"To Protect, and To Serve"

Parkland shooting: Judge says school, cops had no duty to protect kids:

John Bacon, USA TODAYPublished 11:01 a.m. ET Dec. 19, 2018 | Updated 2:52 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2018

A Florida lawyer representing 15 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High students says he is "exploring all of our options" after a federal judge ruled that law enforcement and school officials had no legal duty to protect students during a Valentine's Day rampage at the school that left 17 people dead.  (emphasis added)

"Legal Duty" isn't necessarily the same as "Moral Duty".

*(H/T: David Codrea)*

Tourniquets ,,, ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE QUALIFIED?

Nice article about saving a life by applying a tourniquet.

Amid Chicago gun violence, public campaign aims to help keep victims from bleeding to death - Chicago Tribune:

 Doctors said that if Watson and his partner, Paul Moreno, hadn’t taken those steps after the October 2016 shooting, the teen probably would not have survived. Medical experts say anyone can employ a few basic techniques to achieve the same results when confronted with a life-and-death scenario. And a public service campaign called “Stop the Bleed” aims to do just that: teach bystanders to save someone’s life by learning basic blood-stemming techniques. Stop the Bleed is a national effort established by the White House in 2015 as one response to the Sandy Hook mass school shooting three years before. It aims to arm civilians with skills and bleeding control kits to provide crucial aid in an emergency until medical professionals can take over.

(EMPHASIS ADDED!)
I'm not sure I would have done that.

Not that I'm not a compassionate and caring person, but there are a couple of cautionary notes that YOU should be aware of before YOU apply a tourniquet to an injured and bleeding limb.

1. If you shut of the blood supply to a limb, the tissues in that limb will begin to die immediately because it isn't getting the blood it needs.  If you shut off the blood supply long enough (say, for the sake of discussion, 15 minutes) the limb may begin to atrophy. Read: "ROT".
2. If you save someone from bleeding to death, but in the process that person loses a limb due the drastic life-saving measures you undertook with the most humanitarian motives, you may be subject to a civil suit.  Unless you are a trained medical professional, you may lose the suit, should you choose to fight it.  It's like saving someone by kneeling on their chest so they can't breath ... you have possibly exacerbated the situation.  (Okay, that wasn't the best example, except that it was an 'emergency procedure' which you thought was appropriate ... except in that specific instance it wasn't.)
3. If/when you go to court, you might be congratulated for attempting to save live and/or limb, but that's in the first hour of testimony.   After a certain point, your attorney might suggest that you agree to a 'lesser' civil penalty (eg: agree to a $100,000 payment instead of contesting a $1,000,000 payment) because .. well, you DID apply a tourniquet to the young girl's arm, and she DID have her arm amputated because the flesh was necrotic.  If you had delayed in applying such an "extreme" measure, she may NOT have died from blood loss but she certainly would NOT have had her arm amputated in the next week.
4. ...

I'm not sure there is a "Point 4" here.  There are too many cautionary tales in the first three points, and I strongly suggest that you refer to other sources because I am neither a medical nor a legal professional; this is information which I received during "First aid/Traumatic Care" training in Basic, and again in NCOC training in the army.  (They weren't worried about civil penalties, they were worried about the best care for a wounded comrade. The training cadre envisioned much more frequent injuries, much more dramatic causes ... AK47 rounds or booby traps as the cause, which  cause injuries which are much more traumatic than, for example, a simple compound fracture.)  

[You should hear what they had to say about treating a wounded comrade who has had his jaw shot off!  STEP ONE: PULL HIS TONGUE OUT OF HIS THROAT AND TURN HIS HEAD TO THE SIDE, SO HE DOESN"T ASPHYXIATE HIMSELF OR DROWN IN HIS OWN BLOOD!]

Once again ... if you are concerned that someone may need your immediate care to keep from bleeding to death from some sort of lacerating injury ... go get professional training and earn some kind of certificate which documents that you HAVE been trained in this kind of emergency and you ARE qualified to make this kind of dramatic remedial care  (using a tourniquet on an injured limb).

If you don't do that, and you are faced with the situation and you do NOT apply a tourniquet ... and the patient suffers from your lack of care?  Guess what?  You're possibly still vulnerable from a lawsuit because of your refusal to apply whatever immediate care steps you might have been (sort of) trained in.

That IS a pistol in my pocket, AND I'm happy to see you

Court: Man wrongfully terminated for having gun in vehicle at work:

A unanimous three-judge panel found on Monday that a Mississippi man could sue his former employer after being fired for keeping a gun in a locked vehicle on the job site.

A man whose employer discovered that he had a (legal) firearm in his parked car while at work has sued, and won, in protest for illegally being fired 'for cause'.

The court accepted that he had a gun in his car, but that wasn't grounds for termination.  
The Corporate Policy was illegal ... not the gun in the car.

I just love a story with a happy ending.

(Thanks to Mae West for a great line.)

What's the difference between IPhone Security and Firearms Security?

Forget iPhones, let's require passcodes on guns - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram:

Why is it a 6-year-old child can pick up an iPhone and be prevented from accessing its contents because of a passcode, but that same child can pick up a gun and shoot his 3-year-old brother in the face and kill him by accident? If a judge can order Apple to create software that can unlock phones that are now impenetrable, why can’t Congress order gun makers to lock their guns?

Where do we start?

(1) A child should not initiate a fatal firearms accident ... parental responsibility.   Does it sound too simplistic to suggest that cell phones and firearms should not be subject to the same security protocols?   If you own a firearm and your minor child has access, the consequences are YOUR fault!

