KaBOOM in School

A teacher brought a gun to school to "teach" his students about safe gun handling.  Unfortunately, he served as a good example of a bad example.

He pulled the trigger, and the gun went "BOOM!" 
My oh my, what a wonderful lesson plan!  And reportedly, three students were wounded.

Even total incompetents can teach a lesson.  Unfortunately, it's not always the best approach.   (See Below for link)

THESIS:  The teacher probably thought the was a "competent" gun owner

ANTH-THEIS: he was a total incompetent.

The guy probably thought he was qualified to teach "Gun Safety".  Obviously, he was not.

Chances approach 100 percent that he did NOT notify the school board about his lesson plan ... and he would probably be denied permission to bring a fully functional firearm into a school.

We would be interested to learn what background training he had received, or experience he had, to convince himself that he was an 'expert' in safe firearms training.  Our guess is that the answer to either question would not be acceptable.

Thankfully, he kept the muzzle pointed in a (relatively) "safe" direction and apparently nobody was wounded in this horrible boondoggle.

A High School Teacher's Gun Went Off During a Gun Safety Lesson - VICE: A day before thousands of students marched out of their classrooms to rally for gun control after 17 people died at a school shooting in Parkland, Florida, a teacher in California brought a firearm to school for a lesson about gun safety, CNN affiliate KSBW reports. Dennis Alexander, who also serves as a reserve police officer, was in the middle of teaching students at Seaside High School how to disarm a gunman when he accidentally wound up firing a shot, wounding three kids.

(He fired one shot, and wounded three kids?  Where was his muzzle pointing???_

The event serves only to reinforce two sad assumptions:

(1) There is no such thing as a "Safe Gun"
(2) There is no such thing as a "Gun Expert".

This teacher served only to emphasize the increasingly negative opinion of firearms owners, and to undermine the concept that "armed school employees may make schools safer from predators".

GUNS don't "go off" without humans touching them.

And Teachers are subject to error

UNFORTUNATELY ... this individual lapse in judgement may lead to a reinforcement in anti-gunners' hypothesis that firearms ownership should be subject to intense training and governmental restrictions before a LICENSE to possess a firearm is ALLOWED by some board of review ... and consequently may be denied under regulations which anti-gun people are just itching to impose on the Second Amendment.

I cannot think of any situation which might be more antithetical to the Second Amendment.

No word on the extent of the wounds incurred on the "wounded three kids" ... I'll try to research how one shot wounded three children (although I have small expectation of determining the bullet path).

I'm looking forward to news reports which detail the "Three Students Were Wounded".   Considering that the bullet apparently impacted the ceiling of the room, I suspect that the "wounds" were minor damage caused by ceiling debris falling upon them and were minor in nature. 

But I'm not prepared to argue the presumption without further information from people who were "on the scent" and are qualified to provide detail information about the wounds.

Would YOU mistake a turtle for a gun?

We're putting more trust in "artificial intelligence" to take care of our fleshy bodies in risky situations than ever before.

Researcher: ‘We Should Be Worried’ This Computer Thought a Turtle Was a Gun - Motherboard:

Self-driving cars, airport luggage scans, security cameras with facial recognition, and various medical devices all employ 'some' variation of AI ("Artificial Intelligence") systems, and more systems will do so in the future, as we become more "comfortable" with trusting our machines to do our thinking for us..

 But neural networks are easy to fool, if you fiddle with the algorithms just a tiny bit.  Or worse, if you don't!

Or worst, we don't have to "fiddle" anything.   We just have to trust the humans who designed the systems to have thought of every possible situation, and have 'programed' the systems to know the exact best response to any foreseen situation.

What about the situations which haven't been "foreseen"?

One example might be the madman who ran a rented pickup-truck on a crowded sidewalk in NYC,  killing or injuring dozens of people?

Gee, who could have foreseen that?

Oh, it's New York City ... all kinds of freaky stuff happens in that, one of the most crowded cities in the world (with the possible exception of, say, "Tokyo").   In a crowded rat-cage, anything can happen.  And eventually, it will.

As the Mayor of NYC said, we can't put a policeman on every corner.

Even if they could post a cop on every corner, it's doubtful that they could have prevented either the tragedy in NYC.  People are weird ... remember "Bump-Stock Vegas"?

What's the problem?  "People are weird."   Right, we got that.

What's the solution?  Nobody knows.
  Prince William said recently that the problem with this world is that there are too many people in it.

He may have a point, but what's the solution?  Hitler had a solution; we didn't like it.  Hitler died in a hole in the ground bunker; good choice.

Maltheusian Theory is that eventually the earth will be so over-populated that we will be unable to feed everyone.  (Prince William must be channeling his inner Thomas R. Maltheus)

Eventually (stealing from the Science Fiction Literature premise of "If This Goes On ...") we'll end up like Schrödinger's cat ... locked up in this box called "Earth", we will be both alive and dead at the same time.   There's nobody watching us from the 'outside' to know the difference; there's just us.  You and Me.

Lebensraum:

Hitler saw this coming on a smaller scale (Germany in the 1930's).  He began his conquest of Europe in order to provide "living room" (and resources) for the expansion of the German people. That ended up badly for him.  (see above).

But what can you expect?  He was a madman and a visionary at the same time.   His only solution was to kill the people he didn't like (minorities) and conquer everybody else.  He came damn close to making his "final solution" work (for various definitions of "making it work"), and frankly it was only the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor which brought the Americans into WWII.   If you cross your eyes and stare at a spinning bicycle wheel long enough, you might almost want to thank the Japanese for their contribution to World Peace!

Well ... perhaps not quite.  But you get the gist of it.

More likely, you may be a reader of Robert Heinlein ("If This Goes On"), or perhaps the maniacal ramblings of Harry Turtledove's "alternate histories", where the question of "what if the Confederate army moved to Africa and started a New World Order" may be explored in excruciating detail.  There are more than a couple of authors who imagine what our world might look like today if a powerful leader was able to impose his vision on the few of us who live lives of slavery and persecution.

No, it's not a pretty picture ... unless you're a member of the Chosen People.

Have I strayed from the subject?

Not really.

We may not live in the "Perfect World" envisioned by speculative fiction, and that's a blessing to "most of us".

Probably.

 We may not like our national leaders, but so far they haven't been able to impose their ideals on the most of us to the advantage of a privileged few.  (And yes, I'm aware that many people today who consider themselves "disadvantaged" will disagree with that statement.)

Getting back to the difference between a Turtle and a Gun ... oh, there was a point to be made; what was it?

Oh, right.  I remember now.

When we begin to put our faith in technology, we begin to lose our humanity.  A computer has no ethics.  It's just a machine.  We made it, we programmed it, and then we sit back and let the computer do all the work. 

What could possibly go wrong?

