DENVER -- Don't be alarmed if you hear gunfire in Denver on Friday night because the city will be testing its high-tech ShotSpotter system. It's a crime-fighting tool designed to notify police when gunfire breaks out.
ShotSpotter uses cameras and microphones to alert police the second a gun goes off. The system being tested is in District 2 and District 4, in the northeast and southwest parts of the city. And police stress there will be no danger to the public. “I know the testing will be safe," said Marcus Fountain with the Denver Police Department. "We will be capturing all the rounds in a trap. We also have a shield behind the trap."
You probably think it's just: "If Anything Can Go Wrong, It Will."
Right?
It's more complicated than that.
Murphy's law is a popular adage that states that "things will go wrong in any given situation, if you give them a chance," or more commonly, "whatever can go wrong, will go wrong." A number of variants on the rule have been formulated, as have several corollaries,
.. so before you go shooting around the city, for the very best purposes and with the highest possible safety precautions, please allow us to offer this tiny bit of advice:
The University of South Alabama offered an official apology Thursday to a student who was given a citation for “threatening the safety of campus” with an empty holster.
I attended a couple of the earlyBoomershoots (with sometimes inconvenient consequences), and I agree with Robert Duval about the smell of Napalm in the Morning. Except it's a little more ... emphatic .. when you hit a gallon jug of impact-sensitive explosives and it results in an exceedingly satisfying fireball.
I went to both events with my friend "Bumstead", who was a Microsoft Teckie from Mulkiteo (sp) near Seattle. He didn't have any rifles, so I brought my two best rifles. CHOOSING THE RIFLE:
The first was a .25-06 built on a 1903A3 action by my father with a birds-eye maple stock, shooting 117 gr Nosler HPBT bullets (no photo available), and the second was a custom-made (from 'the ground up') .22-250 shooting 56gr HP bullets (see photo below).
John Stossel Tried to Get a Gun Permit in New York — Here’s How That Turned out for Him:
Fox Business’s John Stossel tried to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun in New York.
In a segment for his self-titled show, Stossel walks viewers through the steps that New York requires residents to go through for firearm permits, which can take as long as a year.
Apparently (see the video), the only 'Special Circumstances' which are considered is whether you're a "SPECIAL!" person.
I feel pretty special about living in the Wild Wild West, where I don't really "need" a carry license, and the local cops don't care ... they gave me one anyway.
John, why don't you move here and just 'phone in' your reports?
Since he launched his campaign, Sanders has taken flak from Clinton and other gun controllers for supporting the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which bans lawsuits based on "the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." But both before and after he cosponsored a bill aimed at repealing that law, he defended the principle it embodies, which suggests his actual opinion has not changed.
Sanders' opinion on PLCAA seems to have gravitated to the 'other side'; he no longer has the testicular fortitude to stand up for his previously stated opinion.
Has he changed his opinion, or has he merely chosen to have "no opinion" because in the Democratic party, people who own firearms are Socially Unacceptable?
Doesn't matter; whatever position he espouses changes from one day to the next, which is the definition of a politician who has no goal other than to pander to whatever demographic seems most vocal .. today.
A professor recently wrote a candid essay in which she confessed a secret: she didn't want to write a letter of recommendation for a student, solely because this student has different views (presumably) about gun rights.
Apparently, this professor has chosen to judge her student solely by the "content of her character" .. and found her lacking. Because her student has a political value which differs from hers.
The professor wrote:
She seems to be a good kid, Sarah. And I don’t know what she really thinks of gun advocacy and political failures that have cost us all these lives and our sense of safety as educators. I don’t know what she does on the weekends. I also don’t know if she understands emotions, or what real rage feels like. It seems to me no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a gun.
Perhaps the "content of her character" is the reigning factor here. The Professor seems to wonder about the character of The Student ... and she confesses that her refusal to recommend a student is dependent on that "character" rather than the academic work the student has done.
That is not the job of a professor. In Academia, the priority when recommending a student is the quality of her work; political (and even 'moral') issues should be transparent when judging the value of the student.
This professor has obviously been caught up in the politics of Academia, and she has forgotten her role as an instructor; which is ... to teach.
Not to teach her personal political/sociological priorities, but to teach her students how to THINK.
A competent teacher would find satisfaction in the success of a student who disagrees with her.
As it is, this professor seems incapable of separating her professional judgement from political correctness, or to focus on academic achievement of her student. It doesn't matter if "Sarah" seems to be "a good kid". It only matters if "Sarah" has met or exceed academic standards.
(Unfortunately, we don't have that information; we only have the demonstration of angst from the professor, who seems to have forgotten her role in a teaching environment.)