(2) "Passcodes" are intended for access restrictions of electronic devices; they are not intended for access restrictions for defense firearms.  ANY protocol which delays immediate access to a defensive firearm cripples the 'defensive' capability of a firearm.  Good people die when artificial restrictions cripple an honest citizen's access to a defensive weapon.  Cell phones .... not so much.

(3) The role of Congress is to uphold and defend the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment.  Too often the Liberals think that the job of Congress is to enact "feel-good" laws.  There is a technical term to describe people who conflate personal physical security with cell-phone security.  That technical term is "IDIOTS!"

(4) The job of legislation is to protect private rights, not to limit them.

Oregonians died today. And it's my fault. And yours.

Oregon shooting: Gunman dead at Umpqua Community College - CNN.com:

Is anyone surprised that this happened in a "Gun Free Zone"?    Anyone?

U.S. President Barack Obama was briefed on the situation and will continue to receive updates throughout the day. He pushed for a change in gun laws when he spoke to reporters about the shooting Thursday. "Our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It's not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel, and it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America -- next week, or a couple months from now," he said.

(Presidential statement here)

__________________________________________________________________
at about 2:17 on the statement video, The President says:

It cannot be this easy for anyone who wants to inflict harm on another person to get his or her hands on a gun!

Easy?

EASY

Firearms are the most restricted, legislated-against, controlled commercial product in American history.  And yet Obama bemoans that it's to EASY?
Well, for someone who has no history of mental disease, or felonious actions, it's easy.  That's in keeping with the Second Amendment.  But the issue isn't about guns, it's about people.  As soon as we get technology which allows us to predict how people can act in unpredictable ways, we can stop this unpredictable activity. (re: Minority Report)

_____________________________________________________________

(Local sheriff statement here ... the sheriff refused to name the shooter, and rightly so)

(This current piece in REASON has a few things to say which  I wish I had said first):

What's important in regards to the politics of Obama's speech right now is that neither you nor I nor Obama knows anything about what sort of weapon was used and how it was obtained or the shooter's background. I don't even know his name as I type. 

Thus, he is undoubtedly overreaching beyond the facts when he speaks over and over about how apparently easy and simple gun-safety laws would have prevented this, or future tragedies like this

The arrogance of our current president surpasses understanding.

I read the news about the massacre at Umpqua Community College (which by the way is pronounced "UMP" as in "Umpire" and "QUA" as in "QUALITY"), and I'm appalled once again by the societal influences which bring a person to the decision that they only way he can be made whole is to cause the slaughter of innocents.

Usually, this sort of tragedy is ended when the shooter commits suicide, and I wonder:   "why the HELL didn't he just shoot himself first?"

UPDATE:  May have posted his intentions on Social Media

Today, the police in Roseburg, Oregon (nice town, I've been there many times, it's only 120 miles away from my home) were both pro-active and timely.  They responded to the calls quickly,  found-and-fixed their target, and resolved the situation as expediently as possible.   But they were too late to stop that asshole before too many people were slaughtered like lambs.

Unfortunate that there were no CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders on the scene; they could have minimized the death toll, which was far too many innocents.  I often wonder why America is so plentifully staffed with innocent lambs, and so understaffed with the sheep-dogs that a proper flock requires.   We need to pay more attention to the needs of our sheep-dogs local police departments.

And we need to revisit the collegiate rules which mandate no CHL on campus in Oregon.  The state laws allow CHL, but (as I've said so many times before) the colleges can make their own rules about no guns on campus, and enforce them by firing an employee who violates them, or by terminating a student who legally has the temerity to carry a firearm on campus.

... and this most recent tragedy is my fault because I am vehemently against Gun Free Zones, because that's the Happy Hunting Ground for mad men.

Death by Taser - or a reasonable facimile there-of

This wasn't the first time, and it probably won't be the last time:

Oklahoma deputy charged in suspect's shooting death | Fox News:

TULSA, Okla. –  (April 14, 2015)  Prosecutors charged a reserve sheriff's deputy with manslaughter Monday in the death of a man who was fatally shot as he lay on the ground at the officer's feet — a shooting that was certain to raise questions about the use of volunteer officers to supplement full-time police. The sheriff's office has said Robert Bates, a 73-year-old insurance executive who was volunteering on an undercover operation in Tulsa, mistakenly pulled out his handgun instead of his stun gun and shot the suspect as he struggled with deputies.

Tulsa World TV has the incident video released by the police.

No moralizing about privileged rich guys getting to play cop without proven experience or competence.  Everybody else in world will be saying that.

I'm just saying?

When has this happened before?

"Hi, I'm Bubbah. Gimme a Coke and Fries, or ...."

Gun-rights activists say Fort Worth incident is overblown | Arlington | News from Fort W...:
(Arlington, Texas ... May 07, 2014)

Local gun-rights activists say too much fuss is being made over an incident last week in which some of its demonstrators, carrying shotguns and rifles, walked into a Fort Worth fast-food restaurant to buy soft drinks but were mistaken for robbers. 

Last week, employees at the Jack in the Box at Sycamore School Road and the South Freeway told Fort Worth police officers that “they feared for their lives” and locked themselves in a freezer for protection after seeing men they thought were armed with assault rifles enter the restaurant, according to a police report. 

Kory Watkins, a spokesman for Open Carry Tarrant County, said Tuesday that the men were carrying their firearms in a “nonaggressive fashion” and that they were at the restaurant only to buy drinks while waiting for a nearby gun-rights demonstration to begin. Within moments, police officers arrived to ask the men why they were there. 

