Forum Replies Created
My 2 cents (background: I coach handgun/rifle/unarmed classes at a training school in the Seattle area).
You will definitely want a high quality, centerfire, full-sized/compact handgun with a few magazines. You will also want to have a proper holster for your gun as well as for your spare magazines, rigid belt for your holster, etc.. Then on top of that of course the ammo – I’m actually surprised that the round count is at 700 for a 4-day event, the 2-day handgun course have a 1000-round count and we reduced it to about 7-800 recently due to high ammo cost.
If you’re in the area, I think this would be a no-brainer, especially when you get to take the class with and meet other PP members. But factor in air/hotel cost, I think it’d be worth to compare the cost of taking classes locally vs. this. If I were you, I’d probably ask for more detail on things like: detailed curriculum, gear list, instructor/coach to student ratio for the range portion, and obviously the school’s philosophy and reviews.
There are 3 required criteria (and 4th being nice to have but not required in most states) for legally justified deadly force:
Ability: The attacker is physically able to carry out a deadly force attack – disparity of force.
Opportunity: The attacker is close enough to use their ability.
Jeopardy: The attacker is placing or is about to place a person’s life in danger by using ability and opportunity.
Preclusion: You have precluded all other options. (This is not a legal requirement in most states, but it’s the most sound thing to do.)
So to answer to your question is, does the attacker have the opportunity to use their ability? Another example that may be easier to think about is – if someone with a machete 50 yards away (or across a chain link fence, etc.) is yelling at you and says want to kill you, the attacker doesn’t have the opportunity yet. So that wouldn’t be a justifiable use of force.
Now back to your question – if the attacker is on the other side of the window, you will have to ask whether the attacker have the opportunity. Maybe not, if he has a knife, and the window is 7ft tall, for example. Maybe yes, even in the previous environment, your kid may be on the same side of the attacker even though you’re on the other side. So it’s really situational dependent.
Have people had to use their firearm thru glass? Yeah, I’d say car window is probably the most common case. Does it have an impact on the ballistic? Sure. Does it change how/whether or not you use deadly force, maybe.
Here’s another example:
The same attacker (the machete guy) now stand in front of a school bus full of kids, and then pulls out a remote saying he will blow him up. You’re still 50 yards away with your handgun. Would you shoot? 50 yards shot isn’t easy, there’s a good chance you may hit one of the kids in the bus.
That’s a decision each person will have to make, but let’s do this mental exercise:
* If you don’t engage, it’s foreseeable (based on attacker’s action) that the bomb will go off, and the kids will die.
* If you engage, and kill the attacker, and bomb didn’t go off, then that’s great.
* If you engage, and injured the attacker, and the bomb didn’t go off, but you injured/killed one of the kids. Bad, right? But the outcome is still better than if you choose not to engage. Your action have made the outcome better. The attacker would be charged for the murder of the kid, because the kid died during attacker’s act of committing a crime.
* If you engage, and shot the bomb and set it off. Worse, right? Well the outcome is no worse than if you choose not to engage.
I know you asked “how often” it happens, I don’t know the stats, but I also don’t think it matters, because in a deadly force situation I won’t/don’t want to be performing this kind of analysis. Though I will say that thinking about different situation ahead of time is beneficial, and of course training helps a ton.
Hope this helps.
Not paste but at least for injection it’s propylene glycol.
Ivermectin Injection is a clear, ready-to-use, sterile solution containing 1% ivermectin, 40% glycerol
formal, and propylene glycol, q.s. ad 100%.
If Chris isn’t busy enough to make all the videos for us, I’d have said, “Chris, nicely written.”
I work in IT, and have been working from home since Feb 2020, weeks before the company/state/federal mandate. Life have certainly changed since the beginning of the pandemic, as we gain more knowledge on things such as the risk (or lack thereof) of outdoor transmission, prophylactics/therapeutics, etc..
Me & my wife -both of us in our early 30s and choose to not get the vaccine at this time- excise a lot, both around the house on projects, but also go on overnight hikes, etc..
We mask -N95s- up when shopping, not because of mandate but by choice. “Paper cuts aren’t all that bad, but I’d still like try to avoid it.”
I also coach pistol and rifle shooting classes, of which wearing a mask is not only impractical, but also unnecessary due to the range circulating air extremely fast by pulling the air away from people and into the backstop (which is why you should drink a lot of water if you’re taking a class in indoor range).
So to summarize, there’s no one size fits all – it’s not “mask bad” or “mask good”, but situational dependent. But I don’t care about what others’ vaccination status is, or if they wear a mask or not, but focus on what I have in control, myself, and try to make an informed decision.
Interesting, thanks for sharing the paper.
1) In order for the vaccines to be selective they have to provide some sort of barrier to reproduction and/or transmission of the virus that the mutations would enable to be bypassed. As far as I can tell the mRNA/DNA vaccines provide little on no barrier thus little or no selective pressure in fact may even produce super spreaders (those spreading it without knowing they are sick, thus taking no precautions) thus actually facilitating transmission.
I’m not sure I agree with the argument of mRNA/DNA vaccines (which is coded for S1 protein) provide little or no barrier selective pressure. The fact that it will produce S1 protein means it will favor virus with more mutation in S1 because it may evade the antibody generated from the vaccine.
I do agree that vaccinated people, not know they are sick, can actually spread the virus (and virus with mutations in S1).
2) I believe the Chinese & Russian vaccines, as they are based on inactivated virus, would provide different selective pressures.
No argument here, agreed.
3) The largest portion of spreaders to this point are still likely to be those unvaccinated as they make up a larger percentage of those infected. Unvaccinated produce a much larger array of antibody targeting and children seem to produce fewer antibodies to N and S proteins and have elevated response to E and ORF6. See Antibody landscapes of SARS-Cov-2:
Agreed that unvaccinated people are still accounted for a significant % of spreading the virus, but I think that could change as the vaccination rate ramps up. I don’t know enough/haven’t finished reading the paper to comment on the second half of the statement.
I don’t know if the data is available, but I think it could be interesting to look at the rate of mutation in S1 across different country/state with different vaccination rate and see if there’s a correlation.
“But if we look at particularly in the S1 domain of spike, … [omit], up until September 2020, there’s like 3-ish mutation that have occurred, maybe 4-ish in this S1 domain, but when we start to see these variant of concern viruses, they all generally have multiple mutations in S1 that are kind of showing 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 mutations in S1 domain. And you can see this fairly rapid increase in the degree of divergence in S1 relative to the rest of the genome.
So this is kind of the slightly anecdotal pattern here where it looks like S1 domain of spike is mutating rapidly and that’s kind of all that we can say here.”
The video then continuous to discuss this topic and compares it with S2/M/N/etc. which is also worth watching.
Well, first, just because doing something “increases absorption 2.5x” doesn’t mean it magically makes 18mg taken into 45mg, it just makes your body to be able to more effectively absorb the 18mg taken.
Second, even if your math holds (it doesn’t), I failed to see why is 200mg/week, or 800mg/month of HCQ “safer” than 390mg/month of Ivermectin? (It also doesn’t proof the inverse – you just can’t compare the raw dose between two drugs to determine which is safer.)
Here’s a chart plotting VAERS report reporting “Menstrual disorder” from covid vaccine vs. non-covid vaccine over time.
A quick search on YouTube then sort by uploaded time is pretty easy to see her last appearing just a day ago.
Does it seem like she has less facial expression compare to, say, video from 6 months ago? I guess I can see some if I try, but then it may just be confirmation bias.