How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

"Practice!  Practice!   Practice!"

I've elevated my P3AT to my primary EDC because I don't like the difficulty of concealing a big chunk of iron.

Which means, of course, that I need to start practicing with the poodle-shooter.

What to do ... what to do ...  what to do?  

Bright idea ... I bought a case of .380 from Ammoman (Hi, Eric) and when it comes I'll be spending an extra hour every week working with the "minigun".

It's important that I know the little guy works with the kind of ammunition I expect to run in it.  I tried the cheapest practice ammo I could find a couple of years ago, and it fed like a ... well, like a well-oiled machine.

But then I tried some relatively expensive "defensive" ammunition ... and the little mutt didn't like it at all!   It acted as if the OAL was wrong (either too long or too short) and I had to manually feed the gun at least once in every magazine.   Or it just doesn't like hollow-point ammunition, I don't know.

So forget that!

I'll take the cheap stuff, if it feeds.

Oregon appeals court throws out university gun ban

Oregon appeals court throws out university gun ban:

Now they tell me:

SALEM, Ore. (AP) - The Oregon University System cannot ban guns on college campuses, the state Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday in a decision that overturns a decades-old prohibition.

I worked on the OSU campus for 15 years, and while I always had a firearm on-campus (if not on my person), the policy was that if I was CAUGHT with a firearms ... even though I had a legitimate CCH (Carry Concealed Handgun) license, the university was allowed to fire me if they found me in possession of a firearm on campus.

Now, I have been retired for about FIVE months, and the Oregon judicial system has only just decided that my determination to protect my private person is legally justified.

Why didn't they do this 15 years ago, when I first started working for them?

Fifteen years of bringing a concealed handgun on campus every day, worrying every day that I would be discovered; and all this time I never fired a gun .... never assaulted anyone ... never caused my co-workers to fear that I would attack them because of the rage which they KNEW was generated from the mere fact that I had a gun and might "go postal" at any given moment~



Gee, Folks. Had I only been able to testify that I had a gun on campus for fifteen years and my co-workers were still safe from me, I would have felt that my presence was justified. Maybe if I had felt that my job and my co-workers were still safe even though I carried (or perhaps they were 'more safe'), this dorky "administrative" rule would have been abrogated years ago.

Thank you Oregon State Court Court of Appeals, for finally noticing that University Workers were not the threat you should be worried about.

I will not even link to the Virginia Tech issues, or the comments I have already made defending the Oregon University System student who was busted a couple of years ago for having a weapon on campus.

I can't even say "It's About Time".

All I can say is ... "Thank God" that the courts have made this small step, which brings University Policy in line with State Law.

As for the Oregon State universities?


What a bunch of maroons, that it took a judicial ruling to make them wake up!

Ho Hum - Bicycles: just another Excellence in Performance video

YouTube - Danny MacAskill - "Way Back Home"


I want you to watch this video, and think about just how much Excellence in Performance is demonstrated here.


Done watching?

Pretty damn impressive, wasn't it?


Now, go watch Athena Lea's performance at the latest major USPSA match ... 2011 Double-Tap Match. Go ahead; if you haven't seen it yet, go watch it. We'll wait.

No, even if you HAVE seen it before, go watch it again.

And while you're watching that video, keep in mind the differences between the two videos.

The Danny MacAskill - "Way Back Home video showed one person, in carefully chosen milieus, performing stunts which the common person could not even imagine himself doing. It's breath-taking. It's beautiful (not in the least because of the background music) ... in a controlled, stolid and consistent setting. When we watch this, we are in awe. We can only imagine the years of practice and dedication which allows and leads one person to accept and overwhelm such challenges of balance, speed, and power.

I'm impressed. Aren't you? If you aren't, you should be.


But consider the Athena Lee video. How are the challenges SHE faces any less intimidating? How many years has she practiced her skills .... and in the effort competed against a multitude of people no less skilled, no less dedicated, no less practiced over and over again.

Or, how are her challenges MORE intimidating? Other than, of course that she is competing, rather than making a feel-good video?