For starters: a computer can't always tell the difference between a turtle and a gun.

I was a computer programmer for 30 years.   I lived by the concept that "if anything can possibly go wrong ... it will".

People are fallible: they make mistakes, but sooner or later someone will say:
"Hey, what the heck ...?"   And then some underpaid computer programmer will pull an all-nighter and fix the program.  I know, I spend a lot of nights trying to debug a computer program that someone else wrote and had been doing things "wrong" for years, until someone happened to notice that their paycheck (for example) always ended with thirteen cents. 

True story. 

(Actually, I just made it up, but what the heck, it's my blog ... I can do that.)

People (well, most people) intuitively know the difference between a turtle and a gun.   That's important, especially if a thug points a turtle at you and says "Your Money or Your Life!"

  There's an old joke about the first passenger airplane which was  run by a computer.  Just after it took off with it's first load of passengers, it put the following message out on the Public Address System:

"Welcome to Artificial Airlines Inaugural Flight.   This airplane has no pilot, no co-pilot ... the only employees are those who will shortly be serving your lunch.  There are no humans involved in navigation or piloting this airplane.  It is completely controlled by a computer, and there is absolutely NO possibility that anything will go wrong (click) go wrong (click) go wrong (click) go wrong (click) go wrong (click) ..."

Trust me on this one:

Never trust a computer to get your paycheck 'right'!

Oh ... sorry; too late.

Barbra Weighs In: The 500 lb Gorilla Speaks!

Barbra Streisand endorses California gun control initiative | The Sacramento Bee:

Barbra Streisand is hoping California voters will soon make gun violence the way we were. In a fundraising email Wednesday, the Oscar-winning actress and singer endorsed Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63, the November ballot initiative that would institute background checks for ammunition purchases and other new gun control regulations. 

There's something squeaky about The Way We Were: we didn't use to have to wade thorough background checks to purchase ammunition, as Proposition 63 would mandate.

Why would this be an issue?  Is this all about "Gun Control"?

No, it's just about control, and it's an attempt to impose every impediment imaginable in the interest of impeding California Citizens from exercising their constitutional rights to Keep and Bear Arms.

BY THE WAY, this isn't the first time that California legislators have imposed draconian laws to impede the Second Amendment Rights of Californians:

GO SCREW YOURSELF MOMENTS: A Sample

• DROP TEST ... California Legislators made it a law that pistol manufacturers must subject each firearm to test-to-destruction tests to prove that their guns will not 'accidentally' fire when dropped six feet onto a concrete surface.  S&W (if I recall correctly) discontinued all sales to California rather than subject their guns to these tests ... at their own expense.
• They also passed a law which essentially required that Ronnie Barrett's  .50 BMG rifles must be regulated;   Barrett responded by discontinuing all support for maintenance for California LEO sniper rifles ... California LEOs must now perform all "factory level" maintenance on their own rifles.  Sucks to be you, California Highway Patrol!

This is only the most recent manner in which California Legislators have shot themselves in the foot, and it probably won't be the last.   But they don't care about their citizens; they only care about their own political agenda.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with firearm safety; but it has everything with California trying to get around the Second Amendment rights of free citizens.

Now they want every citizen who purchases ammunition to go through the same tiresome regulatory procedures every time they want to reload their guns.    

Someone needs to put the bridle on the horse and the bit in her mouth, to keep California from inventing new ways to impede Second Amendment Rights (which by the way, apply to ammunition as well as firearms.

SPEAKING OF WHICH, in 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects ammunition purchases as well as firearms ownership ... but it's complicated.

PS: Olympian campaigns Against The Bill!
Who you gonna listen to? The chick that sings, or the chick that shoots?
You know where my money is going .. but I'll probably lose that bet.

Cheeze and Rice ... computers are more complicated than the Texas Star !

I tried to respond to a 'tutorial' about "how to shoot the Texas Star" a few minutes ago, and I was looking for a video among the dozens I've saved ... and it took only a moment for me to get so swamped with the latest version of "look up your video files" thingies that I just bailed out.

I KNOW how to shoot the Texas Star.  Start at the top and shoot the top descending plate.  That's all there is to it, and done correctly (which I COULD have demonstrated) it's so easy that a child do it.
(I might even can do it faster than HE can!)

And somewhere in my complex file structure, I have a few (several) videos which show exactly how to most efficiently knock the top-falling plates off to get the star out of my way so I can go on to shoot the rest of the stage.

But my current computer software version won't just show me what I have in each folder.  Oh no, it wants to second guess me.  It wants to help me.

It wants to "Help me" to find my files .. but it doesn't want to let me make my own decisions. It no longer wants to show me exemplars of what I have in each volume, so I can decide which folder I want to access.

(Even while I type, it corrects my spelling because it thinks it knows better than I do, what I want to say!)

Is there anyway I can revert back to .. oh, I don't know .. DOS V5?

Is this what I have been relegated to?  Am I doomed to spending my mornings out on the patio, listening to the disgustingly cheerful birds tweeting Good Morning! to the sun?

Is it no longer sufficient that I spend all night blogging about things which are important to ME?

Do I have to spend the rest of my life, in a world which is defined by ...
Chirp! Chirp!

I HATE "Chipper"!

And my buddy Barney feels the same way!

Oh yeah?

"This is America ... this CAN'T happen here!"

Lest we forget.


The link below connects to a series of videos relating specifically to the ARBITRARY and UNILATERAL ...  and ILLEGAL confiscation of private firearms during the Hurricane Katrina situation.

It has been ten years now, and sometimes we tend to forget that when  men with guns come breaking down your front door, all of our  determination to resist  assumes an entirely different perspective.



Proof of the Government Disarming Law Abiding Citizens | Prepping - Homesteading and Prepping - Doomsday Preppers

Knife Rights suing NYC over pocket knife persecution

Shooting Wire:

Gilbert Arizona -- Last week, Knife Rights filed an appeal of a U.S. District Court's absurd ruling in its ongoing Federal Civil Rights lawsuit against New York City and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. The 62-page legal brief can be viewed at: 

www.KnifeRights.org/Knife_Rights_Appeal_Brief.pdf

The lawsuit challenges the City's practice of treating common folding knives as prohibited "gravity knives," then arresting and prosecuting law-abiding knife owners and intimidating retailers into paying large cash "sanctions" to avoid prosecution. Under the City's vague and subjective approach, it is impossible to know whether any particular knife will be treated as legal or prohibited.

H/T Shooting Wire (Subscription Link here)

Response to "The Hill" / 4-8-13

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/292265-report-sens-manchin-toomey-in-talks-to-expand-background-checks

(In "Comments")

The whole thing about "transfers within family" is disingenuous.  In order to determine that this is an "allowed transfer" (more on this later), the guv needs to identify both the doner and the donee, and confirm the filial relationship. You have just identified both parties to the transaction .. which (to date) had always been sacrosanct. 

