Sunday, September 28, 2014

Gun Sense and Idiocy in the ballot poll

How can one gun-control\group be so wrong in so many ways?

A gun-control group calling itself gunsensevoter.org has presented a "poll", intended to be sent to legislators, asking them to explain their political opinions on "Gun Control".  While obviously biased, it's worthwhile to examine the questions they are asking.

From this article, here are the questions they are asking (some questions are edited for brevity .. go to the original article for details):

(1) (General statement on Gun Control)   "Do you agree: we can both do more to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and protect the rights of responsible, law-abiding people?"

[Wow!  What an all-encompassing question! Wonder what the author intends to achieve this goal? What's this "we" word? And by the way, what are you doing to protect the rights of responsible, law-abiding people?  It sounds as you want to take guns out of their hands, too.]

(2)  (Gun Show Loophole)  Background Checks ; Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Dangerous People
(Questions whether firearms transfers should not ALL be subject to background checks)

[No definition of terms. "ALL"? Would impose draconian solutions, and registration would be necessary to enforce]

(3) (Restraining orders) Federal law prohibits anyone from having firearms if they have been convicted of abusing their spouses, or if they are the subjects of active restraining orders taken out by their spouses, but not if they have been convicted of stalking or have been convicted of abusing their dating partners. The share of intimate partner violence that occurs in dating relationships has been steadily growing—and as of 2008, more domestic violence homicides were committed by dating partners than by spouses.
 Do you support a law that would prohibit gun possession by  by convicted stalkers and people convicted of—or, who after due process, are actively restrained from— abusing a dating partner?

[The problem is that restraining orders can be filed without a court order.  There is no opportunity for the  'abuser' to protest the court order,or to present the 'other side' of the argument.   This is just another excuse to exercuze your gun-control agenda.]

(4) (Online websites which sell guns without background checks): Do you support legislation that would level the playing field by treating sites like Armslist as licensed gun brokers, and require a
background check every time someone buys a gun through one of these sites?

[I don't know the rules here, but I know that responsible owners generally tend to check out their buyers before the complete a deal.  Not a question without  merit.  However, it considers all transfers as equivalent,]

(5) Background checks; keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. (NICS doesn't have all records of mental patients)  Do you support an increase in congressional funding for the federal grant programs that help states submit their records?

[Again, not a question entirely without merit.  Except .. who will guard the guardians?  How are we to know that the people who are charged with diagnosing their patients are not giving in to their private "gun control at all costs" agenda?  Even the Center for Disease Control has been  found 'guilty' of advancing a private agenda, and were prohibited from examining the question for decades because their bias was so great that they were professionally unable to omit their bias from their conclusions. ]

(6) (Gun trafficking,  straw purchases and stolen guns)  People listed on the federal government’s terror watch lists are prohibited from boarding airplanes—but current federal law does
not bar them from buying guns or explosives.   Indeed, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office, people on terror watch lists bought firearms or explosives from licensed dealers 1,321 times between 2004 and 2010.  Do you support legislation --- drafted by the George W Bush Administration --- that would close this “terror gap” by giving the FBI the discretion to block these people from buying guns?

[Is this an issue?  I thought you had to present identification and undergo a background check before buying explosives.  Is this equivalent to purchasing a firearm?  What happened to NICS?]

(7) (More about gun trafficking, straw purchases, and stolen guns)   Under current law, it is difficult to prosecute and convict people suspected of of trafficking illegal guns because the penalties for trafficking are small and difficult to prove.   In fact, the current penalty for gun trafficking is the same as for trafficking chickens across state lines.  Do you support legislation that would create a strong federal gun trafficking statute with serious penalties? 

[This sounds like hyperbole bullshit..  I don't believe it.]

(8) (High Capacity Magazines) In many mass shootings, including the 2011 shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, AZ, bystanders have been able to subdue perpetrators of mass shootings when the shooters stop to reload. Research from Virginia showed that the federal limit on high-capacity magazines in effect from 1994 to 2004 led to a 50% reduction in criminals being armed with high-capacity magazines— and when the law expired, the share of crime guns with such magazines doubled.   Several states have enacted limits on the size of ammunition magazines. Do you support limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines?

[They lulled us into slumber with their soft-ball questions, and now they're throwing the fast-ball questions at us.  Do you support limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines?"  Why should anyone?  Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that (a) a reload is only a minor inconvenience, and (b) magazine capacity has never been an issue in the kind of 'mass shootings' which this article purports to address.  It's just an attack on legal firearms owners.]

