Chickenhawks

Gothamimage: Mattis/Boykin2008! - A Republican Draft Challange

Generally, we've managed to avoid purely political comments. We're a little proud of this, because we exhibit restraint in so few situations. But although this blog was originated to, among other purposes, discuss 'political' issues, there aren't a lot of reasons why we should move away from the primary IPSC Competition theme.

Okay, all that's over. We found something 'political' to talk about, and it isn't even about RKBA issues.

But it is, vaguely, about military issues, so maybe it's still okay. Even if it isn't ... it's my blog and I can rant if I want to.

Our new chum "WhisperingCampaign" is a NYC blogger with whom we have shared a couple of comments on blogtopics. He's much more polite in his comments (we castigated Warren Burger; he suggested that Dems oughta lose the 'Gun Control' issue) than we are (he said something positive about Senator Kennedy; we suggested thatTeddy was a lady-killer of the first water).

But while browsing his archives (he blogs "GOTHAMIMAGES", as a New York City guy) he made a comment that touched a long-dormant Geek-button.

He used the term: "Chickenhawk", in reference to President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

Here's the context (go to the original link, above, for the whole rant):

Some people really love killing, if provoked, no matter how.

It's true, and it's been that way for all time.

Do you think Bush likes killing?

Ask Carla Fay Tucker's family. Ask Tucker Carlson , the conservative writer.

Ask those others, whose loved ones did not receive a serious review, much less DNA review, in capital crimes.

Ask anyone who saw him smile and giggle when discussing executions during his first debate with Gore.

When Cheney smirks and burps up phrases like, "take 'em out," what emotions is he tapping into?

You know damm well - maybe the frisson of killing.

So why settle for a bunch of sissy chickenhawks.

Both Bush and Cheney were afraid to fight.

Bush and Cheney are chickenhawks.

The defining link looks like this:

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

The term is a deliberate canard.
The definition itself, while an attempt to define in the general sense, has been used by the Liberal Left as a catch-phrase to depict the Bush administration as being unconcerned about waging war because, never having been personally involved in combat, members of this administration are serene in their ignorance of the effects of war on those who are directly involved.

As if to say: if you haven't fought in a war, you are not qualified to justify committing your country to war.

Let's look at this in the historical perspective of World War II.

One of the great heroes of the Liberal Left is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who committed America to war in 1941. Roosevelt was never a serving member of the military, he certainly never did "see combat", but he declared war on the people who staged a sneak attack on American soil and American people. He also declared war on their allies, their friends, their families, and everyone the fanatical Japanese knew or cared about. He had no qualms about authorizing the fire-bombing of Dresden.
His vice-president (Truman), who assumed the burden of the war effort after Roosevelt's death, was willing to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The Liberal Left, apparently, are Down With That.

Maybe it is acceptable because Harry Truman, after all, had served as an Artillary Captain in WWI. Certainly, we don't hear anyone protesting that Harry was a "ChickenHawk".

On the other hand, nobody is calling Roosevelt a "ChickenHawk", either.

Why is that, do you suppose? After all, Franklin (fifth-cousin of a President) was a rich white guy, an Ivy Leaguer, one of the "Effete Elite" as Spiro Agnew might have said. Why is it okay for him to declare war on a Global basis, while it is apparently NOT okay for Bush (son of a president) to declare war on a single nation after a similar sneak attack on American soil, American people?

Why is Bush, who did serve in the military, a ChickenHawk?

Is it because he wasn't called to active duty?

Here's the punchline: it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter whether a President, or his Vice-President, has ever served in the military.
It doesn't matter whether they have gone to war.
It doesn't matter whether they have 'seen the elephant'.
The chances of them successfully prosecuting a war, to the resultant advantage of the Nation which they have been elected to lead, are approximately the same.

Our country has been established with a careful regard for the difference between political leaders and the military.

Our political leaders decide whether to go to war.
Our military leaders decide how to fight the war.

When this guideline is violated, Bad Things Happen.