Next, you need to identify the transferred firearm .. including serial number. Can you say "Database", children? (I knew you could!) 

So you have three points of transactional identification Donor, Donee, and SN. This will be propagated unto the Nth generation, which means that by REGISTERING this firearm, you have not only tagged yourself and your immediate descendant you have tagged your decedents descendants forever. 

This, my friend, is the ultimate "Firearms Registration" scam. They don't CALL it that .. because that would be just WRONG! But that's what it is.

Has anyone considered that this plan requires that the United States' Government essentially is position to ALLOW firearms transfer .. and thus, firearms possession?
"THEY" cannot do that .. unless we allow them to. The Second Amendment (I'm sure this may become a 'tedious' reference to some of you) specifically disallows "Infringement" of the right of the Citizen to "Keep and Bear Arms". "Infringement" doesn't mean "YOU CANNOT STOP IT ENTIRELY"; it means " YOU CAN"T NIP 'N' TUCK IT TO DEATH!" 

You may not dance around the edges of the thing, and disallow this little thing and that. No, we're not talking about Weapons of Mass Discussion (stet) here; we're talking about the small-arms typically allotted to the common infantryman, in defense of his nation against a Government Gone Wile. CF: Concord; CF: American Revolution.

Bottom line: My guns are .. my guns. I can give them to my kids, and the guv not only shouldn't stop the transfer, but should not be aware of it! Certainly, they should not regulate it!

Senators debate whether you can give your guns to your kids

Report: Sens. Manchin, Toomey in talks over background checks - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room:

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and his GOP colleague Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.) are working on language which would expand checks on firearm sales at gun shows and over the Internet.  

Their preliminary proposal, still in talks, would exclude gun sales between family members and temporary transfers for those with a hunting license, according to Senate aides close to negotiations, assuaging GOP concerns, the Post first reported Sunday night.

We're all waiting, wondering and worrying about whether and how the proposed "Gun-Control" laws would affect your ability to give your heritage firearms to your descendents.

The bottom line is ... control.

Think about it: The Federal Government is  deciding whether they will "let you" disperse your firearms.  They are now deciding whether they will "let you" give your firearms to your children, or other family members.

How are they going to do this?

Well, first, they need to identify the people who have firearms.
Then they need to identify the firearms.
Next, they need to identify your family.

See  a trend here?

Tracking.

In the "Best Case" scenario, "They" will "let you" transfer your firearms to "your family" without restriction.

In order to effect this oh-so-lenient permission, they need at least three data-points.  Maybe four.

1. They need to identify you;
2. They need to identify your family (and confirm the congruency);
3. They need t o identify the firearm
4. They need to confirm that you, and your family member, are legally allowed to possess the firearm.

Isn't that special?  They will LET YOU do what you have always been 'allowed' to do for 200 years, and the justification for this new record-keeping is that it will prevent ... what?

I don't know why they need to do this.  Well, from their point of view, it provides the government with a handy means to regulate firearms.  Not just the TRANSFER, but the POSSESSION.

Who here is going to go through all the (you imagine the scenario) hoops required for you to give your guns ... or leave them, in your will .. to your wife, your children, or your cousin?  What happens if you die intestate?  You didn't make specific provisions in your will for the disposition of your firearms?  Gee, what are these "Representatives" going to do to service your last wish?

Best case:   they will track your family for the rest of their lives, and your children's children as well.  Can you say "Big Brother"?

Anytime you find the Government "permitting" you to do something, you should immediately redefine that as "reserving the right to FORBIDDING you to do ... whatever.

The Feds, the State, your local municipality .. they have no business deciding/regulating/recording what you do with your personal firearms.  They have no "need to know".

Reject (refuse to complete) any governmental form which includes the serial number, description, origin or disposition of your personal arms.  

I would usually avoid the use of foul language (except under certain circumstances, usually involving "mass murder"), but today I will define at least two:

Vile Verb:  Registration
Vile Noun: Politician

These processes, and these people, do not mean to do you any service .. which is THEIR JOB!  You pay their salary, they are (supposedly) your servants.  They work for you, they have no mandate to tell you what to do.  Oppose them at your every opportunity.  Resist their oppression, ignore their illegal laws, and vote against any of them who support  illegal Gun Control.

Oh ...  all Gun Control Laws are not legal; especially the "hidden laws".

Another "New Policy" from Tri-County Gun Club

Another "New Policy" from Tri-County Gun Club:

From another email, not from Columbia Cascade but as a courtesy from a TRI-CO member:

HEADS UP. For those of you that are shooting Tri-county Sunday, AND ARE NOT MEMBERS, you will NOT be able to get in using the old 6 digit code.

These codes are no longer being used, so they can keep non-members that are not with members from entering. Soooooooo, if a club member has NOT made arrangemnets [sic]to have the EXIT gate OPEN so you can drive in, you will want to pull to the LEFT and wait until you can TAILGATE someone inside. This goes for both gates. Once inside you will be OK to shoot the match. Members can only get in using their cards now, no more 6 digit codes. This goes for the police as well. The intent is to issue a match director a one day code that can be used for that match only, as codes will change daily. The club coordinator will then issue that code to all particapants in advance. HOW THIS WILL WORK has not been determined yet. GOOD LUCK, see you Sunday,

"How This Will Work" .. .sounds like a total disaster.

Frankly, I don't understand how a gun club can expect to stay in business if it deliberately makes it difficult for non-members to participate in 'public' matches.

Well ... okay, so they can become a strictly private club, which means that they don't actively encourage non-members to attend their matches.  Which, given their current ruling on the "Over The Berm" rule, is beginning to sound suspiciously like a hidden agenda.

Of course, much of their income currently derives from non-member fees at 'public' matches.  That seems likely to change, though.

The alternatives are either that their match participation will decline drastically and immediately (leaving them a long-term shortfall in their funding), or they can increase their annual dues.   Since these dues are already pretty darned hefty ($225 initiation fee, $170 annual dues) and an NRA membership is mandatory,  they may have to work hard to maintain their current membership let alone attract new members.

On the other hand, perhaps they're expecting that non-members will be strongly encouraged to join, given their new policy on gate-admission.

On the "Third Hand", given their new policy on 'over the berm rules' (which just resulted in their de-certification from USPSA, including the Columbia Cascade Section of USPSA),  they have cut themselves off from a program which results in tens of thousands of dollars in match fees alone, annually,  from both club matches and Level II and Level III USPSA matches.

Can anybody who still has a Tri-County Gun Club membership please explain this to me?  Just WHO is responsible for this Train Wreck at which was once the premium gun club in the state of Oregon?

