Brits vs Americans: who is the most violent, how does gun ownership affect the respective cultures?

There's an interesting dialogue going on between Kevin Bacon at "The Smallest Majority" and a Scotsman named James at "SCOT goes POP!" about the British policy of severely restricting the private ownership of firearms.

Essentially, Bacon (the American) is an adherent of the philosophy of "More Guns, Less Crime" (as advocated by John Lotte, Jr). He really believes that the individual citizen should be "allowed" to protect himself/herself and his/her family and property.

But James (the Scot) believes that the British policy and law preventing Britains from owning firearms reduces the number of "gun deaths" in his country, and that's all that matters. Nothing in the Scot's "Why 'being right' isn't good enough for them - a cut-out-and-keep guide article (which includes his "ten question challenge" ... and first you may care to read James' follow-up article "The smallest minority : the individual, alone and abandoned") discusses either the right or the responsibility of a person to self-defense ... the entire point is to elucidate all the BAD ways that private firearms ownership can affect society.

Yep. Lots of ways that guns can be bad for people, but not a single suggestion that owning a weapon can prevent predation on innocents. James is determined to make the point that "Guns Are BAD!", and (one supposes) that Only Bad People Have Guns.

I have presented many ways in which the encroaching Socialism of British Governmental Policy have made the British (including Scots and Irish) seem to move Brits from the classifications of "citizens" to "subjects" ... subject to the arbitrary whims of their government. And if I seem to be excessively vituperative today it may just be on account of the way which our current Federal Administration seems determined to follow the European (and British) example in redefining our culture, and eliminating our freedoms in preference to a 'Strong Central Government'.

So perhaps it is not entirely fair for me to negatively compare the British Culture with the American Culture, especially in terms of individual freedoms. After all, are we so far away from finding ourselves equally subject to the unilateral determination of our Federal system, especially considering the huge number of unelected "Czars" who are sneaking their way into the American decision-making process?

One only needs to look at the ATF, who last week redefined the legal essentials of Federal Control of "transfer of firearms" (which requires ATF permission) from "ownership" of firearms to "possession of firearms", to understand how easily this creeping control can administratively be inserted into our day-to-day exercise of our Constitutional freedoms.

Yes, I had to comment on James' article. The daily lives and preferences of common people may soon mean less than a pile of beans to the American Czars, but I can only speak to the America of Today -- June of 2010 -- and how I hope it will continue rather than the way I fear it may become.

So here is the extended comment I made to James' article, which is probably incomprehensible unless you have read his original comment and understand the context.

Note that this is slightly longer than the version actually posted. The website has a 4MB (4096-character) limit on the comment length, and as frequent readers probably realize it is almost impossible for me to complete a though under these restrictions. Consequently, I have had to drastically edit my final accepted version in the actual comments section of James' blog.

I trust I have retained the flavor, which I'm afraid is a bit ... dismissive ... of the current British culture and entirely too laudatory of American culture.

I'm a throw-back who believes in the sanctity of the home, the rights of a citizen, and the hominem that "good fences make good neighbors".

I can't stop myself from jumping into the argument, because my opinion is that if there is a conflict between a private person and an 'aggressor', chances are that the bad-guy has a weapon of some kind and has also in some manner acting as a predator stalking a victim. In that scenario, the 'victim' should be allowed to protect himself/herself with whatever weapon seems most effective.

And the most effective defense weapon is a firearm, especially given that (a) the "victim" is most likely someone who is definitively unable to put up a good defense based on training, weapons at hand, situational awareness, and body mass; and (b) the aggressor is likely to have a weapon, more aggressive (and probably stronger) than his chosen victim, and has the advantage of surprise.

Read the original article, compare the comments which I made to James' article to that which is here presented: the greatest difference between the two versions (besides length of the comment) is a couple of embedded links providing background and substantiation of the comments.

"[J]aw-dropping, logic-defying belief" is it?

Well, I think you have the right phrase there. The question is, whose jaw is dropping?

It may be both your jaw and mine having difficulty maintaining equilibrium considering the contradictory claims of opinion being tossed about here.

James, your ten-point questionnaire would have more believability if you would do the research and find the answers to the questions you pose.

I once had an extended discussion with a British policeman who described himself as the "ASBO Monger". He was proud of the number of Anti-Social Behavior Orders he had handed out. When I asked why he didn't just arrest the Bad Boys (Yobs) on the first offense ... no matter how egregious their behavior, he seemed confused. That just wasn't they way they did things over there.