Should the Military leaders decide when to go to war? That didn't work out well for Japan in 1941-1945. General Tojo and his military cronys pushed the Japanese Emperor into war; it wasn't a priority for the Emperor of Japan!

Should our political leaders decide how, when, where and whether to fight the war? That didn't work out well for America in VietNamin 1961 - 1973. Kennedy (a Democrat ... with personal combat experience) might possibly have handled that better than did his successor Johnson, or HIS successor Nixon?

Nixon ... a Republican ... was a 'ChickHawk" too. He never served. Johnson, on the other hand, had a GLORIOUS war record! He was the first member of congress to serve in WWII, entering as ... a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy. (No 'Cronyism there!) He was obviously well-qualified to lead our nation in the continuing conduct of the VietNam War, because he (a) served in the Navy, in a War Zone (for 8 months ... more than Kerry!) and (b) he won a Silver Star ... under 'questionable circumstances.

Johnson didn't start the Vietnam War, but he was the Vice-President of the man .. Kennedy ... who arguably DID start the war. Here we have two ... TWO! ... senior members of a White House administration who were, for one reason or another, decorated veterans, and they got us into the first war that America ever lost. Somehow, we don't think this proves the efficicacy of Military Veterans as War Presidents over non-veterans.

Perhaps it's better that our country should go to war based on political reasons, with the advice of military people.
Perhaps it's better that our political leaders NOT be encumbered by personal combat experience. After all, Truman (the Captain of Artillary) led us to war in Korea in the 1950's. Do you remember that war? Do you realize that, legally, America and North Korea are still "at war" as we were 50 years ago?

Surely, all of these Dead Presidents... Truman, Kennedy, Johnson ... who had 'war records' could have been a reliable justification for the implied 'wisdom' that there is an advantage in having a veteran for a 'War President'?

And perhaps, if we diddled the record enough and ignored several historical facts, we could make this point advantageously.

But it STILL doesn't really seem to matter in the long run, does it?

Military Experience doesn't make a great War President; it doesn't even make a great President. Witness U.S. Grant, and D.D. Eisenhower. These two great Generals were total failures as peace-time presidents. Their skills were the ability to make war; they couldn't HANDLE Peace. (Eisenhower was more fortunate than Grant, in that the social problems he faced ... or ignored, as the case may be ... were less immediate and vital than those which Grant was unable to resolve.)

In the long run, the term 'ChickenHawk' doesn't seem to have any meaning at all. A Leader who faces the decision whether or not to declare, or fight, a war realizes NO advantage or disadvantage from either personal military experience or the lack of it.

The term 'ChickenHawk' isn't a meaningful description. It's a catch-phrase. It's a political device intended only to demean the qualification of a President to lead his country. Its sole purpose is to undermine the legitimacy of the incumbent president, and his staff, so that the party out of power can gain some small measure of political power by comparison.

It's a low, mean, underhanded bit of legerdemain, and the only purpose is to weaken the country which is the home of the people who use it.

I have no respect for the people who use this petty phraseology. They contribute nothing to the national survival, their only interest is to find political advantage at the expense of those who are trying to actually DO something to protect the country.

Mr. Bush's decisions may not be those which the Democratic Party would have chosen, but in the four-plus years since the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (and a lonely field in Pennsylvania) were subjected to airborne attacks by a bunch of insane fanatics, the Democrats have still failed to provide an agenda which is a feasible alternative to the Bush doctrine, which is:
Take the battle to our enemies, fight them on foreign soil, and if possible improve the lot of the people there who have suffered from non-democratic thuggery.

If a man who wants to protect our nation, and in doing so rid the world of thugs, can be so cavalierly labeled a 'ChickenHawk', then I will continue to vote for the ChickenHawk Candidate every time.

It works for me.

Chief Justice Warren Burger & RKBA

I remember driving through Oregon on secondary hiways, on my way to hunting grounds, and seeing wayside-billboards (often crudely painted) stating:

Impeach Justice Warren Burger!