Bambi-Gate

Couple Charged For Saving Injured Baby Deer:

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has said it is asking a prosecutor to drop charges against a couple who nursed an injured baby deer back to health. The case, dubbed "Bambigate", has sparked an internet backlash after an Indianapolis man set up a Facebook page in support of the couple that had attracted more than 38,000 supporters by Friday.

Jeff and Jennifer Councellor have been charged with illegal possession of a white-tailed deer - punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a fine of $500 - after finding a wounded fawn in 2010 and taking care of it on their 17-acre farm. The Councellors found the deer on a neighbour's doorstep suffering from maggot-infested puncture wounds. They named it Dani and kept it in a fenced enclosure while it healed.

Mr Councellor, a police officer, said he and his wife did not know it was illegal to keep the deer and that releasing it into the wild would have guaranteed its death. The couple eventually applied for a rescue permit, but were denied. Dani reportedly vanished in 2012 the day the DNR had planned to put it down.

Only two comments:

1. Great timing
2. Bad government

Chicago -- don't bother calling the cops

10News - Chicago PD changes policy in responding to minor crimes - Watercooler Story:

CHICAGO - The Chicago Police Department will no longer dispatch officers for minor crimes, such as burglaries and car thefts, if the offender is no longer at the scene and there is no immediate danger. Instead, a report will be taken by phone. The department says it hopes the change will free up about 44 officers each day to respond to more serious crimes.

Such a short story.   A tiny, tiny, inconsequential story which in its brevity answers a few questions ... and also demonstrates just how well that Toddling Town is fairing under the leadership of Rahm Emanuel.

We talked here, a few days ago, about the death by walk-by shooting of a young girl in Chicago.   I posited there what some people consider root causes of violence; among them are corruption and a lack of civil liberties.

What I did NOT mention was the unwillingness or inability of municipal government to actively enforce the law.   Failure to aggressively investigate  "minor crimes" should have been mentioned.

Broken Window Theory: Broken Window Policy

After Rudi Giuliani was elected mayor of New York City in 1993,  he hired William Bratton as his new Commissioner of Police.   Bratton had just finished a 3-year stint as head of NYC Transit Police.  Braxton severely reduced "transit crime" by establishing a "Zero Tolerance" policy on such "petty" crimes as grafitti, fare-hopping, etc.  Giuliani asked Bratton to use the same techniques to reduce crime city-wide.

Bratton received criticism for his work for going after these "petty" crimes. The general statement towards this was "Why care about panhandlers, hookers, or graffiti artists when there are more serious crimes to be dealt with in the city?" The main notion of the broken window theory is that small crimes can make way for larger crimes. If the "petty" criminals are often overlooked and given space to do what they want, then their level of criminality might escalate from petty crimes to more serious offences [sic]. Bratton's work is to attack while the offenders are still green, as it would prevent an escalation of criminal acts in the future. According to the 2001 study of crime trends in New York by George Kelling and William Sousa, rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and significantly, and continued to drop for the following ten years.

 (Note that "Zero Tolerance", as used here, is not in the same sense as a ten year old boy in Virginia being arrested for bringing a toy gun to school; instead, it refers to a policy of not ignoring "petty crimes", such as public urination.)

As cited in the Wikipedia article, the aggressive enforcement of the law of the city not only reduced petty crimes, but serious crimes as well.

(See also:  The National Bureau for Economic Research: "What Reduced Crime in New York City"; and Center on Juvenile and Public Justice "Assessing 'Broken Windows': a Brief Critique")

Chicago has serious problem with "serious crimes" ... such as murder!  And people think that the way to deal with gun violence is to reduce the number of guns available.  So far, that hasn't worked well in the exceptionally violent society which is found in major cities.

This new Chicago policy of essentially ignoring "minor crimes" not only ignores the under-lying causes of escalating criminality, but it also fails to consider that the causative link between petty crime and minor crime might be approximated by the link between minor crime and major crime.

The Chicago Police Department has thus announced a policy (presumably allowed, if not embraced by Mayor Emanuel) which essentially minimizes the chance of apprehension and prosecution of "minor criminals" ... and thus increases the chance that a burglary may more frequently be escalated to a home invasion, or burglary of an occupied residence.

Even "Dumb Hicks From The Sticks" can see that the political leadership of Chicago have just assumed the "Dying Cockroach" position.

Chicago might as well roll over and play dead, because it's not a matter of "IF", but a matter of "WHEN"  they will completely lose control of the lawless elements.  Well, their mayor has already admitted it, if only tacitly.

As Dirty Harry would have said:  "You got to ask yourself, Do I Feel Lucky?"

Probably not.  But  Chicago (and a lot of other municipalities and states and politicians and celebrities) say they want to address the problem of "Gun Violence", yet focus on eliminating the "Gun  ... " part of the equation ... at the expense of our Civil Liberties.   Perhaps they should look at the " ... Violence" part of the equation.   Let's talk about the expense of  THAT approach.

Please understand that we do not reduce violence by reducing our civil liberties.

So why do politicians focus on anti-gun laws instead anti-violence laws?  And be sure, when you are robbed or when your HOME is robbed, that is violence as sure (if not as immediate, or as physically painful) as Rape and Muggings and Murder.  Perhaps the reason that politicians address guns rather than violence is that, in order to reduce lawlessness and especially violent lawlessness, one must provide effective and aggressive police services.    But that costs money!  If they actually enforce existing laws, they will need to pay for more police, and train them to be more efficient.  It's not just the cost of enforcement at the street level, but also prosecution and punishment.

However, if they focus their attention on keeping honest people from owning guns    eliminating the Right To Keep And Bear Arms  common-sense measures and reasonable gun-control laws ... they might get a few more home-owners killed but they won't have to raise the funds.  Politicians aren't usually re-elected (with the possible exception of Rudy Giuliani) because they reduce crime; they're reduced because they (a) look good on camera, (b) talk tough, and (c) don't spend money.   [Okay, Obama has proved that if you have (a) and (b), you can get away with (c).   But that's different; he's a Liberal Democrat.]

Even if talking tough about Gun Control doesn't actually accomplish anything, it costs nothing.

Talk is cheap.

And that's all you're going to get from the Chicago Police Department, Rahm Emanuel, and Barack Obama.

And Congress.

So .. if you live in Chicago, and someone robs your home or steals your car, just call ... no, don't call anybody.  They aren't answering any more.  Instead, go to the Chicago PD "Online Crime Reporting" webpage and fill out the form.

No hurry.   In Chicago, when seconds count, the police are only 3-5 days response time away.   No, you can't have a gun.  But you still have to fill out the form.

I'm so glad I live in the sticks.

UPDATE:  Later, the same day ...