The thing is, my "ASBO Monger" friend was determined to make the case (as you did) that Britain has fewer firearms-related deaths than does America.

Well, duh. Americans are allowed to protect their persons, their property, and their families. Brits are not.

That doesn't mean that Britain has fewer assaults; they don't, they have more. The point you consider significant is that the assaults are less likely to result in a death.

Instead, the home-owner is likely subject to a bad beating, or a stabbing, because the aggressor (the ASBO-burdened YOB) has a weapon like a knife and a club, and the victim has no weapon at all. And the YOB has a plan, which is to kick ass until the victim is a bloody mess on the floor.

YOBs don't HAVE to kill anybody to have their way, although it doesn't much bother them if they do.

As a Consequence, the British Government has decided to resolve the situation by ... making it illegal for people to have knives. That's good, clear thinking.

And if a British subject (Y'all aren't "citizens" any more, did you notice that?) chooses to defend himself, his home and his family, he is MORE likely than the aggressor to spend serious jail-time than the YOU who attacked him. Have you looked at the statistics?

Compare "Deaths by firearms" with "violent assaults" in Britain vs America. I have. I found it meaningful. But I won't give the citations, the statistics, the references. You chose to make your point without references, you have the onus of proving your point.

Americans don't typically treat their YOBs gently. We have them, but the resolution is usually Darwinian

As you can see, especially from the example of "the tragic case of Andrew de Vries", the response to crime in America is much more inclined to the protection of the rights of the victim, than to the rights of the guilty. Mr de Vries was trespassing and acting in an aggressive and intrusive manner. Most folks here-abouts have a more respectful manner ... or they are considered a bad health risk and treated appropriately.

The cultural dissonance is that you treat it as a tragedy which should/could have been avoided given a more understanding attitude on the part of the home-owner.

We treated it as a tragedy which should/could have been avoided given a more understanding attitude on the part of the aggressor.

We don't expect nice people to climb over our fence and bang on our back door in the middle of the night. This is the "Darwinian Solution" which I mentioned earlier. Nice people bang on the front door and wait until they are noticed. Fences are to keep good people out; a gun is used to deal with not-good people. Folks who don't recognize the boundary of acceptable behavior are not generally considered to be trying very hard to meet to our standards of "good people who are only asking for help."

Now, I'm sure you won't acknowledge the legitimacy of "The Castle Defense". Heck, you don't even spell it right. "Defence"? Who the heck taught you to spell ... or, more importantly, to act? Certainly people like the ASBO Monger aren't teaching you to act. Instead, they are teaching your youths that if they are aggressive and rude, and step on toes everywhere they go, nothing particularly bad will happen to the. Bad thing to be teaching your children. Do you start out to be idiots? No, you are training yourselves that way

Not a good idea. Americans don't always do a much better job of bringing up our children, but at least we haven't institutionalized the idea of raising idiots.

(I'm not going to get into politics, but just to comment -- I have to admit that neither side of the Atlantic has a monopoly of electing Idiots to public office, and I'm real sorry about that. I mean that sincerely.)

So, you think you have a better culture than do Americans, because you have fewer "gun deaths".

Is that per-capita, or per assault?

Are your children more often murdered for their cell-phones, or for their sneakers than ours?

That is perhaps a better measure of the deadliness, and the violence, of our respective societies.

And that is my "One-Point List of Questions" may perhaps better go "to the heart of the credibility of any conclusions that could be drawn from the study".

Bottom line, studies and conclusions are based on statistics. You can tweak statistics to suit any conclusion you like best.

I don't like your conclusion, I don't think you have proved it, and I challenge you to answer your own questions.

.

ASBO Revisited

Back in mid-august of 2007, I wrote an article about "ASBO", which is shorthand for the "Anti-Social Behavior Order" which The Brits hand out like parking citations rather than to arrest hooligans for -- well -- hooliganism.

The Brits call hooligans "YOBs". It's "Boy" spelled backward, and generally refers to "a thuggish young male".

It's suppose to be a form of a social contract. The police identify a "Young Boy Behaving Badly", speak to him firmly so he supposedly (a) knows what part of his behavior is unacceptable, and why it is unacceptable; (b) draw up a document in which the YOB promises to never never act badly in that specific way again; and (c) if the YOB once again is found to behave badly in exactly the same way, he is subject to criminal penalties.

My thesis is that if the YOB misbehaves in a manner which is not legal, he should be subject to punishment for a criminal action the first time. This may not change his mind, but at least it gets him off the streets for a while. It serves the further purpose of suggesting to his victims that if they are the object of his mis-behavior, the police will respond with alacrity.