(This is WAY after the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards, which I understood had to do with his Civil Rights ... Brown vs Board of Education, and Row vs Wade ... leads. I understood that stuff, whether or not I agreed with them. Sometimes, I did!)

I never understood why anyone would want to impeach a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of America, until I read this article which he wrote in regards to:

The Right To Bear Arms

A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation

By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4

With the benefit of 35 years of experience, and absolutely NO legal training, I think I'm prepared to discuss his concept of what the 2nd Amendment really means. Not what I think it means ... but only what HE thought it means>

Commencing now:

Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.

Interestngly, Burger ignores the fact that DC forbids its citizenry to defend itself with firearms, a situation which was almost unique (except for Chicago and New York City) during this period .... and which, somehow, continues even now.

<>Of course, Great Britain hadn't yet adopted such draconian measures, which may explain the cmparison between DC and "Western Europe".

The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.

This is all non-sequitor comments. There is a large body of original and supplemental commentary establishing the intent of the constitutional framers. Almost unanimously, these comentators voiced the opinion that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide for defense against an oppressive Federal Government ... a concept which conveiently (for his unstated agenda) is never here addressed by Burger.

People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, ...

This apprehension is again seen today. Burger glosses over this original apprehension, and thus implicitly suggests that it is somehow reprehensible. His very words support, probably without noticing, that the apphrehension is justifiable.

... and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men;

Here, Burger is vague (actually, not forthcoming) about "the purpose of the Second Amendment." At this time he makes no obvious effort to define or interpret it. However, he subtly expands his hypothesises of a relationship between the 2nd amendment and fear of a "monster" government, although he resists the not-so-obvious attempt to define it here. It's just 'verbiage' at this point.

However, he manages to slip into the monologue the idea that a 'standing army' should consist of no more than 840 men.

Consider that at the time of the First Congress, the population of the United States was probably about (or less than) one millioon people. Currently, the population is in excess of 250 million. Extrapoplating arithmetically, the appropriate size of an American standing army must be assumed to be about 220,000.

My understanding is that there are about 140,000 troops in Iraq now, which leaves. 80,000 military not accounted for. Distribute that number among the military in Afghanistan, residential 'home guard' troops such as Coast Guard, Ready Reaction Troops, uncommitted Air Force, Marines, troops in training etc. and we can probably derive a Standing Army committment which is very much in excess of the 840 troops deemed necessary in 1779.

What has this to do with the Second Amendment?
Not much, except that Burger falaciously provides a NUMBER of active troops which on the face of it seems absurdly low compared to current staffing, and only SUGGESTS that it has a bearing on the 2nd amendment because of reasons which he presumably will later present.

Read on ....

Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison's proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:

"to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ... Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins."

We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word "because" was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the "state militia" serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago

Suddenly, Burger presents the "militia" as being a "state militia". He does not provide any justification for presuming that the terms are interchangeable, but he does encourage the reader to presume the equivalency. If one presumes that the "National Guard" is a "State Militia", and a "State Militia" is equivalant to a "Militia", many of his subsequent arguments may seem to be reasonable. However, he has failed to prove (or even to attempt to prove) the equivalency.

Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns -- rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols -- with all firearms, including what are now called "Saturday night specials." There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons."

===========

We need to become accustomed to undocumented, unwarranted (excuse the expression) assumptions, because this document is based on them. Here are some more;

Without always actually saying so; using nothing more than cleverly applied inuendo, Burger:

• equates " ... rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols ..."
• equates them with "Saturday night specials."
• states unequivacably that handguns are not "sporting arms"
• asserts that " Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative";
• asserts the equivalencty between " ... automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons.

Perhaps it should be mentioned here, for the first time (although surely not for the last time) that vehicles are both licensed and regulated, and their operators are licensed and regulated, because vehicle operation is commonly assumed to be "a privilege, not a right". In fact, this is specifically stated in the Motor Vehicle Handbooks of most states. On the other hand, posession of firearms as NEVER been identified as a 'privilege'; whenever referenced, it is considered to be a "right". This is probably the crux of the argument for both sides, because the sides of the Gun Control argument is most commonly defined as the diference between a 'privilege' ... which can be taken away capriciously by the stage ... and a 'right' ... which is constitutionally protected.

