We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata feminist of the day I give you Kaitlin Bennett from Ohio, as reported by BBC News:
As a woman, I refuse to be a victim & the second amendment ensures that I don’t have to be.
.@KentState puts up fliers in dorms w/ the stat that 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in college, but denies women the right to protect themselves with their firearm. In 2016 KSU reported 3x as many rapes on campus than 2015. Stop letting women be victims. #CampusCarryNow
The 2nd amendment isn’t about hunting deer. It’s about being able to protect yourself from an out of control, tyrannical government.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, âPorcupinesâ, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty FrĂ©dĂ©ric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Good!
I seriously doubt that statistic is based in reality but it does not detract from the point being made. Indeed, as the people making such absurd claims tend to also oppose gun ownership, it does rather call into question their motives if they truly believe 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in college đ
I see that the BBC article managed to get an accusation of white privilege and racism into the story.
Well done that writer! Decaff skinny soy lattes all round!
That 1-in-4 statistic isn’t based in reality, the likes of Christina Hoff Sommers debunked it decades ago (in ‘Who Stole Feminism?’). Yet still it gets trotted out every year.
In fairness to Kaitlin Bennett, it must be said* that she did not say that “1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in college“.
She said that “KentState puts up fliers in dorms w/ the stat that 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in college“.
James Strong: when i read that, i felt really happy that i don’t have to pay any money to the BBC.
* although i have no reason to doubt that Perry and Hector have already noticed.
I wonder if they include that statistic in their prospectus?
Indeed, I noticed the wording too. And as I said, using their numbers does not detract from her position, it actually throws an interesting googlie right back at them.
My view as well. “Feminists” consider “The toxic male gaze” to be rape. Anyone remember “elevator gate”?
Yeah, he complimented the blue haired woman on her speech in an elevator and asked her out for coffee to get to know her better. = “almost rape”, and hell, this is HER description of events.
If the 1 in 4 figure was even remotely correct, you would wonder why some women would even consider going to college. Unless of course, they nurture a certain dark fantasy…
If you takes the 1 in 4 figure as ‘had drunken sex with unattractive person and regrets it the next day when sober’ is probably nearer the truth. But that is possibly nowhere near the figure of ‘3 in 4 regret paying all that money to go to college for a useless degree.’ But no-one bandies such a statistic around.
God made men (and women). Sam Colt made men (and women) equal.
If itâs got blue hair, just say no.
Glad to see second wave feminism survives in the younger generation of women who donât buy into the victim crap!
As far as I can remember there were countless demonstrations against the Vietnam war- Kent state was the last. Maybe because demonstrating ceased to be a game?
More on topic, I wish I was 40 years younger!
Ms. Bennett is a serious gunner.
Most everyone is familiar with the teeny little bullet fired from the ubiquitous .22 caliber plinking rifle. Good for targets, sickly squirrels, and the like.
The feared and hated AR-15 fires a bullet that is almost exactly that same diameter – it is .223″ instead of .22″. (The difference is that the AR-15 bullet uses more gunpowder then the .22.)
The gun she’s carrying is an AR-10. That’s a real, honest-to-gosh deer rifle that shoots a bullet with a diameter of .308″. Much more lead. Essentially it’s the same bullet that’s used in the AK-47.
As far as I can remember there were countless demonstrations against the Vietnam war- Kent state was the last.
You’re mistaken. Protests increased after the Kent State shootings. In fact 10 days later 2 more students were killed and 10 injured at Jackson State University.
bobby;
7.62 NATO has a bit more “grunt” than 7.62 x 39 and is generally loaded with a heavier bullet propelled at a greater velocity, therefore a LOT more energy is delivered downrange. Having fired tens of thousands of rounds of both, I reckon I can fairly say that BOTH do the job, with the NATO rounds hitting harder at both ends. Horses for courses.
The standard AR-15 in 5.56 x 45, is chambered for a round loaded with a bullet that is generally .224″ diameter; .223 is the Remington commercial designation concocted to differentiate three very similar (Remington) cartridges; .222 Rem. .222 Remington Magnum and, of course, the .223 Remington. The .223 Remington was initially labelled .222 Special, but that got dropped pretty fast. Regardless of the numbers in their designations, they ALL fire a range of .224″ diameter bullets.
There are a number of internal differences between 5.56 x 45 NATO and .223 Remington; several sites discuss this in minute detail. Ditto the internal and ballistic differences between 7.62 NATO and .308 Winchester.
And then there are the CHAMBER and leade / throat differences between the various platforms that fire these cartridges.
Aside from that, it warms my heart to see a young woman with taste in toys.
The 1 in 4 figure is computed by including things like “being wolf-whistled at” and “getting asked out on a date by someone unattractive and smelly” under unwanted sexual attention,
then redesignating unwanted sexual attention as sexual harassment,
then conflating sexual harassment with sexual assault,
then optionally lumping together sexual assault and rape for the most lurid figures.
bobby b needs to do some homework. The .223/5.56 bullet is approximately the same diameter as a .22 lr, but it is a much bigger bullet, much longer, jacketed (in military weapons) and has a much longer lethal range, out to several hundred yards.
The 7.62×51 NATO cartridge has more powder and is much more powerful than the Soviet 7.62×39 cartridge, and the bullets used in the NATO cartridge are usually about 10% + heavier, although there is some overlap.
The .22 lr is not to be despised. In a pistol, the bullet will penetrate about 6 layers of standard American dry wall. In the bad old days, gangsters like revolvers in .22 lr because they could be suppressed (noise) and didn’t spray spent casings around.
A .22 lr rifle is a serious self/home defense weapon out to about 100 yards.
Over at Buckeye Firerams blog, there is a study of the effectiveness of various pistol rounds. It turns out that any pistol round is an effective deterrent, meaning an attacker goes away:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
Quick, somebody, find me an anti-gun law that doesn’t ultimately benefit criminals.
So far, here in Australia, gun violence seems to have gone down, though some families go in for feuds. We had a buy-back scheme a few years ago. But we have never had a school-yard massacre, so our history may have a different bias. Aren’t the Swiss armed, but they still have very little violence?
(If you’re not a gun person, just skip this.)
Always true.
Difference in diameter is about the same as the diameter of one to two human hairs. “Approximately”?
I’m looking right now at a 40-grain .22 bullet – not a cartridge, a bullet – next to a 52-grain .223 bullet. “Much” bigger? Bigger, maybe, but my point stands – compared to the 165-grain .308 bullet, they both look fairly puny.
I think I mentioned that .223 has much more propellant.
My main point concerned bullet diameter. Non-gunners seem to think that AR-15’s shoot these great big bullets, when in reality most of my pistol rounds have a larger diameter. The gunner above carries a rifle chambered for a .308″ diameter, 165-grain bullet – which, in my mind, qualifies as “much” larger than a 52-grain .223″ bullet.
Given the differences you pointed out, your “homework” comment comes off as a little petty.
Agree. Remember that my point was that she’s carrying serious weaponry in her .308. (To non-gunners not completely bored out of this thread so far, .308″ = 7.62mm).
Agree. That’s why my last nine AR builds have used Wylde barrels. Best of both worlds.
“…there were countless demonstrations against the Vietnam war- Kent state was the last.” I believe that the protest at Kent State University was in response to US forces entering Cambodia, which had been announced a few days earlier.