Saturday, June 03, 2017

It's such a pleasure to coach a competent student! *The Best Gig I've Ever Had! *

Yes, it's that time of the month again; I held another "Introduction to USPSA" class, and only had one attendee.

He was a treasure.

He was safe, accurate and fast.  I had NOTHING to teach him, except the basic concept that IPSC competition juggles ACCURACY vs SPEED.  It took little time to convince him that he needed to know his own competence, and the decide for himself whether he needed to learn to give up a few points on ACCURACY to benefit his natural talent to shoot quickly with little loss of ACCURACY.

After the minimal "shoot two shots at one target" exercises, to determine his level of competence, I decided to present more challenging exercises.
(When you have only one student, you get to flex his wings and on-the-spot invent stages which are more difficult: it's even more fun when your student is very competent in basic shooting skills, and you get to introduce him to
 You can first move the targets farther away from the firing point, make them more complicated with mandatory reloads, and mix cardboard targets with steel targets.
Then add movement between different firing points, and eventually make the exercises "Free Form" so the student learns to evaluate the course of fire and determine his OWN "best" solution to the shooting problem!)
Eventually, I began to play "dirty tricks" on him.

Friday, June 02, 2017

"I Have A Right To Feel Safe!"

Where do people get the idea that they have a right to "Feel Safe"?

It's not in the Constitution, but in discussions of the Second Amendment in America, I see no referenced to the right to "Feel Safe".

I've been writing about Second Amendment rights here for ... I'm not sure.  Certainly going on ten years, perhaps a bit longer.

One thing I've learned from all this bloviating is that nothing I say has any influence on the dialogue of "Second Amendment Rights" versus "Hey! I Have A Right To Feel Safe!"

Usually, this statement comes from commenters who object to the Second Amendment, as a rebuttal to the right to keep and bear arms.  Which is part of the Constitution.   They (the commenters) bloat their arguments with imaginary rights, as if that will keep "Bad Guys" from accosting them in a short-cut back alley to steal their 'stuff' '(or in their own homes, or when travelling on "public transportation"), and then they complain that they have the right to "Feel Safe".

I don't know where that  RIGHT to "Feel Safe" idea came from, but it crops up from time to time, and I think it's about time that someone actually talks about it.

I want to feel safe.  YOU want to feel safe ... everybody thinks they have a right to feel safe.

Maybe we do have such a "right", but that isn't codified in American Law.

It's just wishful thinking.  I get that .. I feel the same way.

I want to feel safe, too.  I want World Peace,   I want everyone to have .. a lot of things, some of which we can afford to the people of the world by enacting some kind of law.

Unfortunately, nothing in the world community has ever offered a mechanism which provides ANY of us the possibility that we can "BE Safe".

Except in the Second Amendment.

Folks want a lot of things that they're not willing to work for .. to change their way of life for ... to fight for.

Feeling "Safe" isn't something that you can demand just because you want it.

Feeling "Safe" is something that you have to work toward, and there are absolutely NO guarantees that you can "make yourself safe", and still "Feel Safe".

If you want to feel safe against muggers .. pick up a gun, or learn some really complicated techniques of unarmed self-defense.  Nobody will make you do it;  but if you want to "Feel Safe", learn to defend yourself.

If you want to feel safe against home intruders ... unarmed self-defense techniques will only take you so far; if you have more intruders than you can personally kick ass to defeat, you're good to go.

But if you have more intruders than you have bullets in your gun ... you may die with the sense of satisfaction that you made them pay a high price.  It's not much, but it's better than dying with a knife in your gut while you watch the bad guys rape your wife and your daughter.   Yes, this has happened, and just maybe you can convince the bad guys that you're too tough a target to allow them to act out their depraved scenario.

It might happen.  Maybe not, but more likely than if you just roll over and allow them to work their will without effecting a defense at least as violent as their offense.

You say this never happens?

Indianapolis, October, 2013

District of Columbia, 2016

San Diego, 2017

These are only a few, randomly chosen instances where intruders broke into a home and abused and/or murdered occupants.  It happens ALL THE TIME and the residents of the home were unable to defend themselves.

They felt safe.