Let's look at the history.

First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English.

Another non-sequitr, as the 2nd amendment has never been seriously defined as the right to hunt.

Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.

No argument there.

Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling

This is an egrigious attempt to establish that there was no legitimate (or plebian) justification for possession of a 'pistol', which term doesn't mean the same thing today as it did then.

In the 18th century, a 'pistol' was a handgun. A firearm without an extended stock, and with a short barrel. The terms here are in themselves misleading because the 'pistol' of that era was typicallyl a single-shot 9per barrel) flintlock or percussion-cap firearm with an over-all length of from 18 inches to two feet.

The issue STILL isn't about possession of firearms, in Burger's worldview. He is attempting to fix the reader's mind in the understanding that "rifles are good; pistols are bad". If his argument was consistent, ALL firearms would be regulated by the State, not just 'pistols'.

Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.

There is still no justification for equating a "well regulated militia" with " a state army."

<>

In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.

Burger's pont here seems to be, again, reinforcement of the equivalency of the term "militia" with "a state army": that is, the National Guard.

<>

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that.

But this is precisely what Burger is doing all though this opinion.
<>

Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.

Again, the 2nd amendment does not, nor was it ever intended to, justify possession of firearms for the purpose of hunting. The terminology is never mentioned in the 2nd amendment. He extends his argument to equate hunting (without establishing that he is doing anything more than defending hunting) with fishing. Also, he continues to compare the ownership and usage of motor vehicles with the ownership and usage of firearms. The 2nd amendment is not about the right to hunt game; it is about ".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms ...".

Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.

Now he is not only comparing the right to keep an bear arms (which can only be revoked for felonious cause by a court) with the privilege of owning and operating a vehicle (which can be revoked for cause by a magistrate); he even equates it with the right to own a bicycle, or a dog!
Had this man so little regard for the rights of the citizenry, that he compares it to dogs? Apparently so!

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit? These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
   

1. Not necessarily, but the courts have consistently ruled in this vein since Burger's tenure.
2. A 10-day waiting period is just something that Burger cooked up in his own fevered mind.
3. Again, the right to own a firearm is not, and has never been, the same thing as the PRIVILEGE to own and operate a vehicl.
4. We are seeing now that the concept of a "ballistic fingerprint", although it is the rant-de-jour for liberal gun-grabbers, is neither scientifically feasible nor econimically advantageous.
   

I very much regret that Warren Burger is dead.

We should have impeached the son of a bitch while we had the chance.

Yahoo!

Can it be true?

Omigod!

Can Yahoo! News be ... pandering to prurient interests on it's World News website?

Please GAWD! Let it not be true!

Oh. Well, maybe.

Surfing the Internet tonite, we wandered through the "Most Popular" website and found the following tittilating (expression advised .... which means we really shouldn't but can't resist the temptation) selection of 'news' stories whose content ( and usually, photos ) belie the idea that Yahoo! News is really about NEWS?

(1) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez .... talks with people who were affected by flooding in Araira in Miranda state, about 50 km (31 miles) from Caracas, Venezuela, Saturday, Feb. 12, 2005, after floodwaters receded following a disaster that has left at least 15 people dead. (AP Photo/Miraflores, Marcelo Garcia)

Our dear friend Marcelo Garcia has managed to capture a poignant picure of Hugo speaking to a young Venezuelen (presumably) constituent who just HAPPENS to be nursing a child, and in the process just HAPPENS to have her left breast comfortably flopping out of her low-cut bright red dress.

Quick test: can you find Hugo Chavez in the picture? Time limit: 10 minutes. No cheating!