(9) (Child Safety) Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have child access prevention laws, which allow criminal charges for adult gun owners who fail to store their guns safely and keep them out of the reach of children. Do you support laws that allow a prosecutor to bring charges if a gun owner stores a firearm negligently, a minor accesses the gun, and harm results?

[One wonders who is a responsible gun owner.  Most of us are responsible.  Adding felony penalties when your child foxes your gun safe after he has killed you  (Adam Lanza) seems unproductive.] 

(10) (National Concealed Carry Mandate)   Some in Congress have proposed “national concealed carry reciprocity” legislation, which would create a new federal mandate forcing every state to recognize concealed carry permits from every other state, no matter how lax a state’s laws are. Do you oppose national concealed carry reciprocity, which would overturn state public safety laws and replace them with a lowest-common denominator standard?

[This is reminiscent of the Shalleen Allen situation, where a legal gun in one state is a felony just across the border.  It has recently been reconciled with no serious penalties to the 'perpetrator', because (in this case) New Jersey was embarrassed by their draconian "no credit for being an honest person" gun laws.  The question about "Lax gun Laws" is hyperbole at best]

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

"HANDS": An update on dermatology *Grenz Ray Therapy*

If you're not interested in the pansy-ass whining of a guy who has suffered from Psiorisis for years, move along.  We won't think any the less of you.  For those few remaining, you know may be aware that skin disease is a painful and sometimes a debilitating disease.

Okay, so it's not on a par with a stroke, or Lung Cancer. I began trying to deal with scaling, skin peeling away leaving bloody sub-dermis and large flaps of skin dangling from my hands in 2008 when my beloved SWMBO-lady was diagnosed with Phase 4 Lung cancer.  I was too embarrassed to mewl about my petty problems while she was dying, and so while I did mention it from time to time,  I tried to shut up except here in the privacy of my own personal "Selfie".

Police are the true "Coalition To Stop Gun Violence"

Why do we, as Civilians, feel obliged to carry guns?   Don't we trust the Police to protect us?

Generally speaking, no.   We do not.  We expect to be the only innocent armed person at the scene for a significant period of time.  The saying (and I've used it myself) is "When Seconds Count, The Police Are Just Minutes Away".

Yes, that's true if they are not at the scene when "gun violence" begins.   Travel time accounts for most of  the "Response Time" which allows gun violence to continue ... and for the individual which the police refer to as an ACTIVE SHOOTER to claim more victims.

But consider the best case scenario: what if they ARE at the scene?   Then it may take them more minutes to engage the shooter.  Why?

Remember Columbine?

Sunday, September 21, 2014

History of IPSC/USPSA: The Divisions

According to the 2014 USPSA Handgun Rule Book (February, 2014), there are 6 Divisions in USPSA competition, which are defined by the characteristics.  These divisions are extremely varied in their permissions and their limitations.  The following is a summary of the six divisions, which may be useful to people who are interested in competing in USPSA matches but are not familiar with the Division definitions:

*(I'm posting this because I often teach New Shooters who are not familiar with the choices available to them when the register in a mach in a specific division.  The problem is that they have often been advised to compete in "Production Division" even though they might be self-imposing a competitive handicap by their choice.  Also, it seems that some 'experienced' competitors in USPSA are not completely aware of the consequences of their choice.
Not that I care,  As long as they are showing up for matches, they are enjoying themselves.   Sometimes, though, if I am NOT informing them of the competitive consequences of their choices, I am not fulfilling my obligation to inform them.)

Why IPSC can't use METRIC targets in Europe

The Goofy and Cool Shooting Targets Used by the World's Armies | WIRED:
(By Margaret Rhodes - August 04, 2014)
Years ago, on a cold, dark morning outside of Munich, Herlinde Koelbl noticed a shooting target that had been battered with bullet holes. “In a way, you could see death and aggression and power in it,” she remembers. But Koelbl, a professional photographer, couldn’t help but notice the eerily beautiful way the early morning sun filtered through the punctures. She snapped a photograph.
 That image was never published, but it stayed in the back of Koelbl’s mind. Eventually, it inspired her new series and recent book Targets. Over the course of six years, Koelbl traveled to 30 countries and took thousands of photographs of shooting targets used during military training. Seen as a series, the images are a fascinating and somewhat unsettling window into how militaries around the world use visuals to groom their soldiers for battle.


One of the most INTERESTING things about IPSC is the way a couple of years ago (okay, more than that), when the sport of Practical Pistol Shooting became a worldwide interest, it sort of ... morphed.

The thing is, as soon as this became an International Sport, European (and other) countries began to complain the they couldn't practice it in their home countries.

The fact is: some countries had laws which prevented people from shooting at "humanoid" or "Human Shaped" targets.  And that was that.