“This was blown out of proportion. There was no robbery. The caller must have overexaggerated the situation,” Watkins said.

Cheeze and Rice!

If I was working at the Jack In The Box in Fort Worth, and these guys walked into the store?  I would have .. over-reacted.

You are armed like Storm Troopers and you walk into a Jaque de Boite expecting to get served like anybody else?

Let's get real.

How would the employees know you weren't intended to rob the place and murder everyone in the joint?

When you are packing shotguns and rifles, and walk into a commercial property, what else do you expect the employees to think?

I don't care who you think you are, or what your rights are; you are armed with shotguns and rifles, and you think the employees "overexaggerated" (sp) the situation"????

You guys, those of you who strutted around with your guns ... you are IDIOTS!  Are you so proud of your 2nd Amendment Rights that you forget that you are in a civilized community?  NOBODY --- armed to the hilt as you obviously were --- walks into a commercial establishment populated with folks who can't find A Real Job.

No, I take that back:  "NOBODY WALKS INTO A PUBLIC PLACE WITH EXPOSED RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS!!!!!"  Especially, when you are flashing Major Guns around, you cannot convince anyone that you are doing so in a "non-aggressive fashion".

They will not believe you.

Hell, *_I_* will not believe you!

You couldn't leave them locked in your car?  Or stay in the car with the rifles and shotguns, and send in somebody without a rifle or shotgun to put in your order?  Or go through the DRIVE-THROUGH, for crying out loud?   What did you expect the employees, to do;  serve you without comment?

They expect you to shoot the guy who throws popcorn in your face.  And rightly so!

IDIOTS!

---

You people have set back the Second Amendment by centuries.  You WILL read about how gun-owners are arrogant, insensitive, and abusive of your Second Amendment Rights.

The worst part about is is, at least as far as you YAHOOS are concerned ... they will be right!

Whomever you are, where-ever you live ...  I hope you are tried and convicted as felons.  I hope you serve time in jail .. not because you broke a law, but because will lose your Second Amendment rights; which you obviously do not appreciate.  You will not do your part to protect those rights. by cherishing them and being respectful of folks who don't agree with you.    You are the kind of people who just can't understand, or respect, your God-given rights. You don't f*cking DESERVE them!

The people who locked themselves in the cooler did the right thing.

You ... did not.

PLAXICO BURRESS: 2nd Amendment Hero, or Irresponsible Dolt?

PLAXICO BURRESS ACCIDENTALLY SHOOTS SELF IN LEG - New York Post

The bottom line of the November 29, 2008 NY Post story is that a football player (and role model for millions of American Children, so to speak) decided to carry a gun into a NYC bar and in one way or another managed to shoot himself in the leg. Then his friends brought him to a hospital for treatment, where he identified himself with a made-up name and a made-up story (anecdotal, no reliable reference so far) and left after treatment and before the hospital remembered to notify the police of a gun-shot wound.

He was eventually identified, arrested, and will face charges of carrying a concealed firearm (among other charges, such as making false statements).

It's interesting to see the various interpretations on the gun-bloggers, and I look forward to following the news.

My short version of the story:

He broke the law in carrying a concealed weapon in NYC, he fumbled his gun while trying to clear it (or when it slipped from the waistband of his jogging pants and grabbing it ... depends on the new sources you believe), and undeniably manage in so doing to shoot himself in the leg. Then his friends took him out of the NYC nightclub where the incident occurred, drove him to a hospital for treatment, and eventually slipped out. The police eventually identified him and charged him with a various number of offenses, not least is violation of the NYC Sullivan Law (if that law is still so called.)

In reading the last week's gunblogger write-ups of this notorious case, I found two which seem to best illustrate the polarization of the gun commuity.

Xavier Thoughts describes Burress as a wanna-be gangbanger who carried a loaded (cocked and, maybe, locked) into a public drinking place and through negligence and inexperience managed to drop the gun and in so doing shot himself. As Xavier says in response that the Heller Decision may apply (in regards to NYC's draconian gun laws):

The landmark Heller decision does not apply. For once Bloomberg is right. Plaxico Burress knowingly violated the law. This was not an act of civil disobedience. Plaxico Burress did not have to go to the Manhattan nightclub. If he decided to go, he did not need to carry a gun. Being a wealthy athlete, he had more options than many people. He could have hired bodyguards to protect him and his bling. Instead, he chose to play the role of the thug and carry his gat in his sags and go clubbin'. He is not a victim. He knowingly and willfully violated the law, no matter how unjust that law is. Plaxico Burress was an arrogant athlete who thought he was special, that the law did not apply to him, that he was beyond, if not above the law.

On the other side of the controversy is an article by Michael Bane, author of "The Michael Bane Log" and producer of (among others) "Down Range TV".

Bane's article cites an earlier article by Ted Nugent, which seems to blame NYC gun restrictions because they did not allow Burress the opportunity to train and qualify for a Concealed Carry Permit.

If NYC permitted an individual to legally own and carry a concealed pistol, Nugent's arguments seem to suggest, Burress would not have qualified until he was able to demonstrate reasonable gun-handling skills.

This seems, to me, to be among the best of circular reasoning. If Burress couldn't have qualified for a concealed carry permit (if such were offered in his current home state of New York), he wouldn't have carried a gun.

But Burress already did not qualify for a New Your carry permit, so why expect that failing the NY test would have dissuaded him from carrying that night?

Besides, he (Burress) already possessed a Florida carry permit. Was he not required to meet some minimum standards in Florida? Even though the Florida permit wasn't accepted in New York, one would have expected that SOME level of gun-handling profeciency needed to be demonstrated then and there.