(2) Think Ink, Not Mink
In this photo supplied by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), tattoo-resplendent former NBA star Dennis Rodman appears completely nude in a celebrity anti-fur ad by PETA.The ad made its debut at New York Fashion Week.(AP Photo/PETA)

The ever-hot Dennis Rodman (the conservative spokesman for always-correct deportment) is featured here in PETA's continuing all-nude-all-the-time advertising campaign designed to ... what? Demonstrate the difference between humans and animals? You be the judge, if you dare.

Here's the good news: Our Hero Dennis is not REALLY nude. It appears that he has a generous selection of tatoos.
All .. over ... his ... body.

But don't forget the message?

"Be comfortable in your own skin, and let animals keep theirs!" -- furisdead.com

Subtle, yet effective. We can say without fear of contradiction that this is one pelt we don't want to see displayed on OUR trophy wall!

(3) Christina Aguillera discusses her marital schedule with a convention-hall full of sweaty, overweight businessmen ... American pop star Christina Aguilera (news) has got engaged to her longtime boyfriend, Jordan Bratman, People magazine reported on February 12, 2005. Aguilera acknowledges the applause at the end of her display for Dsquared2 Spring/Summer 2005 men's collections during Milan Fashion Week, June 29, 2004. (Daniele La Monaca/Reuters)

Here Yahoo! News has generously provided the opportunity to keep up to date on the question All America has been asking itself: how is Christina getting along with her boyfriend ... ol' WhatsHisName?
(WTF is a "Jordan Bratman?)

Pay no attention to the Boobs behind the Bustier.

(4) Will Smith completely forgets his marital status for just a moment, really ... Actor Will Smith (L) kisses a Brazilian Carnival reveler as actress Eva Mendes (R) looks on during the Carnival champion's parade at the Sambadrome in Rio de Janeiro, February 12, 2005. Carnival in Rio is famed as one of the world's greatest parties. REUTERS/Bruno Domingos

You can tell that Bruno and Reuters are terribly concerned that we all be aware that "Carnival in Rio" is famed as "one of the world's greatest parties."

We have no idea why. (Though we're certain it is newsworthy.)

Certainly it couldn't be because of the scantily clad "Brazilian Carnival revelers".

"Pay no attention to the man behind the .. .er ... "scantily clad Brazilian Carnival reveler".

(5) Actor Tom Sizemore Fails Drug Test with Fake Penis; he couldn't get a broad if he rented a billboard displaying full-frontal nudity. Church attendance soars while millions of Angeleans chant "Thank You JESUS for sparing us! NOW says: "There's nothing new here, men have been lying to us about their penis for years."
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Actor Tom Sizemore has been jailed for violating his probation by failing a drug test after he was caught trying to use a prosthetic penis to fake the results, a Los Angeles County prosecutor said on Friday.

Sorry ... (NOT!) ... No pictures here. Just a 'news' article, obviously offered to help us common folk keep track of Poor Ol' Tom's continuing story of defending himself against governmental interference in a man's personal battle to defend himself against unreasonable judicial edicts to keep himself ... er ... "clean and sober".

Also, presumably, "straight".

Is this like a "blow-up" doll? Only, different?

Gawd, we hope nobody answers this question in the Comments!

(6) ... Male Genital Snow Sculpture Shocks Drivers! DNA tests prove that this is a "Whizzinator" product registered to Tom Sizemore.
GLEN AUBREY, N.Y. - An explicit six-foot-tall snow sculpture depicting male genitals in a yard on a rural road north of Binghamton had some drivers doing a double-take this week.

My, my, my. A "double-take".
One for each ... uh ... never mind.

Again, no pictures.
We're not saying that pictures aren't available, and we're not saying they are.
We're just saying, if pictures WERE available, you wouldn't find them here.
Why?
Because it's OUR blog, and we wouldn't have to link to them if they were, presumably, available.
(Surely even Yahoo! News has to draw the line somewhere.)