"City of Los Angeles pension funds should not go to profit companies that produce weapons designed to maximize carnage and death," Mayor Antonia Villaraigosa vowed.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a former Obama White House chief of staff, has made the same commitment and gone a step further. Emanuel has authored letters to Bank of America and TD Bank because they maintain multimillion-dollar lines of credit for major gun manufacturers. In the letters, Emanuel urges the banks to use their influence to "push" the manufacturers to go along with the president's tough new gun controls.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-control-supporters-urge-obama-to-bypass-congress-on-new-measures/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2KH2ncVK3

AND ...

Feeling bullied by Rahm Emanuel? Bring your business down to Texas. 

That's the message Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is sending big banks and firearms companies, after the Chicago mayor urged those banks to stop lending to the gun manufacturers. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/texas-lawmaker-tells-big-banks-gun-manufactures-to-leave-chicago/?intcmp=obinsite

The freshman senator sent a letter Tuesday to the CEOs of Bank of America and TD Bank Group offering up the Lone Star State as a place where they could do business without hassle from the government. He said he understands that, since they do "considerable business" with Chicago, they might be worried about the "risks" of not complying with Emanuel's request.

 Don't mess with Texas.

Boyz Frum De Hood

Egyptians riot after soccer fans sentenced to die :

CAIRO — Relatives and angry young men rampaged through the Egyptian city of Port Said on Saturday in assaults that killed at least 27 people following death sentences for local fans involved in the country's worst bout of soccer violence. Unrest surrounding the second anniversary of Egypt's revolution also broke out in Cairo and other cities for a third day, with protesters clashing for hours with riot police who fired tear gas that encompassed swaths of the capital's downtown. The divisive verdict and bloodshed highlight challenges being faced by President Mohammed Morsi, who took office seven months ago following an Egyptian revolution that ousted autocratic leader Hosni Mubarak. Critics say Morsi has failed to carry out promised reforms in the country's judiciary and police force, and claim little has improved in the two years after the uprising against Mubarak.

You know, I've never been a fan of spectator sports.  Well ... maybe baseball.  When watching a baseball game, I can take a nap in the middle of the game in full confidence that when I wake up I won't have missed anything.

Not so, apparently, if "my game" might be ... Soccer!

Oh, it's not just the Egyptians.  I seem to recall having heard about something called "Manchester United".  (Did I say that right?  I don't want to get anybody mad at me for an innocent typo.)

 So, I'm going to take my life in my hands, and talk about both Soccer and Egyptian Politics.  Since I don't know anything about either, it's safe to say that I'm a total dork and I should just go shoot myself.

(For those Egyptians and Soccer fans reading this:  There, I've already said it for you, don't feel obligated to send me a death threat unless you have something more creative to say than that.  On the other hand, if you were all THAT creative ... why would you be watching Soccer Games,  or even reading this trip,  for goodness sakes?  Why aren't you writing poetry or a book or sculpting a statue of Pele?)

Several points were made in the article which just scream for attention, similar to American Soldiers burning Vietnamese Villages (aka John Kerry):

For instance:
Why are soccer fans condemned to die?  I know they're drunken (in an islamic state?) loud, aggressive and obnoxious ... I get that.   Why hang them?

After all, the contingent which has been condemned were key players in ousting Mubarak in favor of the current president, Muslim Brotherhood leader Morsi.

The divisive verdict and bloodshed highlight challenges being faced by President Mohammed Morsi, who took office seven months ago following an Egyptian revolution that ousted autocratic leader Hosni Mubarak. Critics say Morsi has failed to carry out promised reforms in the country's judiciary and police force, and claim little has improved in the two years after the uprising against Mubarak.
The Islamist leader, Egypt's first freely elected and civilian president, met for the first time with top generals as part of the newly formed National Defense Council to discuss the deployment of troops in two cities. The military was deployed to Port Said hours after the verdict was announced, and warned that a curfew could be declared in areas of unrest. The military was also deployed to the canal city of Suez, where protesters attacked the main security compound there after eight people were killed late Friday.

 Wow.  This sounds serious.  If democracy has finally reared its ugly head in NE Africa, and the consequences are that soccer fans are to be hanged by the neck until dead Dead DEAD ... why don't they just over-run Somalia while they're at it?  I'll be there are a LOT of Soccer fans in Mogadishu.

Incidentally, Somalia is not a "Gun Free Zone" ... what folks in America call "Target Rich Environments" aka "Shopping Malls".   Instead almost everybody in Somalia has a gun, even if they don't really know how to shoot accurately.  This is, like "Spray-And-Pray City", right?  Maybe that has something to do with Morsi's decision to kill his own citizens instead of going to war?

Okay, so it's a lot easier to hang soccer fanatics than to run a patrol of Humvees through downtown Mogadishu.  I guess even Bill Clinton figured that one out ... eventually.

Anyhooo ... so Morsi deployed death squads  security troops  military units through-out the country to ... I don't know, do "something" about "protesters".  (How's that "hope 'n change" thing working for you, Morsi?)

This sounds a LOT like Americans insisting that the Feds "Do Something" about School and Mall Massacres.  Please note:  This is what it looks like when "The Government" decides to "Do Something".

Apparently, not everybody is a Morsi fan ... Manchester United?  Maybe.  Morsi?  Probably not.

Survivors and witnesses said Mubarak loyalists had a hand in instigating last year's attack, which began Feb. 1 after Port Said's home team Al-Masry won a match, 3-1, against Cairo's Al-Ahly. Some say "hired thugs" wearing green T-shirts posing as Al-Masry fans led the attacks.
Others say, at the very least, police were responsible for gross negligence in the Feb. 1 soccer brawl that killed 74 Al-Ahly fans.

 Last year's attack?  You mean .. this isn't an isolated event?  Is it possible that ... :The Islamist leader, Egypt's first freely elected and civilian president" isn't universally adulated?  My, he's beginning to sound more like Barack Hussein Obama all the time!   Fortunately, we don't have all that many Rabid Soccer Fans in The States.  Many of us spend our spare time competing in shooting sports, instead of getting drunk and rioting at Soccer games.

Who knows?  After Barack takes out guns, our magazines, and our ammunition away .. what else is there to do besides watching soap operas on the Telly (aka Great Britain) and rioting at Soccer Games (aka .. well, okay .. Great Britain; but apparently Egypt, too.)

I'll get back to you on that one.  I didn't think it through.

Anger at police was evident in Port Said, home to most of the 73 men accused of involvement in the bloodshed, although the trial was held outside Cairo.
Judge Sobhi Abdel-Maguid did not give his reasoning when he handed down the sentences for 21 defendants. Executions in Egypt are usually carried out by hanging.

 Oh dear.  THAT one was a surprise!

• Seventy three defendents?
• Change of venue?
• Judge did NOT "give his reasoning" when he sentenced 21 men to death by hanging?

Isn't it interesting that I found this information from a single information source?