If this university professional had been able to do her job, she would not find herself in such a moral quandary, which she clearly defines when she says:.
So what do I do? Do I write her a recommendation because I originally said yes? Do I say no and explain myself? Do I ignore her email?
No. What you do is to write a sterling recommendation, and then quit your day job. When you find yourself in a moral quandary, it's a clear sign that you are less competent than Sarah is.
I'm very disappointed in you.
(All of this professorial Angst is just pissing me off!)
Hand-gun malfunctions; they happen. Sometimes you can just call it a day and go home ... if you're at a pistol match. Other times there are immediate remedial actions which you can perform to quickly resolve the problem.
(I'm not even going to try to address rifle malfunctions: too many types of actions, and generally the resolution is "go home, you're screwed", such as when you can't extract a fired cartridge.)
Here are the five most common types of firearm malfunctions, and the things you can do with them. The first three are typical of semi-automatic pisols, and the fourth is typical of revolvers: but SQUIBS can happen to everyone!
Last December, the NY Times decided that the scent of blood in the water was strong enough for them to talk tough.
Tough Talk and a Cowardly Vote on Terrorism - The New York Times: “If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored the terror watchlist measure. This was the 'watchlist' which was equivalent to a "No Fly List' (go look it up), which "identified" peopleterrorists who were not allowed to fly in American airspace.
The only problem with the "Terrorist Watch List" has been that nobody knows who is on it, nobody know why they're on it, and there is no mechanism in place to take your name off it. If you're on it.
Which you don't know.
So, this is the "watchlist" which Dianne Feinstein (aka: "Princess DI") and the New York Times felt should identify "Bad People" last December, and it's the 'watchlist' which Liberals have decided should be the definitive identifier of "Bad People'. (My best guess is, it would be a list of people who are not "Reliable Citizens" .. aka "People Who Disagree With Princess DI!")
But Senator Princess DI has decided that anyone who is on the No-Fly List shouldn't be allowed to purchase a firearm. No, it does NOT matter why they're on the No-Fly List; it's enough that they are on it, and her outrage that not everybody agrees with her .... knows no bounds!
Recently I’ve written a lot about when an internal medicine specialist, a neurosurgeon, and I testified before the House Appropriations Committee recommending that Congress refuse to pay for gun control-motivated junk science. We had all independently become aware of and alarmed by the trend of medical journals and societies using their prestige to generate results-oriented research articles that all carried the same message—guns are like virus, and owning them is a disease.
People have been complaining lately, on the Internet, that CDC has been forbidden funding for their politically motivated campaign against Civilian Firearms Ownership.
This document provides a wider viewpoint.
The NRA may have been the most public complainant against the CDC using public funding to promote their political bias, but other governmental agencies were aware of, and campaigned, against CDC's anti-gun agenda.
And last but not least,
Competition Shooting Competition shooting is fun and exciting, but can actually be hazardous to your long-term health should you ever get in a gun fight and apply some of the 'match winning' techniques to try and win the gunfight. You don't get a staged walk-through in a life-or-death situation, and there is no range officer to tell you to load and make ready. I bring this up because I have seen students in classes who shoot a lot of competition and repeatedly begin a drill with an empty weapon. This in an era when over 40 states have concealed carry! Unreal.
Nope. I've got no problem with what he said. He's right.
In competition we are accustomed to a "Cold Range" environment.
That's fair; USPSA is like a box o' Chawklets, you never know what you're gonna get.
Some of the folks who show up at a match ... well, most of them are very competent. But it takes a while to build the skills, so we're all just as happy that it's a Cold Range Policy.
So we're accustomed to the "Belt AND Suspenders" philosophy of Range Safety. Because we just want everyone to go home at the end of the day, and we are way finicky about "blood on the range".
But a lot of folks put away their competition gear at the end of the day, and when they start their drive home, they're back in Condition One.
Because when you drive out the gate, you're in a whole different world.
When I first started to think that I might want to do a LOT of IPSC/USPSA shooting, I actually invested in a series of video tapes (yes, I am that old) which provided a basic course of "how to do this stuff".
The source: Ron Avery's Three-tape (VHS) called "Secrets of a Professional Shooter".
It helped me a lot, and I was impressed when I watched him shooting Pepper Poppers on the move; I was encouraged because I eventually discovered that I too could do that .... just a lot slower.
He's still the master of 'shooting on the move', as far as I'm concerned. And although the content may seem elementary to some viewers, there are pertinent tips about shooting in both a competition and in a self-defense situation.
One element which I thought was underplayed in this very short tutorial was the importance of 'calling your shots'. I'd like to see someone put up a well-edited commentary on that methodology.