(7) ... Defaced Bush Face; I swear that this is not Tom Sizemore's missing "Whizzinator" ... Police look at a defaced poster of U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites), while environmental activists protest against Essso's alleged lobbying of the U.S. President to refuse to abide by the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites). With the pact on climate change set to take effect, the Bush administration still rejects it as too costly for the US economy and based on questionable scientific hypotheses(AFP/File/Gerry Penny

Okay, just so this doesn't have to be ALL T&A All the time, here's an article which clearly doesn't appeal to Pruruent Interests.

Also, the AF" news source obviously doesn't have any political reason to provide a photo and accompanying caption which (a) makes the incumbent American President look like a dork, or (b) suggest that his decision not to ratify the Kyot0 Protocol is A Bad Thing.

(8) ... Just to show that Yahoo! News isn't All About T&A, or "Whizzinators" either! ... Goldie Hawn (news), right, and Kurt Russell arrive for the British Academy Film Awards in London Saturday, Feb. 12, 2005. (AP Photo/John D McHugh)

We guess there may be some female flesh in this picture; but trust us, this is an ugly picture and you do NOT want to go there!

Whew!
That's a relief.

(9) ... Woman Denies Sherry Enema Charge .... HOUSTON (Reuters) - A Texas woman indicted last month for allegedly giving her husband a lethal sherry enema said he was an enema addict who did it to himself, a newspaper reported Thursday.

That's the way he went out and I'm sure that's the way he wanted to go out because he loved his enemas," she told the Houston Chronicle.

File this under "Shit We Would Really Rather Not Know About!"
Oops! Sorry.
We're pretty sure that this was not only an unfortunate choice of words, but also shit (oops!) we don't even want to THINK about !

We guess we were confused.

Our conclusion (based upon ... nothing much) is that Yahoo! News photo policy does not intend to present provocative photographs over bland, null-value captions for the express purpose of arousing prurient interest. This is a responsible news-oriented venture designed to tell us all about news which is ... well ... news.

How could we have been so wrong?

MARYLAND STATE POLICE ACTING LIKE "KEYSTONE COPS"

News Releases from the "Coalition To Stop Gun Violence" (also known as the "Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence")

-- New State Report on Ballistic Identification is "Politically-Motivated Junk Science" --

(Washington, DC) - The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence today characterized a new report by the Maryland State Police recommending the repeal of the state's comprehensive ballistic identification system as "politically-motivated junk science." The report's recommendation should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the issue in Maryland. In 2003, Governor Ehrlich, who has long supported the gun lobby, actively lobbied against efforts to expand the ballistic identification system despite the system's endorsement by David Mitchell, the former head of the Maryland State Police. "The new report questioning the effectiveness of Maryland's ballistic identification system is nothing more than a blatant attempt to cover up the fact that the Governor and the Maryland State Police have failed to properly implement this important crime solving technology," said Josh Horwitz, Executive Director of The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. "The report acknowledges that the system is severely underutilized, that technicians were never properly trained, that software and other equipment was never updated, and that the state police failed to institute appropriate quality controls to prevent improper data from entering the system. These are not failures of ballistic identification, but rather reflect a complete abdication of responsibility by the state police and a total lack of leadership from Governor Ehrlich to ensure effective implementation of the technology," said Horwitz. "Instead of calling for its repeal, the state police ought to use the technology to its full crime-solving potential." The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence's report, "Cracking the Case: The Crime-Solving Promise of Ballistic Identification," details how ballistic technology can help law enforcement solve gun crimes. Key features of the report, which can be found at www.FindTheGun.com, include: Detailed summaries and images of firearms and ammunition, and an in-depth look at how forensic experts currently use ballistic evidence to solve crimes. An overview of the future of ballistic identification technology, including exciting new advances in microstamping. Responses to criticisms leveled against ballistic identification technology by the gun lobby and others. Seven policy recommendations to help law enforcement access and utilize crime-solving tools. A comprehensive glossary of firearm and ballistic identification-related terminology. BTW ... we looked REALLY HARD for a Main Stream Media (MSM) report about this ... uh ... er ... report. We couldn't find one. Our conclusion is that this is either a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC) invented report, or that the MSM isn't aggressively reporting on this striking divergence from Conventional Wisdom (CW). We report, you decide. In conclusion, let me say this about that: MSM + CW - VRWC = BS

Mentoring

Sometimes you meet people on the Internet that you would never get to know otherwise. Once in a great while, you can learn things from these New Friends.

