, the list might look quite different.

But even then… one could argue that the two S&W revolvers are almost identical outside the caliber and frame design (to handle the extra recoil of the .44 Mag), and purely by the above definition, the Mod 29 (Dirty Harry’s gun) deserves its place, the Mod 27 less so.  Ditto the Luger and the P38:  the older P08 is instantly recognizable as much for its shape as for the name, but its replacement, the P38?  Not so much, even though the P38 is the better pistol of the two.  And as much as I hate to say this, the same is true of the 1911 and the High Power.  To us gunnies, the two are instantly distinguishable;  but to the general public?  Probably not.

Frankly, any such list which ignores the Colt Python (.357 Mag) must surely be suspect.

And finally, for the history buffs (and there may be one or two among us), there’s the British Webley Mk VI (.455 Webley or .38/200), which must surely rate as iconic, by any standard:

…and of course, there’s the the Smith & Wesson Model 10 (a.k.a. the Military & Police and/or Victory model in .38 Special), which some might justifiably consider the iconic revolver — certainly, with over six million manufactured, it was the most-produced handgun of the 20th century.

If I were doing the list, I might omit the Walther P38 and S&W Mod 27, and substitute two of the three beauties above (which two? aaargh).  How about a top 15?

Your observations in Comments.

Discrimination!!!

From an article detailing how ex-President Token and his harridan wife are making millions, we find this little nugget:

In October 2017, Michelle Obama was a keynote speaker at the Pennsylvania Conference for Women, a non-profit that promotes education and networking. The New York-based Harry Walker Agency Inc., which books both Obamas for speaking gigs, billed the Pennsylvania Conference for Women $225,000 in 2017, according to the non-profit’s most recent tax filings.

Barack Obama currently rakes in $400,000 per speech, and earned at least $1.2 million for three talks to Wall Street firms in 2017.

But, but, but… #IncomeInequality !!!

Barack Shithead Obama earns twice as much as his Pore Wife, for doing the same job!

#ShameOnBarack #PayTheBitchMore #FairnessInSpeakingFees

Whatever all that shit means.