The problem with ASBOs is that the victims feel -- and with good reason -- that their demand for equal protection under the law is NOT taken seriously.

However, the way it works is that the YOBs get an ASBO each and every time they act out, and they routinely ignore them. And the police ignore the repeated cycle of lawlessness.

In point of fact, my original article served to initiate a dialogue with a British citizen who claimed that he was a police officer and was proud to be one of the most prolific writers of ASBOs.

My thought was that, if his area of responsibility was so inundated by YOBs, the public might be better served if the police took a few of the off the streets, instead of merely giving them a stern talking-to and accepting their solemn promise to go and sin no more. The YOBs are demonstrably without honor, or any concept of honor, by definition.

The resulting exchange of email between myself and "The ABSO-Monger" continued for a couple of days. The most telling contribution was from the research I did, which found a statement from the Britsh Home Office that "ABSOs Work".

In fact, I can point to a comment by "The ABSO-Monger" in which he categorically states:

No one is a bigger fan of ASBOs than street cops. They know that they work. I have put quite a few wrong ‘uns in jail through ASBOs who were otherwise untouchable by the criminal justice system. Believe me – if you had something similar in the States you’d like them too. (In fact I’m surprised you don’t have something similar.

(See also: "David The ASBOmonger on Gun Control".)

No one is a bigger fan of ASBOs than street cops.

This statement may not be absolutely correct. If anyone is a bigger fan of ASBOs that street cops, it must be the YOBs. They just love it ... it's a license to steal! Also bully, harass, mug, intimidate, rob, maim, mutilate and drive their victims to a dispair that the only relief is suicide. (I'll get to that in a minute.)

Certainly the honest British citizen is no fan of ASBOs.

Case in point:
Thanks to Kevin at The Smallest Minority.
In his October 2, 2009, article ("Get Out. Get Out NOW"), Kevin links to the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington.

Fiona Pilkington had two "seriously disabled" children. The local YOBs chose these children, their mother and their home, to be the object of their continued abuse and assault. Pikington complained to the police ... 33 times ... that she and her family were being assaulted by rock-throwing children sometimes as young as 10 years old. Their home was literally surrounded by gangs; her children pummeled by thrown rocks as they biked home from school.

The police responded sporadically, never arresting anyone, never charging anyone. One time when a policeman was spotted leaving the Pilkington home, her house was surrounded by rock-throwing children; one parent even challenged her on her doorstep.

During the last of the seven years during which this harassment went on, Pilkington made 13 calls to police asking for help. They never responded. Finally, in 2007, Pilkington loaded her severely disabled 18-year-old daughter in her car, drove to an isolated spot, poured petrol (gasoline) in her car and torched it while mother and daughter were inside the car. Their bodies were identified by DNA.

The continued assaults on the Pilkington family lasted seven years; it must have become a tradition, almost a 'cultural climate' in the neighborhood to abuse the family. The neighbors knew about it, and they didn't do a thing to stop it.

The police knew about it, and they didn't do a thing to stop it.

Her MP, David Tredinnick, knew about it, and didn't do a thing to stop it.

During the Coroner's Inquiry subsequent to the death of Mrs. Pilkington and her daughter, Francecca, questions were asked of the police:

On the second day of the inquest, Olivia Davison, the assistant deputy coroner for Rutland and North Leicestershire, repeatedly asked why

“common sense and basic old-fashioned policing” had not identified the family as extremely vulnerable. She said that their human rights were being breached because they were victims of a campaign at their home in the village of Barwell, Leicestershire.

During four hours of intense questioning from the coroner, Chris Tew, then the acting Chief Constable of Leicestershire, admitted that his force had failed to recognise that the family’s 33 pleas for help were all linked. The force classified the offences as antisocial behaviour rather than as a crime. [emphasis added] He said that things had changed in the force and by the end of this year 2,000 officers would have been trained to spot vulnerable people who were either physically or mentally disabled.

"The force classified the offences as antisocial behaviour rather than as a crime."

Let's go back to an earlier statement by David the ABSO-Monger:

No one is a bigger fan of ASBOs than street cops. They know that they work.

No, ABSOs do not work. The street cops like ABSOs because they remove responsibility from the street cops to make the hard decisions to actually arrest someone.

When people surrounded the home and broke windows, why wasn't someone arrested?

When children pelted the Pilkington son with rocks as he rode his bicycle home, why wasn't someone arrested?