Ultimately, and in the actual fact, Burress proved that he was unable to carry a gun safely, and that IS the bottom line.

Comments in the Bane blog seem generally to focus on the failures of New York State and New York City to provide a reasonable path to a Concealed Carry Permit. They ignore the obvious facts that Burress is an idiot and has no business carrying a deadly weapon in any circumstances, let along a NYC bar. Who carries a cocked-and-locked semi-automatic pistol in the waistband of his jogging pants, other than a Gang-banger wanna be whose only apparent motivation is to appear "dangerous" to his friends?

Well, if that was his motivations, I'm sure that his friends are convinced that he is a dangerous man with a gun. I'm convinced the NYC police and Mayor Bloomberg are convinced, and 90% of America is convinced that Plaxico Burress is a dangerous man with a gun.

So are the on-call medical personnel at the Emergency Room at Cornell Medical Center (or New York Presbyterian Hospital, depending on which news reports you choose to believe), who had to treat his through-and-through shot to the leg ... self-inflicted ... convinced that" Plaxico Burress is a dangerous man with a gun."

This is not a Second Amendment issue. This is an issue of having identified (by a practical demonstration of his own inability to safely carry a gun) that one Plaxico Burress is an idiot, has no qualification to carry a firearm, and is an embarassment to the defenders of the Second Amendment.


While the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution grants each citizen with "... the right to Keep and Bear Arms", none few of us who defend that right are willing to defend a man who has proven himself to be an irresponsible and incompetent idiot. He has demonstrated that he is unwilling, perhaps unable, to accept responsibility for his own actions. By the series of bad decisions he has made in this single incident, he illustrates the 'worst case' proposed by anti-gun advocates across the world.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms defenders around the world owe it to themselves to denounce this yahoo, and support any civil and other legal charges which may be levied against him.

I do not want to be in the same room with this man. Nobody I know, most of whom safely handle firearms on a weekly, if not daily, basis, would be safe around this man if he was in reach of a firearm.

We need to take a stand to the effect that a person who has shown himself incompetent to handle a firearm should be dissuaded until he has demonstrated that he has, minimally, proven otherwise. And there should be a minimum time after he has proved his ability to responsibly choose when and how he should carry a firearm, before his rights have been restored.

News Report:


Raw video: Burress turns himself in to the police:


Video - Bloomburg urges full prosecution of Buress:


Video - Many questions, few details in Burress shooting:


Vudei - New Details Emerge About Burress Shooting



The following video may be some explanation for why Burress was carrying:


This video is obviously a satirical response:


_________________________________________________________________
UPDATE: December 15, 2008

One commenter took exception to a statement in this article:

"...( Plaxico Burress ...) is an embarrassment to the defenders of the Second Amendment."

The comment disputed that statement in favor of his own:
"The Sullivan Gun Laws are an embarrassment to the defenders of the 2A."

I disagree.

In my opinion, the Sullivan Law is an insult to the defenders of the Second amendment. It is an embarrassment to the people of the state and the city of New York. Why? Because after nearly 100 years of failing to prove that it provides any benefit to the safety and welfare of the community, they have yet to repeal this racist law.

And I'll fight any man in this bar to disagrees!
[download Bing Crosby: Two Shillalagh O'Sullivan]

NOTE: This article was also updated to provide a link to the Gun Law News article on the Sullivan Act. And in the process I corrected a missing link in my sidebar (see "Other RKBA Websites") by adding Gun Law News (Home).

Now what?

'Guns in the hands of good people' - The York Daily Record

Kim du Toit

You're driving down the road minding your own business, when you suddenly see a Road Rage; two out-of-control guys react to a minor fender bender, and attack a car driven by a woman, another woman and an undetermined number of children in there with her.

The guy car rams the car with women, and block their escape. The guy driver, hostile and loud and abusive, threatens mayhem at the top of his voice.

You've followed them into the parking lot where they ended up. Your wife is in the car with you.
What do you do?

In the actual event, one man ends up dead ... the attacking man.

One man ends up in handcuffs ... the non-involved, defending man.

On June 28, 2008, Brian Fentiman shot and killed Doug Needs, who threatened a carload of female drives, Fentiman, and Fentiman's wife.

Fentiman was not a party to the original road-rage incident: he was a witness, and stopped to render what help he could to the two victim females (and their children) and, when Need threatened the Fentimans, he used his final defense ... a pistol, which he was legally licensed to carry.

This may be one of the most revealing and cogent tales in recent history of a man who just wants to defend victims of violent crime ... which threatens to degenerate.

(For a comparative example of Road Rage Gone Wrong, see "Minor Wreck turns into Deadly Trauma in Florida" ... an unrelated incident.)

The French are not reliable aggressors

June 30, 2008 - The BBC News
French shooting show injures 17

A military show in southern France has left 17 people wounded, after real bullets were used instead of blanks.

The injured included five children. Four people, including one child, were said to have been seriously hurt - though three have now stabilised.

The incident occurred during a public demonstration of hostage-freeing techniques at a barracks in Aude.

...

The soldier who fired the shots has been detained - though an official said it was probably an accident.

It is not clear why the wrong ammunition was used in Sunday's demonstration.

But it was "99.9%" likely to be "an unintentional fault," Colonel Benoit Royal, head of the French army's information service, told the AFP news agency on Monday.

'No psychological problems'

However, Defense Minister Herve Morin said: "I cannot rule out anything because we don't know what might be going on in a man's head."

He said "an experienced soldier" should not be able to confuse blanks with real bullets.