They were unable to MAKE themselves safe, because they had not established adequate home defenses because ... "this never happens".

You do have a reasonable expectation to 'feel safe" in every place you go, even in your home.
That doesn't necessarily mean that you ARE safe.  If you are accosted in your home by violent intruders, please feel free to discuss with them your right to "feel safe".

Or buy a gun, practice with it, keep it close and when they attack you in your own home?

Kill Them.

That may not satisfy you, but it's better than the alternative.

And the next guy might possibly think twice about rape and murder in your home.

It's worth a try.

Pediatricians Revisited:

Your child's Doctor does NOT have the right to tell your children that Daddy can't have a gun in the home!

The problem with pediatricians is that they are inclined to ask personal questions of your children about your home life ... which is only ONE reason you are encouraged to never leave your child with your pediatrician when you are not present.

Pediatricians may tend to impose their own personal opinions about the way you raise your child, and one of the most prevalent biases which they may impose upon your child is their objections to the presence of firearms in the home.  It's not just a matter of "safe storage" ... it's that Pediatricians typically object to ANY firearm in the home when a child is present.

Today we read this message:

Pediatricians and Parents Could Curb Child-Gun Incidents With Talk, Awareness, Report Says - NBC News:
Research published this month by the Children's National Hospital shows more than 4,500 kids under 21 were killed by firearms in 2015.
Well, that's better than the way it was ten years ago.

(I wonder .. "kids under 21"?  ... are these still "Children"?  The gangsters in Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, New York and ... name your favorite Big Town ... don't seem to think so.  But I digress!)

Or is it the same old thing?

I've been blogging about the intrusive actions of pediatricians since at least 2007 ... to no avail.
Unfortunately, most of the references linked in these articles are no longer active, so it serves no purpose to reference them here.

However, one article from 2007  retains an active link.

If you are concerned that your child's pediatrician may be "turning your child against you" because you have firearms and your pediatrician speaks against your parental decisions .. there is a form which you can print and ask your pediatrician to sign before treatment,

This form, which you can require your pediatrician to read and sign before he/she treats your child, requires the doctor to certify that he/she is qualified to discuss and make recommendations about firearms in the home.  It provides spaces for the pediatrician to not only attest, but list the courses of instruction, accreditation, licenses and certifications which make him/her an authority competent to counsel your family about firearms safety.

The form also includes a section titled:
Risk Management Advice to Physicians and Malpractice Insurance Providers
... which cautions physicians not to speak on subjects which they are not qualified to address.

If you are a firearms owner, and a parent, you have the right and responsibility to determine what kind of information is imparted to your child from your medical providers.

Assuming that your pediatrician is qualified and responsible, and attendant to the parental rights to raise your children according to your own values, is not necessarily reasonable.  Even the most caring pediatrician may feel that his/her political bias trumps your parental rights.

THE LAW IS that you do NOT have to allow your pediatrician to speak to your children in private, you do NOT have to allow your pediatrician to speak against your judgement, and your pediatrician is violating his oath by undermining your parental decision-making authority.

And firearms ownership is NOT "Parental Abuse".

Thursday, June 01, 2017

Dirty Words

I once got into an argument with a friend, and came very close to calling him the vilest name I could think of.

And then I thought ... "what if he decided to call ME a New York Liberal Democrat Politician?"

So I merely called him an "@$$" and we parted friends.

It's good to have friends.

Below, a thumbnail of a miserable  man who has no friends.   It makes you mean.

NY Dem Pushes Bill Labeling Traditional Guns as 'Child Operated Firearms' - Breitbart:
New York State Senator Jose' M. Serrano (D-29) is pushing legislation that will require retailers to label a traditional gun which lacks a disabling device as a “child operated firearm.” The legislation–Senate Bill S3444–then bans the sale of any “child operated firearm.”

What Part Of "Shall Not Be Infringed" needs to be rephrased using small words for you, Senator?

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Heroes: Ricky John Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah Fletcher

While I'm no fan of HuffPost, I'm grateful that they identified the three brave heroes who stopped the insane murderer on the Portland, Oregon "train".

And those three fine men are all heroes.