Why were a vulnerable mother and her vulnerable children driven to the most painful suicide of all? Could it be because they despaired of ever receiving protection from the mob which the police are presumed to offer to their most vulnerable people?

Certainly, British law allows no options for them to protect themselves. Still, would they not be better off in prison because they defended themselves against a mob rather than allowing themselves to be driven to a horrible suicide? Can't a civilized nation even protect its citizens from such an extreme 'solution'?

The Answers:
Britain is no longer a civilized nation.

British citizens no longer exist; the remnant are British Subjects, who cannot even depend on honest Imperialism to enforce a minimal semblance of civilization ... of humanity.


Two years ago I used the British National Health System as a mechanism to define a descent from civilization to Socialism ... which has failed in every attempt recorded by history.

I was dismissive of British Socialism, naively assuming that such drastic measures would never become a measure to which Americans would never resort.

Today, I sadly admit that Americans seem as liable to accept draconian Governmental measures to resolve undefined "problems" as were the Brits. Considering our current one-sided debates, I despair of the ability of Americans to resist the temptation to allow our country to descent into "Nanny-Statism", resulting in the undermining of support for the common citizen.

Anti-Social Behavior Orders - coming soon to an American State near you!
---------------------------------------
UPDATE: 08-OCT-2009: "The whole thing is madness."
Kevin at "The Smallest Minority" has an article which is the perfect followup on this. Read it here.

Wouldn't you feel safer with a gun?

The title of this article is evocative of the recent dialogue between the "ASBO-Monger" in England and myself. Unfortunately, I had not the wit nor the wisdom to put the question so succinctly.

Fortunately, someone else did. And surprisingly, that person was a British contributer to the Times Online, in an article by the same name.

Author Richard Munday, in making his case that "British Attitudes are Supercilious and Misguided", writes:

Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?

The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

After a rousing condemnation of British confiscatory gun laws, backed by both statistics and anecdotal evidence, he concludes:

As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.

I know, you're thinking "Hey, we're in America -- home of the Second Amendment. We are SOOOOoooo superior to those Socialist Wimps in Britain.

Not so.

Remember, Virginia Tech was recent history.

At least one Lady in Oregon is taking on the Gun Control Crowd with all the verve and energy of a Hollywood Action film ... but with the discretion of a hothouse flower:

High School Teacher Acquires Lawyer to Challenge Gun Policy

(Medford, Oregon - September 10, 2007 on OregonLive.com)

MEDFORD -- A high school teacher in southern Oregon plans to challenge a school district policy that prevents her from carrying a gun on school grounds.

Portland lawyer Jim Leuenberger said in an e-mail message to the Mail Tribune newspaper that he will ask a Jackson County judge to declare the Medford School District's policy "illegal and void" for holders of concealed handgun licenses.

"There is a state statute that prohibits local governments -- including school boards -- from restricting possession of firearms by concealed firearm permit holders," Leuenberger said.

Leuenberger said the teacher wishes to remain anonymous, and he will list her name as "Jane Doe" in the complaint. When contacted by the Mail Tribune, the teacher said she wants anonymity because she fears for her and her daughter's safety.

Leuenberger said the woman has divorced her husband and obtained a restraining order against him.

What's the difference between the Brit who postulates that gun control leads to more, not fewer victims as a result of causing the average citizen to protect himself with a firearm, and an Oregon woman who demands the right to carry a gun for self-protection even on the school grounds?

There is effectively no difference. Both recognize that an unarmed citizen is a victim, when the society in which they live is violent.

Both recognize that the right to self-protection is not an issue which can legitimately be restricted by the government ... local, regional or national.

But there is one significant difference.

In Britain, nobody is legally allowed to carry a firearm anywhere, at any time, for any reason.

In America, any law-abiding, sane adult is allowed to carry a firearm almost anywhere at almost anytime, except .... sometimes.

The 'sometimes' clause is the kernel of the difference, and we have only recently seen a national disaster in the case of the Virginia Tech massacre.

This tragic event may yet prove to be the touchstone which defines the consequences of "gun-free zones" in America. We saw it in 1999, at the Columbine school shooting, but we effectively dismissed it as an aberration rather than as a trend. As the years passed, we saw more similar situations characterized by "Gun Free Zone" schools where many innocents were murdered in a shooting spree by a "deranged person". Yet we still declined to address the problem.

We either rid our society of "Gun Free Zones", or we learned to identify and control madmen.