"According to initial findings of the inquiry, the incident involved a soldier with a perfect record, who had participated in operations and had seven to eight years of experience," he said.

"There is nothing that would make one think he had behavioural or psychological problems," he added.

Reports from the scene say the hostage scenario had been acted out five times before a crowd at the Laperrine military barracks, near Carcassonne, when on the sixth take real bullets began flying through the air, and onlookers fell to the ground.

In the military (at least in the U.S.), there are certain protocols in any 'training' situations involving blank-round firing.

The first is that every participant is individually required to show all loaded magazines before the situation begins, to prove that no live rounds are loaded.

The second is that, since blank ammunition is obviously different from live rounds, every participant is obligated to examine his own ammunition before loading the magazines.

The third is that no live ammunition is permitted on the premises when blank ammunition is being loaded into magazines.

Also (at least in the 1960's, when I was a member of the military), it was impossible to cycle he action of a military weapon in a full- or semi-automatic manner without inserting a special 'device' in the muzzle of the firearm.

A special 'device' was needed for the firearm to function in other than single-shot mode
Blank ammunition was deliberately loaded 'light' (very little gunpowder was inserted into the special-purpose, crimp-necked cartridge case) so that it would not cycle the action (move the rifle bolt to the rear to chamber another cartridge.)

In order to force the rifle action to cycle, it was necessary to insert a device into the muzzle of the rifle. This served two purposes: first, it restricted the gas pressure created from firing the cartridge from exiting the chamber/barrel assembly. This delay allowed the pressure to build up sufficiently for the stated purpose, which was not necessary with a full-power "Live Ammunition" round.

This device was so constructed that it provided a positive block to the exit from the barrel of any material object. That is, if a live round was fired from a rifle while this device was installed, it would hit the device, which was locked into the barrel forming a formidable obstruction.

The result of firing a live round through a barrel which was so obstructed would be to, essentially, blow the gun up. No second shot would be able to be fired from a firearm so obstructed. In fact, the most likely consequence is that the firearm would be damaged to the point of destruction, and the shooter would be injured by the consequences of the resulting back pressure.

[Note that military blank ammunition does not include a 'wad' to restrict pressure; rather, it looks very much like a cartridge case used for 'live' ammunition, except that (a) there is no bullet loaded; (b) the neck of the cartridge is squeezed together in a 'star-crimp' manner; (c) the blank ammunition has a shorter over-all length, lacking as it does a bullet; and (d) the cartridge is much lighter owing to the lack of a bullet and also to the amount of material included in the construction of the cartridge case -- it is thinner, because it need not contain such high gas pressures as does live ammunition.]

This leads us to consider a limited number of scenarios:

1. 
   
If the firearms and blank ammunition used by the French military in this public demonstration were constructed differently, so that they were able to fire both blank and live ammunition without the installation of a device such as is described above, then the French Military and the French Government are guilty of gross negligence, malfeasance of office, and liable to several criminal and civil actions. They should never have allowed such a demonstration without positively affirming that it was impossible to fire live ammunition with the effect that it could result in the injury of any participant or observer. This was, or should have been, their primary concern.
2. 
   
If the firearms and blank ammunition are similar to those used during my none-too-short military career, it would have been impossible to shoot 17 people using a firearm configured to shoot blank ammunition. Given that a typical military rifle magazine usually contains either 20 or 30 rounds, it seems reasonable to assume that much or all of a full magazine had been expended before the operator realized that he was producing carnage rather than 'sound and fury' in his demonstration. It is unreasonable ... impossible ... to assume that the shooter was not aware that he was shooting live ammunition for he would have had to perform several actions before changing the configuration of his firearm to permit the repeated firing of live ammunition. The only possible conclusion is that he deliberately made his firearm capable of shooting live ammunition, and then deliberately loaded and fired live ammunition at both his military colleagues, and at civilian observers.

In this scenario, the fault is entirely upon the shooter. The consequences had been his goal, and he intended to shoot anyone in the vicinity with the intention of injuring or killing as many as he could.
3. 
   
Regardless of whether the shooter deliberately, or accidentally, shot 17 people, the demonstration was set up without full consideration of the possibility of accident. It seems obvious that the area was not set up so that shooting would always be in a safe direction. (That is, at a minimum, that no civilian observers would ever find themselves 'downrange' of an operating firearm.) This event exhibits an appalling disregard for safety which would not be allowed on any reputable shooting range. You always assume that a firearm is loaded with live ammunition, and you always position non-participants where they will not be in the line of fire, and you always establish operational procedures with at least two, preferably three ways to insure that nobody can possibly be injured if 'something goes wrong'.

In the final analysis, it's impossible to believe that the military command will not be decimated as part of the fall-out from this tragedy; a commander is always responsible for the action of his troops.

And the individual shooter, the man who held the weapon and who loaded the live ammunition, cannot possibly be held to any lower level of responsibility. As a man who has been shooting for over 50 years, in military, hunting and competitive venues, I have always been taught that I am responsible for my own actions when holding a firearm (or at any other time).

In fact, when training shooters, I have stressed that: "You should always load your own magazines. If you allow someone else to load your magazines, you will eventually suffer the consequences, and you have nobody to blame but yourself."

That is the situation here, except that the Military incorporates a Chain of Command responsibility which is not part of individual competition, or hunting. They will pay for their assumption that their troops will always 'do the right thing'.

The Fall-out Begins:
Although it has been, as of this date, a week since the shooting, there are (so far) only two follow- up stories to report. The following are representative examples, chosen almost at random.