Danny has a 3 minute (more or less) video, which is obviously the result of hours of filming. It's like a Jackie Chan movie ... who knows how many takes each shot required, before he got it 'right'. Sure, he may have injured himself in the filming; we don't know. What we saw here were only the very best of an unknowable number of 'takes' before everything was just right.

Now look again at Athena Lee, or ANY USPSA/IPSC competitor. They only get one run, one chance to make the perfect run on any given stage ... On EVERY Stage! If it isn't perfect every time, they don't get another go at it .... their time and score is recorded and they stand on their single best/worst/good/mediocre performance. They have to be ALWAYS at the top of their game on every stage at every match .... or nobody cares about them.

I think that when people look at videos of USPSA/IPSC matches, they tend to say "ho hum, just another day at a match".

But when they look at a bicyclist riding a child's bicycle, they say "Hey, Wow! That's rather a dicey place he's put himself into, isn't it?"

Bicycle riding is ... I don't know if I can put it in to the proper framework. I'm impressed by the amazing stunts they can do, but I'm always aware that they probably didn't do it 'right' the first time, no matter what stunts they do.

USPSA/IPSC competition, however, is ALWAYS "do it right the first time, over and over, or you're merely an "Also Ran". (And we all know how many of us fit in THAT category, don't we? Show of hands? I thought so.)

I'm not saying that the antics of grown men on kiddy-cycles isn't impressive, because it is.

And yes, I've deliberately used the most demeaning buzz-words I could imagine in describing this phenomenon, because I am trying to demonstrate the wide gap between appreciation of one "non-spectator sport" and another.

When we see a grown man on a kiddy bike jumping walls and riding rails, it's justifiable impressive.

But when you see a truly champion-class Practical Pistol shooter (Athena Lee, for example) doing everything right, on every stage of a bit match, it's all to easy to say "Ho hum, just another IPSC match." You and I could probably do a fair approximation of Ms. Lee/s performance, couldn't we?

Well, maybe so, maybe no. But the point is ... you can't get your name in the winners' circle with a "maybe". You need to perform better than everyone else, first time and every time. Or you're still a "Ho Hum" performer.

I think that the kind of competition as typified in USPSA is the finest, most point-of-the-sword kind of competition available on this planet. This is roughly equivalent to Olympic quality athletes, but looked at in a different way.

(And do NOT get me started on the stupid failed efforts of IPSC to make Practical Shooting a "Demonstration Event" in the International Olympics a decade or so ago. I'm still frosted about that; this was the most inept political effort in recent history, in ANY venue, and a child could have told the IPSC President ["He Who must Not be Named"] that it was ill timed, poorly conceived, and ineptly executed.)

Yes, Practical Shooting could and perhaps should be elevated to an Olympic level, but that's a Political Decision, and IPSC/USPSA is not a politically-correct "sport" (Quotes used advisedly, well knowing that they are included in the sardonic sense.) In a single sentence: Kiddy-Bike rail-jumping will be elevated to an Olympic level before Practical Shooting is, because Kiddy-Bike rail-jumping is not politically incorrect ... even if it's EASIER TO DO.

Scroll back:
Biking looks good, because you get a lot of tries and it's not competitive AT ALL!

Shooting doesn't look good, politically, and it's easy to lose because you have only ONE TRY and the competition here is fierce, man. Truly fierce!

No, I'm not putting down biking, whatever the venue. Some of the stunts I see in the provided video ... oh hell, ALL of them! ... are just beyond the concept of the common man to perform.

But when I look at videos of USPSA/IPSC competition, I'm even more impressed. I KNOW I can't do that, because I've tried, for over 25 years, and I know that however well my performance may look on video, there's always some one else who can do the same thing better, smoother, faster. It's like the Bionic Man:

"We can do it. We have the technology. We can make him better .. stronger ... faster."

Yeah, but can you make him "better .. stronger ... faster" than everyone else? Or can you just make him look good on Video?

Here's the point:
You can look at a lot of video events, and you can look at a lot of competitive sports. But there are very few events which are both competitive sports, and which position each competitor against every other competitor .. in a field which may include 300 or 400 other competitors ... and elevate one single person above all of his or her opponents. This kind of competition selects the best, the fastest, the smartest and the most consistently excellent person in the field.