Both solutions were either unappealing or impossible, so we chose a third alternative: rid ourselves of guns. Britain did this to a greater degree, but our American politicians (see: California) took whatever surreptitious measures they could to accomplish the same effect.

The result: no protection to the huge pool of victims, because it is STILL illegal to carry a defensive firearm in an American schoolyard, no matter who you are or how thoroughly you have been vetted.

And children are still being murdered in schoolyards by madmen.

This dreadful trend will continue until our political leaders recognize and acknowledge that armed, responsible individuals are the only means of defense in this kind of situation.

Given the overwhelming evidence that our political leaders are loath to accept this solution, we will continue to lose our "best and brightest" to random violent acts by madmen, and we will continue to blame inanimate objects.

How stupid can we be?

Perfidious Albion!

A few months ago I held a sort of quasi-discussion with a Brit who called himself the ASBO-Monger. The subject was essentially whether gun control really works in Britain.

This video demonstrates the Buyer's Remorse of a people who have been convinced to give up their personal firearms ... with little or no compensation .. due to a governmental program which is wholly arbitrary.


I've said it so many times, so many ways, and yet I don't think I would ever be able to say it so well as these British Citizens Subjects serfs have expressed themselves in an NRA video on YouTube. (Courtesy of Ninth Stage)

I started out keeping track of the sound-bite / Bumper Sticker quotes, and soon lost track of them. The message from a people who have been forced to give up their guns for a pernicious Governmental program is this:

We will never give in. Never ... never ... never give in.

Churchillian, perhaps. More appropriately, reminiscent of "Rule Britania":

"Britains, never will be slaves!"

But today they are, and their message is clear.

When we accede willingly to governmental bans on firearms, we lose more than our right to own firearms. We lose our freedom to decide for ourself what is right, and what is not right. Only when we experience the consequences of our decision do we understand how wrong it may be.

Gun Control!

It's not about controlling guns.
It's about controlling the people.

It's not about who wins; it's about who loses.

Either we do, or they do; and we always, always lose when we allow them to convince us that we are being 'selfish' because we are not willing to 'compromise'.

For them, the word compromise means that we lose, and they win.

It's not about safety. It's not about crime.

It's about who makes decisions in the way we live our lives.
Either we do, or they do.

Our choice?

Benchmark

As I did in the beginning of 2007, now that it's 2008 it's time to thank the readers of this IPSC USPSA shooting blog.

Note the strike-out; one of the most significant issues (for readers of this blog) introduced in January: the process which eventually resulted in the 2008 USPSA Rule Book (see 1/16/07 "USPSA Rules Changes: 2008"). This is significant because for the first time in my 23+ years of Practical Shooting Competition (aka "Action Shooting") the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) now has its own book of rules which has absolutely no reference to International rules as established and maintained by the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC). You'll see references to IPSC from time to time, but from this day forward when I talk about "Practical Shooting" in the United States of America, I'll be using USPSA rather than IPSC.

Kind of a shame, really. After all of these years, the expression IPSC (IP-SICK) just sort of rolls off the tongue. As SWMBO and I discussed today, it's difficult to communicate with the term "YUSP'SAH" (USPSA).

As an illustration, we also offered (1/14/07) "Winter IPSC Is Cool".

In February, we talked (2/12/07) about USPSA's unprecedented "four consecative years of sustained growth". We also mentioned (2/20/07) the ZUMBO meltdown, and (2/23/07) more about the USPSA New Rule Book.

March brought a lot of discussion about the differences between the then-current IPSC/USPSA rulebook and the proposed 2008 USPSA New Rule Book. I started with an extensive exhaustive compare/contrast exercise titled (3/1/07) "USPSA New Rule Book Resources", and included several specific illustrations of 'current' rules which were subject to improvement OR, rules which had (to my mind) been improved. Specifically, (3/3/07) 1.2.1 "General Courses of Fire", (3/5/07) 2.2.1 "Extend Rearward to Infinity" (See also a follow-up on 3/24/07, "Extend Into Infinity", with videos),

We also talked a couple of times about the Oregon "Range Nazi" bill, SB1012, once March 15 and again on March 21.

We also introduced the first Guest Blog by Stan Penkala(3/19), and discussed the overthrow of (3/20) the DC Gun Ban and , on March 27, introduced the "Evil 'Texas Star'", about which we were bound to learn more.

April was a month of extremes. I was elated that I took a co-worker to the range, and he had a great time. Then Remington was sold (see also here and here )to the international consortium Cereberus, followed immediately by a Los Angeles "Shooting Bill of Rights" which incorporated egregious municipal measures which would have made it difficult, if not impossible to exercise RKBA rights there.