• "French army chief resigns after shooting blunder"
• "Sarkozy denounces French shooting spree"

True to predictions, the 'Chain of Command" sacrifices one of its own ... a Judas Goat, so to speak. And the French Government says "I'm really, really sorry".


Cover-Up?

This is not helpful. By now, they should have made some progress in determining how this happened, and should be releasing information which defines the circumstances about whether the "very experienced" trooper who did the shooting was a deliberate wanna-be murderer, or just stupid.

They (the French government) should be releasing details on their procedures for this kind of demonstration. They should have identified the shooter, his background, and his motivation. They should have identified the person who was responsible for insuring that no live ammunition was loaded and available, and defined the situation which lead to the failure of established procedures .


Most important, they should by now know what happened, and why. This should be supported by material evidence, such as examination of the brass found on the scene. The first thing to do is pick up the brass, which the French army has already done.

By now, they probably have this information. But they have not released it.

The Internet is not making this information available. Tomorrow, they probably will still not have this information. We need to ask ourselves why it happened, but we also need to be asking why it is all being covered up.
_______________________
UPDATE: 08-JUL-2008:
The only new information so far is that 16, not 17 people, were injured (or killed) in this shooting incident. This is information was originally reported on June 29, and more widely corrected on July 1, 2008.

It has been over a week since the incident, and no more information is available.

Don't expect to see much more explanation soon, if ever. This will be swept under the carpet and the press will not likely pressure the French government for more information ... ever.

Meanwhile, on July 8, 2008, the big news from France is:
"French President Nicolas Sarkozy will attend the opening of the Beijing Olympics next month."

Another Negligent Discharge

Dropped handgun goes off at grocery

People who were shopping at a bustling Corvallis grocery store on Saturday (December 22, 2007) were lucky to escape injury after a man dropped a loaded handgun from his pocket, causing an accidental firing of the weapon and sending a .22-caliber round into a stack of soda cans.

This article seems timely when compared to my Negligent Discharge - Concealed Carry article posted December 18, 2007.

You may recall that the earlier story involved a CHL (Concealed Handgun Licensee) stuck a pistol into his jacket pocket, only to have it fire when he draped his jacked over the back of his chair when he arrived at his office.

In this case, the Poor Schlemiel was not a CHL, but he did have a pistol carried loose in his pocket. The article does not make it clear whether the pistol ("a small-caliber, derringer-style handgun with a one- or two-bullet capacity") was carried in his trouser pocket or his jacket pocket. My guess is: it was carried in the strong-hand jacket 'slash' pocket, which would make it easier to draw -- and easier for it to fall out.

(Flash-back to Samuel L. Jackson in the movie "The Long Kiss Goodnight":)

Got my car keys in my left-hand jacket pocket [dah duh da-da duh dah!].
Got a pistol in my right[da duh da-da duh ].

To illustrate how easily this could happen; last month I lost an expensive pair of reading glasses which was carried in the weak-hand slash pocket of my jacket. I was on the street, and I didn't notice it falling out.

People who read this article (probably local residents) had some unkind things to say for the non-CHL pistol-packer:

Barefoot wrote on Dec 25, 2007 12:24 PM:
Joe M. has been trying to get a firearm to go off when it was dropped and hasn't "been successful". I guess I was right, it does happen.
When some is careless with a firearm (like here)- maybe it should be clear that he should not allowed to own or carry firearms. "

nonstopjoe wrote on Dec 26, 2007 11:40 AM:
As a lesson for other "would be" careless and stupid people, this person should receive jail time and a substantial fine. "

Barefoot wrote on Dec 26, 2007 12:53 PM:
[T]ake away gun privileges. Forever. Boy shoots his sister on Christmas, parents left gun laying around, same thing.
http://www.katu.com/news/12812692.html

Sounds pretty harsh? I think so, too, but the comments are not without merit.

Here's what the local LEO, Sgt. Jim Zessin of the Corvallis Police Department, had to say:

(The Poor Schlemiel) was cooperative and the discharge was accidental, Zessin said, but (The Poor Schlemiel) did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. He was cited for carrying a concealed weapon and discharge of a weapon, both misdemeanor charges. (The Poor Schlemiel) was released after receiving the citation. A court date has not yet been determined by the Corvallis Municipal Court.
(The Poor Schlemiel) , who was reached by phone on Monday, confirmed that the gun fell out of his pocket and discharged.

“It was a very stupid accident on my part alone,” (The Poor Schlemiel) said. “I would like to apologize to everyone in the store and to the community. … It was really a freak accident that was unintentional.”

Zessin also had this to say:

“Don’t carry a concealed weapon unless you have a permit. If you carry one, carry it in a proper, secured holster so it doesn’t fall out.”

Yes, that's it.

I think someone should take (The Poor Schlemiel) aside and give him a thorough drubbing for his incompetence. If you don't know how to carry safely, you shouldn't carry at all. Period. End of sentence. I have spoken.

On the other hand, in the face of recent predator shootings at shopping malls, schools and churches, I can't really blame him for wanting to protect himself.

It's only that in his ignorance, his good intentions turned out to be a hazard rather than a source of protection for himself and his fellow shoppers. Add to this the fact that his incompetence reflects poorly on those who ARE competent, trained CHL folks, and he's got everybody mad at him; justifiably so.

Man, I wouldn't like to be him. I thought my Christmas was depressing!

Here's a suggestion: if you think you ought to carry a Concealed Handgun for whatever reason ... get some training. Learn how to carry; learn how to carry concealed; learn how to carry concealed SAFELY; learn how to use your handgun, and learn how not to be a Poor Schlemiel.