This kind of competition is found in very few venues; these venues include ..... well, The Olympics. And all subordinate versions of competition which qualify competitors for The Olympics.

No mistakes. No awkward moments. No minor slip-ups wit the penalty of only a second or two accumulative over multiple efforts ..... and the first try you get is the ONLY try you get.

Child bike-riding looks really good on video, but when you compare it to IPSC/USPSA competition (remember, these people are shooting real guns and a moment's slip-up could result in disaster!), it's just a kid sport.

Ho hum.

Teaching and Shooting: It's All Good

To my great surprise, I discovered today that teaching an "Introduction to USPSA" class is a great way to get some range time.

My training technique is "Tell, Show, Shoot" approach.

• First I tell the students what they will be doing on each stage of the Life Fire Excercises;
• Then I show them what it lo0ks like ( in slow-time, preferably, so they can see what is happening"
• Then the each come up to The Line and emulate what they have had described, and what they have seen.

This approach has multiple values as a training regimen. It becomes crystal clear to each student what must be done to solve the "shooting problem", and it re-enforces the concept that one need not shoot quickly to perform well.

In fact, the mantra (is there is one) is that "the fastest shooter doesn't necessarily win the stage".

And the apotheosis is :
Q: what is the most common mistake mistake made by new shooters?
A: Shooting too fast.

In fact, the fastest shooter sometimes DOES win the stage, but that's only true when the "fastest shooter" in only quick, but accurate. And experienced.
But that doesn't really deliver the message, so for "new shooters" we emphasize Accuracy.

And we tell them that "speed will come ... when you someday discover that you can shoot as accurately at a higher speed".

It's true, but for 99% of us, it's not true. The exceptions do NOT prove the rule; rather, they are a distraction for those of us who must work to achieve proficiency. So we don't teach it: we teach accuracy, and if every shot isn't an "A-Zone" hit, we reinforce that by saying "Shooting To Fast ... Slow Down!"

---

Running a class is a wonderful way for us to get a Reality Check on our own skill set. We tend to think that we are so experienced that we can do no wrong, but in truth that is is bogus thinking. Perhaps the best thing we can do is to dial it down to whatever percent (80%? 50%?) and let the hits fall where they may. Or misses ... if nothing else, it may prove that the best purpose we serve as Instructors is to provide a bad example. There's nothing like standing in front of a class of earger students, and admitting that you missed the freaking target.

Reality check? No, it's a valid test of their ability to score a target which includes a miss. If you have taught the class right, the students do not miss the target. Sometimes, your (*my?*) own fallibility is the best training tool available.

If you are a trainer, it may be a very useful technique to demonstrate that experienced shooters can get caught up in the excitement of the moment, and ... "Shoot Too Fast".

----

It has been a while since ARPC (Albany Rifle and Pistol Club) has been able to conduct an "Introduction to USPSA" class. But with the improved weather and the uncommon fair weather we have experienced as a consequence of the "Global Warming" phenomenon, several (six) people chose February in Oregon as a good time to take the class and learn what they need to know before beginning IPSC competition.

We have a training manual (online) which is down loadable in Oregon. Not everyone chose the option of going through the manual, and completing the exercises before the class. Fortunately, the gun-handling skills of the attendees was excellent, on the average, and there were no problems in the class.

People who shoot in competition ... or want to do so ... tend to be (if I can make an observation) intelligent, responsible and competent, so we had NO problems during the training. I was pleased that everyone who attended was able to focus on competition issues, and not on basic gun-handling skills. Or, in other words, nobody screwed up to the degree which would have required me to flunk them from the class.

We got through the one hour of classroom instruction okay, and the surprises of actually going through the live-fire drills was decidedly more rewarding than problematic. As I had no demonstrator, I was "forced" to act as the demonstrator myself; this solved the problem of "describe, SHOW and experience" and also served to allow me some "Range Time" of my own.

The thing is, I shoot in competition because I love to shoot. And everyone in the class demonstrated their own personal devotion to "Let's Go Shoot Some Cardboard".


At the end of day ... okay, I'm not going to say that everyone had shot enough to satisf them, but we had a lot of fun and everyone shot safely. What else are we here for?