There was also the expected national rules which prohibited their subjects from owning "powerful semi-automatic firearms with high-capacity magazines", but there were work-arounds for that.

Examples: Japanese participants practice with paint-guns and air-soft guns; Canadians practice with diminished-capacity guns; British practiced with God-Knows What, but these and other subjects had one thing in common ... they stored their REAL "competition" guns in neighboring, more enlightened countries, and only used them in those countries where the national gun regulations permitted more freedom.

But one thing was universally clear:  "IPSC teaches people how to kill people!"

So they couldn't use the classic .. now called the "Metric" target.  Instead they now use the stop-sign ... now called the "Classic" target.

The first (Metric) target is roughly rectangular (about 3' tall x 2' wide), with a 4" x 4" tab centered on the top, which critics have chose  to call "A Human Head", which makes the target "Humanoid" in nature.


Hence the accusation that "IPSC is teaching people to kill people".  Which is clearly an evaluation which is in the mind of the beholder.  We're shooting Cardboard, folks.  And .. okay .... sometimes we shoot at steel targets, too.

However, people in Europe go right on shooting targets which are not only 'reminiscent' of humans, but are clear depictions of humans.

At this time, no recent Internet searches complain about targets which are obviously intended to teach people how to kill people.

"People Targets", Shooting, and the Olympics:
However, it is worth considering that the singular issue of "humanoid targets", which has caused a schism in the noble sport of Practical Pistol Shooting, has proliferated.  People continue to want to shoot at targets that look like people, and although this issue has been the reason why IPSC competition was rejected as the candidate for International Olympics several years ago, (2005)  with some comments from shooters, which seemed to go nowhere, it seems odd that .. well, people will be people.  And that they want to shoot at targets that look like people even though the International Olympics Commission considers this to be .. TERRIBLE!

Never mind the facts: We Deal In Feelings, Friend! 
Ignore that fact that there are several shooting sports gladly accepted by the IOC:  Skiing and Shooting; Small-bore target shooting (both pistol and rifle) are accepted without comment.  Trap and Skeet (shotgun shooting at flying targets)?  No problem.  Air Rifle?  The same skill sets, except using 'reduced power ammunition"?  Fine! Javelin?  Teaching people to throw spears at people?  No problem.

So why not IPSC competition?

Because it is teaching people to shoot people.  Bad.  So the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) introduce a new target, which they call the CLASSIC target:



Notice it doesn't look anything at ALL like a person.

Well, but yes it does. If you use your imagination ...  it MAY define the human torso, with the A-zone in the approximate area of the heart/lungs/spine, the "C-zone" as the lungs and other semi-vital organs, and the D-zone as "non-fatal but otherwise sometimes debilitating and painful hits, maybe".

The good news is there is not "Upper A/B-Zone" area, which would define a brain/spine hit on a human.

And so, the IOC is unlikely to accept this target, either even if IPSC is willing to accept a minimal position as a "Demonstrations Sport" at the Olympics.


Saturday, September 20, 2014

NEWS OF THE WORLD: Scotland still in UK!

[yawn!]

It has come to my attention that Scotland decided to NOT deprive itself of UK Membership.

Gee .. if this had been an "OPTION" 230 years ago, imagine how much simpler life could have been.  Americans and British both could have saved lives, and saved themselves the 'bother' of 2 wars (1775 & 1812) ... and Dolly Madison wouldn't have had to risk her life to save her picture.

And BTW ... isn't it about time we talk Reparations?

Maybe not.  As long as the Scots are willing to forgive the Civil Rights deprivations of William Wallace, I guess I can forgive the Sassanach.

And there's that whole Haggis thing ... yech!  Maybe it is too soon to loose the Scots upon the world.

BTW .. my Paternal Grandmonther's maiden name was Dildine (Irish), and my maternal Grandmother's maiden name was Cruikshank (Scots).

They married  Germans, and Englishmen  ... respectively.

Sometimes it's difficult to carry on generational wars, when your wimmin insist on consorting with the enemy.
Go figure.

Besides, the English have at least one thing to their credit:  They're Not French!

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Dreams From My Father

Public statements by President Barack Obama:

This will be the most transparent administration in history.

If  you like your health care plan, you can keep it!
(Repetitive admonitions here ... "pants on fire!"; "... as clear as we needed it to be ...")

"I am not going to take your guns away.  That just ain't true."
video




I'm not happy with confronting the president of my nation.

But when he's all about "Dreams", and not about "Truth", I lose respect for him.