Then on April 16, the massacre at Virginia Tech led to reactions on April 17.

"Buy a Gun Day" may have been ill-timed in this context, but some of us refused to allow the societal misanthrope of a madman compromise our own second amendment rights.

And if to underscore the difference between true evil and virtual evil, on April 29 I introduced Evil Bill and the Evil Oregon Star.


On May 1, 2007, I wrote a long post ("Target Control") about the Secretary of IPSC and his unilateral sanctions about the use of the Texas Star target in IPSC matches. This earned me (on May 15), the honor of being #2 on his personal "2006 Hostility to IPSC Award". I remain humbled by the honor, which as of this date remains available here. My only regret is that I am unable to achieve the coveted #1 spot, but I continue to strive for excellence.

I also mentioned the Pistol Caliber Carbine match on May 6, and included another Guest Article on the "CX4 Storm (Beretta) Magazine Adaption".

And finally, I was able to provide video footage of the Evil Bill's Evil Oregon Star Version 1.1.

June was, surprisingly (to me) the beginning of a long period when local 'club matches' were interrupted by Major Matches. I didn't spend as much time (for the next 7 months) shooting as much as I would prefer, but I still found subjects for commentary.

I got to shoot IPSC Steel for the first time at the COSSA range in Bend, and when ARPC presented a 'preview' of stages slated for the Nationals, I found some potential stage design problems in both "Home Run" and "Go Sit In The Corner". We also highlighted problems with BATFE procedures when reviewing firearms dealer records, as reported by Gun Owners of America.

July started out with the USPSA Area 1 Multigun Tournament (see also here and here and here .. and others) and was almost immediately followed by the R&R Racing Multigun Match. (Note: the R&R match included the exciting "Doors" stage, where so many match-nerves events caused personal meltdowns. A series of photographs where B. Grams paster-blasted an IPSC target with a .223 at close range ended up as a short photo opportunity in "The Front Sight" magazine.)

We also had the Columbia Cascade Section Tournament, and a follow-up on California Gun-Banner articles with this one which essentially trashed the gun-shop business in San Francisco. No wonder I moved out of there in 1976!~

August ... I met Ryan "Red" Horsley (not personally, only via email) of Red's Gun Shop in Idaho. This is a relationship which has continued as I have received links to every post he has written since then in his continuing battle against the predations of ATF agents. Someone needs to keep a finger on those ho-dads, and Red is there for us.

Also, my computer got friend by the Blue Bird of Happiness, and I had to buy a new one; I enjoyed an extended dialogue (kind of) with with a Brit who signs himself "The ASBO-monger" and who believes that Gun Control Works; ARPC hosted the 2007 Single Action Society (SAS) "Shootout at Saddle Butte"; the USPSA Elections were heating up; we had some more discussion about the 2008 USPSA Rule Book; and there was a description about an Open Carry issue in Virginia.


September ... the 2007 Croc Match invited a lot of controversy, as did California AB1417 ('microstamping of ammunition') for entirely different reasons; Oregon faced the question of whether a school teacher should be allowed to arm herself with a gun ... and Oregon flinched. This blue state hasn't enough guts to recognize the Constitution in the face of the "if it saves just one child ..." context. More on the DC Gun Ban legislation; Albany Rifle & Pistol Club presents back to back matches -- the 11th annual Single Stack Tournament, and the Third Annual Oregon Glock Championship (also here); I trash the NRA leadership (see December for a follow-up); more discussion on the Texas Star (with video, of course).


October ... "Gun Free Zones": school shooting in Cleveland High School (prophetic? See below); "Gun Control Doctors": a 3-part commentary (see also here) on physicians who lobby for gun-control issues to their patients during routine examinations; a premature list of the 'most popular articles of 2007'; Not Dead Yet - Gary, Indiana sues S&W et al ... a one-hour video showing how the municipality may actually be allowed to continue its 1999 suit against firearms manufacturers despite recent SCOTUS rulings; USPSA Election Results; (California governor) "Schwarzenegger signs handgun microstamp bill"; Concealed Carry on Campus (see also Empty Holster Week); another "Gun Free Zone" parody (see below.)


November ... Measure 50 in Oregon (union support of a state constitutional amendment); STI refuses to accept California Microstamping Restrictions; USPSA Level II Certification class (Albany Rifle & Pistol Club) emphasizes USPSA rules, not IPSC rules!;


December ...

.