My IP (as you may have noticed from my email address) is AOL.
This is both A Good Thing and A Bad Thing.

It's a Bad Thing because the browser sucks, when you're using it (as I do) as your IP and connecting via modem, the local phone lines is all-too-frequently overburdened, and it has some screwy features that I don't always like very much.

The Good Thing is that a LOT of people use AOL, and it's very easy to 'connect' with one another. The Instant Message (IM) thingie particularly is often abused by spammers who try to connect with you for the sole purpose of channelling your internet access to their money-making website. Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in seeing Hot Nekkid Teenage Girls and Their Farm Animals Lovers. If that's your bag, please don't waste your time and mine.

On the other hand, sometimes AOL denizens who know my SN (Screen Name) notice that I'm on-line, and take advantage of the opportunity to IM me. Usually, these are members of The Unofficial IPSC list. Usually, they're "Lurkers" -- people who don't typically post letters to The List. But often they have something to say, and even if they don't they are reaching out to share experiences, or just to say "howdy!"

For the past couple of weeks I have, from time to time, been IM'd by someone who I will refer to as Carl. He hasn't had a lot to say, just wanted to talk about IPSC, and seemed an agreeable sort of person.

Last night he IM'd me and announced that he was going to change his division. He had plans to get some new equipment to support the switch (I'm being deliberately vague here, as I will continue to do ... I don't want to embarass Carl) and I offered some light-hearted comments about the downfalls of his new chosen division.

He immediately changed his mind about switching divisions.

I asked him if he had discarded his grandious plans because of something I said. He admitted that was so.

"Carl, you can't live your life based on what the last person you talked to said! Why don't you decide what you want to do, and then just do THAT?"

We talked for a while more, and it turned out that Carl was in the 9th grade, and had just recently competed in one IPSC match. From the things he said, I gather that he enjoyed it.

We talked for a while, and he told me that his father, an experienced IPSC shooter, was taking him to IPSC matches and would continue to do so. Also, his uncle was an IPSC shooter (although he hadn't gone to a match for over a year). Both of these men had taken Carl to the range to learn the game, and finally his father had taken him to an actual match.

But Carl had a LOT of questions, and rather than discuss them with his father or his uncle, he was asking me -- a total stranger -- for advice.

I asked Carl how long he expected to continue shooting IPSC, and he replied "for as long as I live".

Wow. I can understand this, but I didn't understand why Carl wasn't asking these questions of someone in his family.

As it was revealed, his father seemed (to Carl) to be more interested in his own match performance than his son's, and Carl's uncle wasn't there.

We talked for a while about the concept of "mentoring" a new shooter. Carl understood some of the idea, saying that a Mentor was a knowledgeable person you respected. But he wasn't really sure who he should ask to mentor him. Finally, we decided that his father was the most viable candidate for the job, and that he (Carl) should discuss it with him in terms of being a "coach" rather than a "mentor".

We didn't get to complete our conversation, because it was a school night and Carl had to go to bed. (Well, so did I; I'm old, and need my rest) But something crystalized in my mind, and I would like to discuss it with you.

I've seen a lot of guys bring their sons, daughters, wives and sweethearts to pistol matches with the obvious intent of encouraging them to accept the sport as a "fun activity" which they could share.

It doesn't always work out that way. In fact, I brought my own son out after training him: my son competed in one match, wasn't terribly interested in competition shooting, and decided he would rather play DOOM on his Sony Playstation. Well, that's his choice. On the other hand, I brought my sweetie, SWMBO, to matches for THREE YEARS before she decided this was an 'okay' thing to do, and decided to learn how to shoot so she could share the weekends with me. I've talked about this before.