Well .. no.  Actually, there is more to be found in other resources:

From the Israeli Nation News: "Street clashes kill at least 30 people in Egypt's Port Said, after 21 soccer fans sentenced to death over a bloody stadium riot"

From CNN: "Clashes erupt after Egypt court sentences 21 to death in football riot"
There are pictures!  And a little bit more information:

Dubbed the "massacre at Port Said" by Egyptian media, the riot broke out on February 1, 2012, after Port Said-based Al-Masry defeated Cairo's Al-Ahly, 3-1.

When the clashes began, about 22,000 people were inside the stadium, which can hold up to 25,000 people. About 2,000 Al-Ahly fans were at the game, authorities said.

Fans from both sides bashed each other with rocks and chairs. Many of those who died fell from the bleachers during the melee inside the stadium, while others suffocated.

"Fans from both sides"?  So .. this wasn't a "mall massacre", but a riot?  And there were 22,000 people at the match, but the convictions were returned only against members of the 2,000 Al-Ahly (I have no idea what that means)?  They were the only ones who were sentenced to be hung?


I suppose that you're waiting for some kind of Solomon-like Summary which puts the whole thing into perspective.  Sorry, I still can't pretend to understand what's going on 'over there'.  *(Or over here!)*

Hell, I don't even understand why people like to watch Soccer.  Or American Football, for that matter!

Perhaps you can shed some light on these events.  Provide some perspective, as it were.

I'm reminded of the Judaic proverb:

"Man plans; God laughs"

This sounds too sad for laughter, to my ear.   They're just people,  and they don't sound all that different from the folks in my home town. 

Well, except for the Soccer.

And the riots.

And the murders.

And the mass executions.

8-year-old British girl visiting family in Jamaica killed when gunman opens fire, 3 injured

8-year-old British girl visiting family in Jamaica killed when gunman opens fire, 3 injured | Fox News:

A British schoolgirl visiting relatives in a tiny rural village in northern Jamaica was fatally shot when a lone gunman opened fire on a group of family members as they gathered at a roadside shop, officials said Sunday. Imani Green, 8, of Balham in south London, was standing inside a clapboard grocery store and bar with relatives on Friday evening when a gunman wearing a hoodie shot the child in the head and shoulder before also shooting three adult members of her family.

Individual (civilian) ownership of firearms are, of course, forbidden by law in both Great Britain and Jamaica.

That worked out will, didn't it?

I'm sure that the family of this young girl felt entirely "safe", knowing that the tropical garden spot which is Jamaica was an islandic "Gun Free Zone:", where nothing could possibly go wrong.

If it's not too insensitive to mention, it's not just that they were in Jamaica, the home of the infamous machine-gunning incident on the Golf course.     The same thing could have happened  at her home in England.

Neither states allow private ownership of firearms.

The presumption is that .. if you just keep people from being able to own firearms, nobody will shoot anyone else.

Guns don't kill people: people kill people.

Be Ready For Bullets: Mindset for the Nation?

How prepared can we be if evil strikes again?:

Perhaps I'm not The Only One who is trying to get the message out.  It appears that some people aren't willing to accept the flawed premise that: "It's Okay For Us To Be Sheep; We Have A SHEEPDOG!"

(The "Sheepdog:" is the police; their job is to call the ambulances ... and the coroner.)

Here is a short article which examines the alternate reality:  What if a school (or other institution) actually trains their charges in the most likely effective responses to an attack?

Even as we struggle to figure out what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School — who did what and why — the sad frequency of attacks by men with guns is creating a growing school of thought based on a simple premise: Be ready for the bullets. These mass shootings, but also bombings and terror attacks, have fueled a need, rational or not, to be prepared for the worst in whatever form it may come and know how to act when it does.

Chances are, if you are in Ground Zero of a terrorist attack (doesn't matter if it's a 'disturbed' young American, that's what this shit is), if you're not armed the best way to avoid being injured ... or killed .. is to 'not be there'.

If you're a sheep, you'll just follow the herd.  Most of the herd is standing in one place, facing the door, wondering WTF is happening?

But there is a sub-group in that herd who Has A Clue.  Those individuals know that their best chance of surviving the next few moments is to be among the folks who have decided to 'not be there'.

Why are they 'not there'?  Because they are Ready for Bullets.  They don't expect the worst, they're just ready for it.  And so they have already decided that it's better to go away and later feel foolish, than to stick around and be cool .. as in, room temperature.

... while nothing can ever prepare children for what happened at Sandy Hook, having a specific procedure to follow probably did help keep the youngsters calm and focused — and could potentially minimize the effects of the trauma down the road, said Stephen Brock, a professor of school psychology at California State University, Sacramento.

Here are the Three Laws of Survivor Thermodynamics:

1. Those who have a plan, have a chance
2. "Pure Thoughts" are good to have at the last moments of your life; but they don't necessarily extend your Life Expectancy
3. Be Ready For Bullets

I just made them up.   We're all open to suggestions for improvement.   If it saves just one child ....

SCAM!

I recently received the (below) post from a person who identifies herself as "Leela Kidwell"..

My name is Leela Kidwell,i am 69 years old and was diagnosed with cancer 2 years ago.I will be going for an operation later today and i wish to give you access to my will. I WILL/DONATE the sum of (Twenty Four Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) to you for you to use for the good work of the Lord and for charity as well. Contact my lawyer with this email:  barristergilbertfirm@yahoo.cn<mailto:barristergilbertfirm@yahoo.cn>  his name is Gilbert MacEntee Esq. Tell him that i have willed the sum of $24,500,000 to you by quoting my personal reference number Gil/Lee/678/4567/sfti/uk and i have also notified him that i have Willed that amount to you.

Remain Blessed. Please contact my Lawyer directly with the email above do not contact me.
Leela Kidwell.


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

As eager as I am to receive twenty four million dollars from a total stranger, I have to admit that I am slightly ... dubious .. about the veracity of the information provided.  In fact, I have the strangest feeling that the sender is not being entirely honest!

Why am I so dubious?

Because I'm not a total idiot!

Oh .. and by the way?  That little disclaimer at the bottom of the email (attached by my Internet Provider) does NOT mean that it's not a scam; it only means that there is no bogus software being delivered.  No, my dears, this is just a 'social scam', which means it preys on trusting benign souls who are inclined to think the best of anyone who cares to contact them.

It doesn't really mean "Hey!  This Is Safe!!!"

If you, or your friends or family, receive this kind of solicitation (I'm sure there's a "hidden agenda" in here somewhere), please heed this counsel:

Laugh, rejoice in her ascendency to A Higher Level, and delete it without comment.

These jokers are just trying to get YOUR money; they have absolutely no intention of giving you THEIR money.

What a bunch of maroons!

I'm going to take some heat over this one

Glock Myth Laid to Rest: Uberfail Over The Beach Test - YouTube

Some of my best friends shoot Glocks.