2 Men Stabbed To Death Standing Up To Muslim Hate In Portland | HuffPost:

 Portland police identified the deceased as Ricky John Best, 53, of Happy Valley, and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche of Portland. Best died on the train, while Namkai-Meche was pronounced dead later at the hospital, police said. The third victim was identified as 21-year-old Micah Fletcher of Portland.
These men suffered grievous knife wounds .. two died in their effort to protect innocents while the third (Fletcher) was fortunate to survive the attack.

These are the heroes.

The pitiful loser who initiated the attacks  ,.. he obviously was someone who sought notoriety by hateful acts when he could not acquire fame by contributing a benefit to society .... should never be named.  I hope he burns in hell knowing that he has not achieved his goal of notoriety.

I won't attempt to profile the heroes here ... HuffPost did a fine job of identifying them.  I'm sure we will learn more about Best, Namkai-Meche and Fletcher.

If they do not receive (at least!) a medal from the hands of the President ... it will be a travesty of justice.

We would hope that any of us would have had the courage to intervene as these three fine men did, but I suspect that most of us would have been, in similar circumstances, frozen by terror and unable to act.  I cannot say that I would  have as well defended the innocent girl were I disarmed.

I doubt that most of us can aver, with certainty, that we would have had the courage and the sense of civic responsibility which was demonstrated by  Ricky John Best,  Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche  and Micah Fletcher!

In passing:   While it may seem that I'm beating the drum for my personal bias, it cannot go without commenting that if just ONE person on that urban train had been a CHL person, that entire tragedy could have been stopped with one accurate shot.

Two fine men would have lived; the third would not be grievously injured.

The evil man would have died .. as he obviously had hoped.

And the young woman ... the subject of the original assault ... might have been traumatized, but not as badly as she obviously was when she was forced to watch the gruesome death of two fine men, and the mutilation of another, for her protection,

Portland is suffering under the unfortunate appellation of "Berkeley North" because of its Liberal politics.  I cannot help but wonder if that might have contributed to this tragedy; the attacker might have assumed that he could attack without any effective resistance, if only because this might be an area where nobody would be armed with a gun (A "Gun-Free Zone" City?)

He was correct, to a point.

But he obviously never envisioned that three unarmed men would throw themselves bodily against an armed man (armed with a knife, which he had already demonstrated that HE had no hesitation to use) in defense of a young woman whom he deemed ... 'different'.

People Sometimes Ask:

"Why do you  carry a gun.  Are you so fearful?  Do you think that somebody will just walk up to you and assault you for no reason at all?   What... do you think you live in The Wild West or something?"

Well .. you never know.

Do you?

Oregon Bills May Prove Expensive: Especially SB1065

A couple of Oregon firearm bills are up for votes immediately .. including

SB 1065 includes language from several previous anti-gun bills that died due to a procedural error made by Floyd Prozanski, a sponsor of this bill.The bill is a 26 page monstrosity, but here are the lowlights.  Among many other things this bill does, it nearly quintuples the length of time the State Police can deny you a firearms transfer with no cause.  It also drastically complicates the process for getting a concealed handgun license.

Online classes will be prohibited unless the class is provided by the NRA or an “Oregon law enforcement agency or association. “
I'm sure there are several professionals who provide this training locally, but I don't know if they are NRA Approved or if they need to be; the law isn't clear about that.  They are usually expensive, running into multiple hundreds of dollars.  I know of at least one Oregon provider, and I'm sure his training is worth the money.

The problem is that not everyone can afford it.

This bill may prove burdensome for some law-abiding Oregonians,

Fortunately, I acquired my first CHL fifty years ago .. which lapsed, but I re-applied some years later.

Here's a hint:  If you have a CHL in Oregon, do NOT let it expire.  Mine did, last month (they're only good for 4 or 5 years, which is enough time to forget you need to renew it) and now I have to go around collecting signatures from friends and neighbors signifying that they think I'm an honest responsible gun owner.

It's a LOT easier if you renew before your CHL expires.  In my state, at least, and probably in most states.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Campus SJW's OWNED!

Question on Campus:  How about if we take a few points off the GPA of the higher-scoring students and give them to the bottom-scoring students?  Okay by you?

