Screen shot 2013-01-23 at 9.39.01 PMIt’s not all that special… it’s “just” a gun blog. But Everyday No Days Off, or ENDO as it’s called in the community, is one of our favorites. It has a certain… attitude. We were reminded of that when we saw the image here linked at, with a hat tip to ENDO. The graphic came from a Chicago Tribune story or editorial (if you think you can tell the difference you haven’t been reading the Trib) that was intended to explain the arcana of gun-ban legislation to the paper’s dwindling cohort of readers.

Chicago-Tribune-Assault-Forward-Sling-MountThree stories at ENDO in the last few days that we particularly liked:

  • Another media cock-up: Time Magazine (what, they’re not dead? Could have fooled us) ran an infographic about all the terrible things an AR-15 could do… while displaying the distinctive silhouette of an A-47. Once again, while purporting to emit facts about guns. Every PS3-owning kid in America knows the difference, but none of Time’s “layers of editors and fact-checkers”. Screen shot 2013-01-23 at 9.30.29 PMThe Emperor’s junk is in the breeze.
  • And best of all, the completely NSFW recording of a 1990 public-access call-in show asking, “Should New Yorkers be allowed to have handguns?” (22 1/2 years later, the official answer still is, “only if they’re government functionaries, politically connected, or criminals — which is a bit threedundant). But the video is funny. Host Ken Sander is complacently swollen with liberal conventional wisdom, but you have to respect the way he takes the telephonic abuse, most of which questions his parentage or orientation, in his stride.

This entry was posted in Weapons Themselves, Weapons Website of the Week on by Hognose.

About Hognose

Former Special Forces 11B2S, later 18B, weapons man. (Also served in intelligence and operations jobs in SF).

2 thoughts on “Wednesday Weapons Website: Everyday No Days Off (ENDO)


I like the comment about how the bayonet is “dagger-like”. Actually, it’s typically a drop-point design (or maybe cruciform in some models of the SKS), but “dagger” is a more value-laden term.

They repeat the canard about how a flash suppressor can hide the shooter, as opposed to hiding the flash from the shooter.

But are they trying to make a baised point? Oh, heavens no.

But people will continue to accept what they hear or read from these ‘journalists’ with a credulity that exceeds the obvious evidence. The Murray Gell-Mann Effect applies (toward the end of the piece):

Hognose Post author

Indeed. Crichton was a very great loss. I am rereading his Timeline at present (along with 20-odd other books open here and there in Hog Manor, of course). The science in that one is dodgy — although not quite so bad as the science in Micro.

I have long made the similar observation that people get outraged when journalists cover something the person knows well, because the journo generally makes a complete dog’s breakfast of it. But they accept what journos write about other fields. Having multiple interests and having had several careers, I noticed that journalists botched everything about the military, guns, aviation, and biology. Through friends I know they are full of fail when they address economics, medicine, or manufacturing. Really, what’s left?

I am blessed with a local paper that covers local news well. (It’s the killer app for journalism, more of them should try it). However, the reporters tend to be young things who aim to change the world, and they want to insert their opinions — based on the two pools of quicksand that are passion and college — into everything. In the age of the net, opinion is a debased currency and facts are gold.