When I was in College, there was a saying:  "Friends won't let friends vote Republican".
Forty years later, that had changed to: "Friends won't let friends vote Democrat".

Well, people change and so do their politics.

When I was riding motorcycles, it was "Friends won't let friends ride a Honda".

Okay, so maybe not everything changes.

During the past 25 years, I've tried shooting a few Glocks but I just didn't like them.  I had been spoiled by the 1911 frame and ergonomics; the Glock fits my hand no better than does a spade.  (Or a vacuum cleaner, for that matter.)

However, I do NOT subscribe to the "Friends won't let friends shoot Glocks" meme because ... hey, I'm older now and frankly, I don't much care.   You shoot what works for you; I'll shoot what works for me.

In defense of their hoplofilial choice, my Glock-shooting friends often point to the plethora of tests which show that Glocks will continue to perform under any circumstances.  Dump them in dirt, throw them in a swamp, your beloved Glock will continue to perform "no matter what".

As if your life depended on it.

(Yes, I HAVE seen the You Tube videos of Glocks being subjected to a variety of torture tests.  I have no intention of attempting to explain the differences between those videos and this one.

The video I'm featuring today seems to contend that the "no matter what" contention is as valid as "When seconds count, the police are only minutes  away".

1911

I've mentioned in earlier articles .. years ago, I have no intention of looking up the specific articles .. that the 1911 was designed by John Moses Browning  to function under "combat conditions" .. including being dumped in a mud puddle.    I don't know how true that is.  I haven't tested either my own 1911 (ca: 1918) nor The Beloved Kimber (ca: 1998) nor any of the STI 2011-style pistols I've used in competition.  At least, not under "combat conditions".

But these guys (see below) have tested a loaded Glock by (1) pouring dirt into the works via the ejection port, and then (2) dumping it into yucky water "until the bubbles stop coming up".  Then they pulled the pistol out, let it drain, and tried to fire it.  Actually, it worked fun when just dirty.  But when it got wet, it functioned for only a limited time and then experienced several failures to feed, and just plain failure to fire.  I think I did hear it go "CLICK" some times, but no joy in the "under any conditions" department when the conditions included moisture.

Full Disclosure:  When they had managed to get it to fire several times -- enough to dry it out -- it started functioning with a greater degree of reliability.

You can see the whole thing here.   Then you can draw your own conclusions. 
I'm not saying that the Glock is a POS ... but they are.

(Sorry, Embedding has been disabled by request of the contributors)

Oh, and BTW, I'm appalled by their casual attitude toward safe gunhandling.

Friends won't let friends try this at home!

Desecration on UK Commonwealth World War Cemetery in Benghazi - YouTube

Desecration on UK Commonwealth World War Cemetery in Benghazi - YouTube

I've tried to say this so many times, and I've never had the guts ... or had the exact/specific example to say what I wanted to say. Perhaps today, given this example, I can say it.

I BELIEVE .... all cultures produce their fair share of idiots; most often, among their young.
I BELIEVE .... each generation is driven to discount the values of their fathers, at least when appreciation for the contribution of a foreign culture is concerned. And probably in all other circumstances, especially if the new generation has been "brainwashed" by the radicals of the previous generation.
I BELIEVE .... that this sort of disrespect for their history is not limited to the Muslim population ... but it is here presented precisely that way.
I BELIEVE .... that the presentation of Muslim or Islamic ill-behavior is often presented precisely to denigrate their culture (ignoring that "Young Boys Behaving Badly" is not limited to any specific culture). Note that English "YOBS" have been found to desecrate World War memorials, as well.
SEE BELOW!
I BELIEVE .... that this specific culture is currently more susceptible to bad influences from their elders than are other cultures. Specifically, many Islaamics consider themselves personally "At War" against the West because of the recent incursions against the East from the West, for political reasons which are not generally accepted by these Eastern influential persons.
Or are they?
I BELIEVE .... that any religion may be confused with cultural influences; because of the specific belief system which is Islam, there is a history (including, admittedly, "The Crusades") which encourages the dichotomy between the 15th Century "history" and the 20th century.
On the other hand ... is the influence religious or cultural?
I BELIEVE .... that the recent migration between Islamic lands and European lands has encouraged Islamics to rebel against their perceived anti-bias. That is, the migratory Islamics feel persecuted because they THINK they are persecuted against.
However, they may be right.
I BELIEVE .... that this persecution is not without basis; however, the dichotomy of "I am a foreigner, thus I am treated as an alien" among immigrants is not primarily generated by the host country (s) as much as by the immigrant's unfulfilled expectations.
However, they may be right.
I BELIEVE .... that this fulfillment has less to do with what the immigrants had been led to be believed, than with what they chose to believe .. often with little or no encouragement from their host country.
I BELIEVE .... that when young men find their dreams unfulfilled, they tend to react against those peoples who they expected to provide the fulfillment; their own actions seem, to them, to be entirely reasonable.
However, they may be right.
I BELIEVE .... that Socialism is one of the factors in the disillusionment of immigration. New "citizens" reasonably expect that they will receive "Cradle to the Grave" support from their new host countries. When that level of support is not ("automatically") provided to them, they react negatively; and their friends and relatives from their country of origin mirror that disappointment, even if/when they are not directly affected.
I BELIEVE .... that the guy in the video who climbs a ladder and begins to hammer against the Christian cross with the obvious expectation that he can thus dislodge it... is a prototypical exemplar of people who have unrealistic expectations. In a word; he is an idiot.
I BELIEVE .... that the guys in the video who begin whacking vigorously at the base of the cross-pillar reflect at the guy pounding at the cross itself; they probably don't REALLY expect to take down the Christian symbol, they only wish to register their own personal protest. The RESULTS are unimportant; the EFFORT only serves to display their displeasure. (Note that the video ultimately does not extend to display any meaningful results, but tipping over gravestones is so instantly gratifying!)
I BELIEVE .... that this video is an ultimately embarrassing null-effort by the perpetrators. They are only expressing their frustration, and probably not dissing the brave men who gave their lives for their benefits. It's sad that they have no more productive manner of expression, just as it is sad that that they are so willing to denigrate the efforts of perfect strangers who died for their freedom to desecrate their graves.
I BELIEVE .... these kids are a bunch of Useful Idiots who someone will take advantage of, in order to make a political point.
I BELIEVE .... that I have just done that.


I wonder if they will be proud, or embarassed, that a Westerner will use their vandalism to show how shallow is their character?

OR ....

will we remember the November 05, 2005 incident when Muslim graves were desecrated in a British graveyard?

Hundreds of police officers were drafted on to the streets of Birmingham last night after dozens of Muslim grave headstones were damaged at a city cemetery, triggering concerns about fresh race riots.