I'd be glad to help, but if you can't learn -- don't expect me to sign off on your CHL application.

Question:
If this guy met you at the range and asked you to help him qualify for his CHL, what would you do?

Negligent Discharge - Concealed Carry

Read the article from A Keyboard And A 45.

H/T: Syd under "A Negligent Discharge Disected".

I'm with Syd. There's no such thing as an "Accidental Discharge". It's negligence, no matter how pure your intentions.

Summary of the event: guy goes to work with a .45acp 1911 in the pocket of his leather jacket. He takes the jacket off and slings it over the back of his office chair. Gun goes off, he takes a single round through both legs, and the bullet bounces around the office. Exit, not walking, but bleeding a lot. Permanent limp, criminal charges pending.

While I have no intent to vilify the poor guy ("JS") who suffered ... literally ... from his own actions, I can only conclude that even he doesn't really know the condition of his pistol. It's clear that there was a round in the chamber, but he "thinks' the hammer was down. (Condition 2)

Given that the 1911 has an inertial hammer, I'm thinking he was wrong about that. Perhaps the hammer was at half-cock, but more likely it was at full-cock. He (the self-victimized guy) said he had the gun in the jacket, stuffed in his pick-up, 'for months'. No telling what combination of bumps and pushes this un-holstered pistol may have endured, but the scenario is likely it was in Full-Cock, safety on (Condition 1) and he didn't realize it.

There's a lesson ... or two ... or three ... to be learned here.

First lesson: Be completely familiar with the gun you carry.
(First Corollary: don't carry if you are NOT fully familiar with the gun.)
(Second Corollary: if you're going to carry, check the condition of the gun every time you pick it up.)

Second Lesson: Consider that a gun which is not carried in a holster is always ready to fire.

Third Lesson: Never trust a safety.

Fourth Lesson: If you don't know what you're doing, if you're not always consciously aware that you are packing a deadly weapon, don't carry. You shouldn't be afraid of your gun, but you should treat it with great respect.


There are very few ways in which a 1911 carried with the safety on will discharge without your finger on the trigger. This was, apparently, a Series 70 1911. It doesn't feature the disconnect.

Still, it has a grip safety and unless that grip safety was pinned back or otherwise de-activated, it's hard to understand how it fired.

There are too many unknowns here to confidently analyze the incident, so I'm not willing to jump to conclusions here.

But there are a couple of points which bear mentioning.

First, I have been guilty of a Negligent Discharge. I knew the conditions, and I still let it happen. Thankfully, the gun was pointed in a safe direction and I was under the watchful eye of a Range Officer in a USPSA match. I can happen to anyone.

Second, this reminds me of another story.
An Oregon Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) was exiting a vehicle when the drawstring of his raincoat got tangled up in the trigger-guard of his Glock. (See Part 1 here, and part 2 here.) This resulted in a Negligent Discharge, and he shot himself in the leg. It's a situation which could have happened to anyone ... it's consistent with the trigger-safety which is typical of ALL Glock pistols (just another reason why I don't like Glocks ... see Lesson 3.)

No conclusions. You pays your money and you takes your chances. But it's important that we all be aware in the many ways that we can shoot ourselves in the foot. Literally.

Pistol Maintenance

One of the bad things about being a Geek is that folks expect you to know what you're doing, especially when it comes to computers.

Worse, when you're a Gun Geek, folks expect you to know at least a little bit about guns.

I admit, with Computers I know a bit about Applications Software, but when the Blue Bird of Happiness fries my PC ... it's a hardware problem.

It's the same with the Geek Gun. No matter what happens, chances are it's a hardware problem.

I've chronicled the unreliability blues for months now, which has perhaps been a source of continued jocularity to my readers.

On the first weekend of June, I thought it was bad ammunition.

Then on Father's day, I realized that the gun works a lot better if you use oil as a lubricant, rather than gun cleaner (which was in a similar container in my range bag).

By the end of June, I decided I was using cold-weather lubrication rather than warm-weather lubrication.

At this point, the situation was becoming an embarrassment. So for the CCS Section Match in July I made it a point to clean the gun and use lots of good, heavy lubrication. The result was better, but still not right. On the very first stage (and a couple of stages later), I was still experiencing hesitations because the gun wouldn't quite go into battery. Especially when the gun was cold.

Now it's August, and since I haven't been doing a lot of shooting this month I've had time to do a little thinking.


My thinking is .... Recoil Spring!

That's right, I realized that I haven't changed the recoil spring in the Geek Gun for over two years.

Bad Geek! Go sit on your rug.

My next move was to order a couple of 10# ISMI Recoil Springs from Chuck Bradley at Shooters Connection. Chuck was quick to send me a pair, which I installed on the STI open guns that SWMBO and I are using. (I hope Dave Skinner of STI isn't reading this; he would be ashamed of me.)

I installed them this weekend, and SWMBO and I will be at the range during this week, or perhaps Saturday or Sunday, to wring 'em out.

The funny thing is, the recoil spring I replaced was longer than the replacement; except in SWMBO's gun, which I probably replaced last year and forgot about. (I tend to be more conscientious with her gear than with mine.)

You're probably as tired of reading my pissy "the gun ain't runnin'" stories as I am of writing them. If there's a God in IPSC (besides the self-proclaimed Gods), the gun will finally go back to running in its normal, 100% reliable manner and I'll have to find another excuse for my poor performance at matches.


I'm thinking ... how about 2 of the 5 scope-mount screws are missing?

No, that's not working. It's my job to locktite the screws in, right?

Okay, I'll do that tomorrow. Or later today.