Davidson College students furious after they're tricked into rejecting socialist ideal - The College Fix:
 Some students said the fake petition made them struggle with feelings that they do not belong at Davidson, while others aggressively attacked the video, calling it “oppressive,” “illegally filmed,” and “inflammatory bullsh*t,” according to a video of the April 27 teach-in on Facebook.

I'm thinking of a word .. what is it?  
Oh, I've got it;  the word is ... HYPOCRISY!
[hi- pok-r uh-see]NOUN [PLURAL HY·POC·RI·SIES.]1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
Alternate Title: "The Hypocrisy of the Meritocracy"

The interesting thing is, these students who reject the thesis are the same Social Justice Warriors who think that "Wealth Distribution" is a social "Good".

(But in truth, they just may be part of the meritocracy)

So .. Daddy makes enough money that you can afford to matriculate at Davidson College ...

But it isn't YOUR money, and there's a lot of it.   So. if Daddy's money is 'shared', it doesn't hurt you.

However, when the "benefits" are finite, and it's a Zero-Sum game ... you're against it?

Let's look at the fee schedule for Davidson College:


  • Required student charges (tuition, student activity fee) $49,949; student activity fee covers student publications, student government, and social and cultural activities
  • Standard Double Room (other rooms available) $7,102
  • Meals, 21 per week (other plans available) $6,852, includes N.C. Board Tax
  • Total: $63,903

Gee, for almost 139% of average annual salary which the average America workers makes (<$44K), you could go to college at Davidson ... and be outraged that some dork wants to take a couple points off your GPA and give them to a lower-ranking student?

That's just so  not fair!


Trigger Scale

I broke down and bought a Trigger Scale from Amazon last week.  I never owned one before, and I was curious about just how heavy the trigger pull was on my pistols.

I rather wish I had not.  The scale only measures to eight pounds ... most of them were way over the limit.   Which is okay for certain uses, I suppose, but not for any purpose for which I bought the pistols.    Even The Beloved Kimber, since I got the trigger replaced, now clocks in at "UGH!" pounds trigger pull.

I can understand it for DA-Only pistols, but even my SA pistols tend to over-do it.

The only exception is the STI Edge in 10mm, which still breaks at a crisp, clean 3-3/4 ounces.
Ah ... perfection!   Unfortunately, my eyes have degenerated so badly in the past few years that I'm unable to use it as well in competition as I use to.   I can't see the iron sights.

I'm sorely tempted to have it mounted with an AIMPOINT, and get back into the Pistol Game ... even if I do have to shoot in OPEN Division without a compensated barrel.

"Will Not Comply!" Eh!

The funny thing about our "kinder, gentler" Northern Friends is that when it comes to taking their guns away, they're every bit as resistant to The Gov'ment as are we rowdier "southern neighbors".

This Week:
More than a million restricted, prohibited guns in Canada - Politics - CBC News:
A year and a half after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government came to office promising to tighten Canada's gun laws, there are now more than a million restricted and prohibited firearms across the country. The number of restricted firearms in Canada rose 5.5 per cent last year, reaching its highest point in more than a decade, according to the annual report from the RCMP's commissioner of firearms. There are now 839,295 restricted firearms, many of them handguns. The number of prohibited firearms in Canada, such as fully automatic guns, edged up 0.5 per cent to 183,333
Considering that these firearms are being described as "prohibited" and "restricted", it's difficult to understand how they get an exact count of the 'restricted' guns    Let alone the 'prohibited'!

In the meantime, the article missed an interesting point when they neglected to mention whether unregistered "restricted' guns were confiscated if/when found, or were the owners merely obliged to register them.

Seeing as how a government which would restrict guns would prefer to say "Mister and Missus Canada, Turn 'em All In!" it's probably safe to say that the guns were confiscated without compensation.

"Quite frankly, the Trudeau government really hasn't done very much in regards to attacks on firearms owners in Canada since they got elected. About the only thing they have done is let the RCMP run wild and make up laws as they go."
And that does not endear the Trudeau government (or any government) to citizens who would be legal firearms owners without these bizarre restrictions.

(H/T: "The Gun Feed")