"Nobody wants to take your guns away", according to the Liar In Chief

Obama renews call for gun control on anniversary of Navy Yard shooting | TheHill:
By Justin Sink - 09/16/14 10:46 AM EDT

Our President renews his push for "Gun Control" and "Common Sense".  His statements cause most legal firearms owners to assume that he conflates both legal and illegal firearms owners as people who are inclined to commit 'atrocities", and that efforts to restrict firearms possession as a step toward "rejecting atrocities".  Words are more powerful than guns, when you're The President.
President Obama called on Americans to renew the push for gun-control legislation in a statement Tuesday marking the one-year anniversary of the shooting at the Washington Navy Yard. "One year ago, 12 Americans went to work to protect and strengthen the country they loved," Obama said. "Today, we must do the same — rejecting atrocities like these as the new normal and renewing our call for common-sense reforms that respect our traditions while reducing the gun violence that shatters too many American families every day."

But  be assured, nobody is trying to take your guns away.  If the President seems to be working toward extreme 'gun control measures' (read: confiscation), it's only because gun owners are "fearful" .. otherwise they wouldn't be so extreme in defense of their 2nd Amendment Rights.

And congressmen who are more concerned with the Constitution than their Presidential leadership WILL be punished!

The Pathway To Violence.

The .. 'etymology' of "Mass Shooters" is bizarre, frightening, But perhaps not beyond understanding.

 One author attempts to explore the phenomenon.  Whether he is successful is subject to your interpretation.

But one thing is clear ... if anyone offers a way to predict mass murderers, it bears closer examination.

Everything We Think We Know About Mass Shooters Is Wrong - Esquire:
By  on September 16, 2014

Mass shootings are not unstoppable, and there are people trying to stop them. They are not even inexplicable, because every time Trunk hears of one he understands why it happened and who did it. We have come to believe that mass shooters can't be stopped because we never know who they are until they make themselves known. But Trunk was almost one of them once. He was a heartbeat away. And what he understands is that shooters want to be known, not through the infamy of a massacre, but before they have to go through with it. They want to be known as much as he, years later, wants to remain unknown, walking to the bus stop in the rain.


Want to win a gunfight? Train under pressure

Want to win a gunfight? Train under pressure:
September 16, 2014:
Psychological in Nature Pressure is a compelling sense of urgency that forces you out of a normal mode of operating.
 Pressure puts you into a higher state of arousal. It’s psychological. Pressure changes your mental state and forces you to deal with challenge over arousal, fear, doubt, and other emotions. If you want to reach higher levels of competency and skill, learn to stay calm in dangerous situations; make good decisions while under duress.
You absolutely have to have pressure on a regular basis and learn to thrive under it. Pressure is created by making a test of your skill, your will, and your self-image — a test that you care about and that matters to you. It forces you to question your abilities, skills, and your self-confidence.
 There should be risk of failure and reward built into this test. It can be light, moderate or heavy; depending on what level of training you are at. Above all, it must be appropriate to the skill level of the participants and they must be agreeable to the test. If they don’t want to do it or complain about it all the time, it won’t work out too well.
This post by Ron Avery (one of my personal heroes of Shooting Excellence) provides some valuable insight into the process of developing excellent shooting skills.

My emphasis is on Competition, but in fact this training technique is apparently positioned in the "Self Defense" area.

Pressure:

One of the primary reasons why I became involved in IPSC competition was that .... well, I bought a gun.
I own several guns, but this was a 1911 style pistol which I though would allow me to be 'competitive'    But I had no idea how well I would compare with other people, so I got into USPSA just so I could learn if I was as good as I thought I was.

I was not as good as I thought I was.  I'm better, now, but still not really very good.

The thing is, when you are shooting under pressure, the whole shooting thingie comes down to one thing:

You're not prepared When Things Go Wrong.

I've been competing for over 20 years now (okay, 30 years ... but who's counting?) and the one think I've learned is that something ALWAYS goes wrong.  Your individual performance doesn't depend on how accurately you can shoot, nor how quick you are on the draw.  It depends on how you react when the situation goes into the crapper.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

USPSA’s accountant resigns over un-accounted for expenditures | Gun Nuts Media

For people who didn't happen to see the news in Area 6 website or or Caleb's "GUN NUTS" website,
this is provided as a means of circulating information of interest to USPSA members.
The Geek


USPSA’s accountant resigns over un-accounted for expenditures | Gun Nuts Media: NEWS USPSA’s accountant resigns over un-accounted for expenditures
by Caleb September 17, 2014
 The following was provided to me by an anonymous source, and has since then been posted on the Area 6 FB page as well as other forums. USPSA’s accountant resigned from USPSA, with an effective final day of September 30th because corporate funds were not being properly accounted for. Here is the entire text of her resignation letter:

Monday, September 15, 2014