Letters, we get letters ....

I received an email today from one of the competitors at the R&R Racing NW Challenge 'Multigun Match (July, 2007) who was featured in previous posts and on Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery:

Jerry,

I can't tell you how happy I am to have found your site! Thank you for all your work photographing the stages and publishing them. I didn't know you were videoing me as I shot stage 7. I'm glad I didn't or I would have had stage fright!

I've never watched myself shoot on video before. Very interesting. I don't appear to be moving as fast as I feel like I'm moving at the time! Maybe that's why my times are usually about double that of the winners! Ha! I don't expect to get much quicker as I get older, either. I need to be thankful that I can even move!

Thanks again! Hope to see you at another match.

Joe Durnbaugh

PS: You even spelled my name right! Thanks!

PPS: You wouldn't have a complete list of the ROs would you? I knew several, but one of them I'll be damned if I can remember his name! I have CRS disease (can't remember shit) real bad!

Tell you the truth, Joe, I'm a charter member of the CRS Survivors' Club and I couldn't tell you all of the RO's names either. Maybe we can get some of the other readers to help out here.

Here are the names I remember for sure, although I'm not willing to guarantee that I have the right stage numbers/names assigned to the ROs:

1. Scott Hawkins
   
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. Steve "The Shipster" Shippey - president-elect of ARPC
6. Gary Taylor
7. Bill Salberg
8. Craig Salman
   
9. Bob Higbie
10. Brent Reddaway

This doesn't include the Assistant RO's, and truthfully there were very few stages where more than one volunteer Range Officer was available.

Joe, I really appreciate your determination to recognize the fine folks who volunteer their time and their energy and their Melanin to work these matches. Your implication that they are the really important people at any major match is bang-on.

I haven't said this enough, and I never will, but THANK YOU to the Match Staff for your contribution to The Game.

(And if any of my readers would be kind enough to identify the other Range Officers at this match, I will post the names here. Lord knows they don't do it for money, 'cause they don't get paid. They deserve at least the recognition and our public gratitude.)

PS: Joe, I would never have figured out how to spell your name if not for the help of the Stats Team, Heidi and Dan.

UPDATE: July 29, 2007 (6:30pm PDT)
Brian Berkley informs us that the RO on Stage 1 is Retired Army Special Forces Command Sergeant Major Scott Hawkins.
Ed Dailey identifies Craig Salman as the RO on Stage 8 and also provides a correction in that "... no stages in this match were 'thrown out'." That last was my misunderstanding, and I apologize for the error.
Thank you, Ed and Brian. All corrections have been applied to the article.

Again, match scores are available here.

It's Berkley!

[sigh!]

I've done it again.

I mis-spelled the name of my Internet Host.

Brian BERKLEY has gone the extra mile during the past three years to not only host Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery, but also a lot of "other files" which I have from time to time considered necessary to support this blog.

He supported my efforts to convince the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club to use their space for my files. So far, I have well over 2GB on the server. Since I've evolved into the sorta unofficial photographer for the Columbia Cascade Section, they feel that I can share the space they've already paid for.

And when his hosting service was becoming too busy for him to handle alone, Brian not only found a faster server in Texas and transferred many of my files there, but he worked with them to set up the software necessary to support the Gallery.

What have I done for him?

I spelled his name wrong.

Every stinking time, I throw an extra "E" in there. It was bad enough that I spelled it wrong last year when I wrote an article about Mike McCarter and the Annual Single Stack Tournament which he hosts under the auspices of the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club. I apologised for that, and promised it would never happen again.

But I did it again this week, when I was blogging about the 2007 Area 1 Multigun Match.

How lower than a serpeant's ass I feel.

This time, I vow ... never again!


I've written his name on a file folder label, and pasted it to my monitor.

Maybe I'll even remember to 'look it up' the next time I write about him.

We'll see. I'll be featuring Brian in some of the Multigun videos I'll post in the next week. Let's just see if I can get it right.

And if I don't?

Brian will just point it out to me, without comment. But I'll know I've disappointed him.

Again.

[sigh!'

Blog Inactivity

I mentioned on May 22 that my server was being changed, and I still hadn't got all of the access permissions worked out so I can post pictures and videos on my Gallery website. That situation hasn't improved, I'm still trying to figure out my new URL, signon and password. Until that happens I'm unable to update the gallery. The existing link to the gallery (see sidebar) still works and the pictures and videos that were there are still available, even though some of the captions and other text may not be. I'll see what can be done about that this week. I have a lot of videos to post, but many of them are not edited so updates to the gallery may not be caught up for a couple of weeks.

Daily blogging has been sparse. Between taking a long weekend to celebrate SWMBO's birthday, transporting various family members to doctor appointments, etc., and my own recent bout of hayfever, I've had neither time nor the initiative to post regularly. I hope that this week will be more productive than last week. (My boss hopes the same improvement on my attendance at the office improves, too.)

I did attend a local match (yesterday) which featured a 'best guess' of some stages which will be presented at the June 20, 2007, USPSA National Open/L10 match. We saw some innovative approaches to some of the stages, especially Stage 2: "Home Run". I hope to edit sufficient videos from this local match version to illustrate what may be controversial tactics in the next day or two. The full-length high-density video will not, of course, be immediately available. However, I can still post to YouTube and that grainy version may be sufficient to illustrate the point.

For those of you who dropped by during the past two weeks to see if I've had anything interesting to read, and who were perhaps disappointed in the meager offerings, I apologize. In retrospect, it seems as if I should have found a few moments to explain that I wouldn't be publishing at my usual rate during this period.