When I teach a class I try to stress the importance of 'calling your shot', but the class is too short (only four hours, one of those hours in lecture mode) to really TRAIN people in this important skill. You can tell them "take a mental snapshot of the sight picture when the shot breaks, and replay it". It's better than nothing, but I'm sure there is someone who can produce a professional level video which demonstrates the process.
Still, it's great to see Ron Avery back in the role of Tutor, which he does so well.
Now, if I can dust off the VHS player, I think I'll go re-watch his 3-part video. I know there's still lots of stuff I can learn from Mister Shoot-On-The-Move.
The rushing to get it done goof-up: “Every spring, boat sinking claims start to come in. Nearly always you can chalk it up to rushing to get it done. I take my time inspecting engine hoses and hoses clamps, the bilge pump, stern-drive boot, clean out scuppers and double check the through-hulls and sea strainer. I once found a plastic through-hull for a sink drain at the waterline that initially looked fine, but it was only until I took the time for a closer inspection that I found it was cracked nearly in half on the inside.” – Scott in BoatUS Public Affairs
BY: Joe Schoffstall
April 15, 2016 5:35 pm
Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is receiving a major boost from a small group of deep-pocketed donors who have combined to give $43 million to super PACs supporting her nomination, an analysis of campaign finance filings by InsideGov shows.
The three major super PACs backing Clinton– Correct the Record, American Bridge 21st Century, and Priorities USA Action– have collected nearly $70 million to date with the help of wealthy liberal donors cutting checks in the seven-figure range. Of the $70 million these groups have raised, 62 percent has come in the form of contributions totaling $1 million or more.
Oh.
That seems reasonable to me.
After all, it's not as if a small group of ordinary people haven't combined to spend their lunch money to support the candidate of their choice.
That would be .. just .. wrong! (Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure I blogged about a similar situation a few years about. Like .. Four years ago. And Eight years ago. Nahhhh ... that's just silly-talk!)
A cross-section of many business leaders, entrepreneurs, investors, and public health experts recognize the opportunity. And yet, no one is stepping forward to invest in new smart gun technology, which describes weapons that can only be fired by the authorized user. The technology would significantly reduce the many thousands of deaths caused by childhood firearm accidents, suicides involving third-party firearms, and criminal acts perpetrated using as many as 500,000 stolen guns annually.
The answer is very simple, and here are the reasons (details and comments available 'below the fold'):
In ascending order of importance"
There is currently only one version of a "SmartGun(TM)" available: The Armitrix iP1
It's is incredibly under-powered for a 'Home Defense" weapon, which one would reasonably assume is the justification for this configuration. (.22 Long Rifle isn't anyone's first choice)
It's incredibly expensive:"Costing $1,798 for a package of one iP1 smart gun, and one RFID smartwatch (which must be worn to operate the gun), Armatix's smart gun costs more than four times Glock's new G43 concealed-carry handgun"
It's incredibly inefficient: it takes up to 12 seconds to 'run up' from the time you pick it up to the time it has identified you as an "authorized user"; not good in a 'home invasion' scenario
It requires EVERY "Authorized User" to have a "SmartWatch" .. at a cost of $400 each .. before they can use it
When "they" kick down the door in the middle of the night,, you have x-seconds to find your gun and another y seconds to find and put your SmartWatch on ... when you awake from a sound sleep and the adrenaline is rushing through your veins. (Ever try to operate a doorknob when you're on an adrenaline high?)
Did I mention "battery powered"?
I'm 'almost' sure (I say "almost" because I'm too polite to say "never gonna happen!" that this technology can be refined, and more efficient, more effective versions may be developed. But until the 'smart money' decides that 'smart guns' are the wave of the future, there money just isn't there to make it happen.
The Armitrix is nothing more than a test-bed today; call it a bread-board circuitry version of something that only serves to show that something MIGHT be evolved into a viable, marketable product.
But until the progenitors of the Bread-Board can convince someone with bigger pockets that there is a market for this product, nobody will touch it.
And here, I'm not afraid to say "Not Gonna Happen"!
(Unless the Brady Campaign decides to fund the project ... and wouldn't that be the richest irony?)
“It’s part of our purpose to engage in the free exchange of ideas, even with people whose views we may disagree with,” he reminded them. “If we don’t prepare our students to engage with differing views while they are in college, then we have not prepared them for the world they are about to enter.”
But that "good intention" wasn't enough, so the Conservative member of the scheduled 'Debate' between speakers with opposing viewpoints ... was informed that he wasn't welcome there.
Ah, Grasshoppers; this is the lesson you must learn here!