The desecration was discovered yesterday morning by relatives visiting the Muslim part of Handsworth Cemetery in Birmingham.

Leaflets were also scattered among the grave stones with insults against Muslims which were attributed to a unknown group calling themselves Black Nation. Up to 45 headstones were smashed or pushed over.

We're real big about decrying the desecration of British graves by Muslim youths .... but why don't we notice the similarly despicable action against Muslim graves by British youths?

(Note that this reference was at least 100 levels down in a Google Search! Sure, it took place 7 years ago .... but why did it take such research in depth to find it? Could it be because we are so quick to condemn others for the things that we do ourselves?)

Olofson's Out!

Olofson Out - Gun Owners Of America

You remember David Olofson, don't you?

Short version: He's the U.S. Army Vet who loaned his AR15 to a friend, who took it to a shooting range where it malfunctioned by firing several rounds 'very quickly'. Someone heard this, thought it sounded like a "machine gun", and since full-automatic weapons were not permitted at this range they called the police. Police went to the "friend's" home and confiscated the weapon. Six days later they arrested Olofson at his home and he was eventually convicted in Federal Court of "... knowingly transferring an unregistered machine gun".

BACKGROUND IN DEPTH: Gunowers.com has a decent summary, and links to MANY supporting documents to the Olofson Case.

Olofson has completed his 30 month sentence in prison and has been released. Now he's trying to make some money to pay his expenses and get back to his life. GOA's press release asks for people to check an online website to see if they want to buy anything that Olofson is trying to sell.

There has been a lot of commentary on the Olofson case over the past 3+ years, much of it generated by Snowflakes In Hell blog.

Four points:

(1) At first blush, this is seems to be a situation where bad judgment and bad mechanics combined to put a man in prison and ruin his life; a man who has honorably served his country and not only has NOT committed a violent crime (such as robbery with assault, which would probably get him about the same sentence) but arguably has done NOTHING wrong, or even illegal. It's just a Bad Thing all around, and the least we can do is shake our heads sadly and say "There but for the grace of God ....". Because, conceivably, any of us could be ensnared in the Nest of Vipers that is our legal system today.

(2) One of the most egregious enforcers of that legal system is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ["ATF"]. This agency is part of the Treasury Department, and was essentially established to enforce laws which were created to regulate "noxious substances" by forbidding their use without paying applicable taxes .... and then refusing to accept the taxes (if payment had been offered) because they just didn't want you to HAVE the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms or Explosives. Yes, this is a gross oversimplification.

The point, though, may be that the Federal government has chosen taxation as a means of justifying regulation. The agency committed some very strong offensive moves against people who tried to sell alcohol during Prohibition, and now they are committing some very strong offensive moves against people who try to sell (or in the Olofson case, merely "lend") firearms. Is ATF a governmental over-reaction? Is it an "Out Of Control" governmental agency? Is it really necessary that the Federal government should be empowered to define what inanimate objects we may possess, and is this constitutional? Or, in this more "civilized" era, do we need the federal government to protect us from our own excesses?

(As a side note, GOA just documented disturbing news about ATF efforts to ban the importation of several brands, makes and/or models of SHOTGUNS because they include features which make them look 'military'; and “military shotguns, or shotguns with common military features ... are unsuitable for traditional shotgun sports.” Who defined "traditional shotgun sports", and what does that have to do with the Second Amendment?

(3) Was this a simple case of "Presecutorial Zeal"? The Supreme Court definition of a machine gun includes the phrase " ... a firearm that shoots automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger until the trigger is released, or the ammunition in the magazine is exhausted". The judge's instructions to the jury had been to accept the Persecutor's Prosecutor's definition: " ....shoots more than one shot with one pull of the trigger". Those of us who fire semi-automatic weapons extensively have usually witnessed one or more incidents where a semi-automatic firearm "doubles" or even "triples". This is universally (except for the AFT, the Prosecutor and the Judge) acknowledged to be a malfunction. In a 1911 model pistol, that can be caused to occur by improper installation of the "3-finger" spring, or "sear spring". Correcting that mechanical error will stop the malfunction. Conversely, if the weapon had been modified to shoot in full-automatic mode, the AR15 would have continued to fire. However, in this case it was clear ... both from the testimony of the ''friend" and that of the ATF technical witness that the AR15 would jam (stop firing) after only a few rounds had been fired. There was NO evidence that the ATF laboratory was able to cause the AR15 to fire an entire magazine of ammunition without jamming.

S0 ... was it a 'full-automatic" weapon, or was it a malfunction?

And WHY was the prosecutor so determined to get a conviction that he deliberately changed the definition of a full-automatic weapon to suit the facts of the case?


(4) As for poor Mr. Olofson, it may very well be that his life purpose has been only to serve as a Bad Example to the rest of us, "pour encourager des autres".

Here's a Lou Dobbs TV commentary on the Olofson case, after Olofson had been imprisoned. The video is dated January 22, 2009. I think that the commentary does a very good job of making point (3):



The Bottom Line:

I'm glad he's out of prison --- finally. It probably comes as no surprise to the reader that I think Olofson should never have been put through this ordeal in the first place.

In the spirit of "Full Disclosure", I've had a firearm malfunction and fire multiple shots with one pull of the trigger, also.

It was at the 2001 Area 1 USPSA match in Washington. I had given my STI Edge 2011 pistol to a gunsmith-wise friend a week before the match, asking him to do a thorough cleaning and function-check of the pistol, in preparation to this Major Match.

Unfortunately, I neglected to provide him with magazines and ammunition so he could function-test the pistol. And when I received it back, 10 minutes before the beginning of the first day of the match, there was insufficient time for me to check the pistol.

When I started the first stage, I engaged the first target and the gun Doubled. The Range Officer stopped me, because I obviously had an "Unsafe Gun" (according to the USPSA Rules of Competition.)

I looked up my friend, who was also competing at the match. We retired to a Safety Area where he disassembled the gun and discovered that the Three-Finger (Sear) spring had been incorrectly installed. The Sear 'finger' had been installed over, rather than under, the sear. (Or the reverse, I can't recall just now.)

Having no tools with us other than a small screwdriver, he used a rock as a hammer and the screwdriver as a punch to drive out the mainspring retaining pin, and when the grip assembly was removed he could tell that he had installed the spring incorrectly. He re-installed it, checked it, and re-assembled the pistol. I paid a dollar to test-fire the gun at the Function Test stage (monitored by a Range Officer), and it functioned correctly.

Cost to me? One dollar. Penalties? None ... I actually was allowed to reshoot the stage, due to a technical glitch in the Stage Range Officer handling the problem.

However, if the ATF had been present, chances are that I too would have been accused, charged and convicted (under the rules of the Olofson case) with having "...an unregistered machine gun".