You never know when someone is going to catch the IPSC bug; the best you can do is to make the opportunity available to them, and if they like it (and if they like the people they meet there) they will come back again and again. If they don't like it, they won't. It's as simple as that.

But after your 'new shooter' decides that he (or she) likes it, you have an obligation to support them in their new activity. There are a lot of wrong ways to do that, and a few right ways. That's what I want to talk about.

Carl's situation was that he had a single introduction to the sport, and he loved it. But he wasn't getting the encouragement and support that he craved.

His experience is a bit different from other father/son pairs I've seen. (I'm using "father/son" as an example, but the comparisons apply to other relationship combinations.)

Usually, the father tries to 'coach' his son during the match. Worse, the father is standing on the sidelines, yelling such disparaging words as "You're Limp-Wristing the gun! Get a Grip!" This is embarassing to the new shooter, who is usually aware that he is having trouble and only wants to get through the stage so he can go hide for a while.

On the other extreme, you have the father who will not say a word to his son during a stage, and only offers condolences, if justified, after the stage has been completed. He will will ALWAYS encorage his son, carefully avoiding any hint of criticism. Most important, if the son wants advice during the match, he will ask his father.

Hmmmm ... on the one hand: disparaging words. On the other hand: encouragement. If you were a new shooter, which would YOU want to hear?

Sure, it's not a bad idea to walk the stage with your son (if you were in this situation) before his turn to shoot it, and perhaps point out some of the potential pitfalls. Understand that he usually won't LISTEN to you, but that's okay. Later, he will recall that you mentioned whatever it was that got him into trouble, and perhaps the next time he will pay closer attention to your 'comments'.

The most important thing is that you make this a fun experience. He may have thought he was going to set the world on fire, and it's not your job to disabuse him of this common conceit. Your job is to buy the gun and equipment, reload the ammunition, teach him the rules, get him to the match, pay the match fees, and then ... just shut the heck UP!

Eventually he will realize that he could use some advise, and when his lack of experience becomes painfully obvious to him, he will ASK you specific questions.

You can answer his questions, but don't assume that this gives you permission to dump every random thought that crosses your mind. Think 'laconic'. Tell him what he wants to know. If he wants more information, he'll ask another question.

The time for coaching is during practice. Oh yes, you will take him to the range between matches. You even get to suggest the outing. If he decides not to go, you go anyway.

It helps if you take another experienced shooter with you once in a while. New shooters will often listen to unsolicited advice from a third party which they will consider intrusive coming from their significant other (father, husband, boyfriend, whatever). That person should be someone who your son respects for his demonstrated skills. It's not that he respects your friend more than he respects you; it's just that he respects your friend in a different way. And your friend isn't as much an authority figure as you are; there's a reduced incitement to rebel against authority.

If your friend is willing to spend some time specifically devoted to coaching ... find someplace you have to be. Go to the bathroom, discover something wrong with your pistol that you want to check on over at the safety area. Any reasonable excuse you can conceive to move away, so you can't see or hear what's going on in that shooting bay, is perfectly acceptable. They don't want you hanging around. Deal with it.

The bottom line is that the father/spouse/boyfriend/whatever is the last person who should be coaching a new shooter. Give up some of your privileges for the sake of your son. Just get out of the way, whenever you can.

Eventually, your son will discover that you have a few good ideas as well, and you're not nearly as dumb as he thought you were.

You'll be the mentor, you'll gain respect for your mature ability to recognise your son's natural reluctance to look like a 'dork' in front of you, and you may even discover that you and your son are able to be natural friends.

It's not good when your son has to askInternet strangers for advice. You can do it all, and your son won't feel he has to go to outside the family for help, if you just take an interest ... but not TOO much.

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries

I have, I believe, demonstrated remarkable restraint in not discussing Colonel Jeff Cooper's Commentaries before now.

Those halcyon days (if you prefer restraint to enthusiasm) are over.

I've just read Volume Thirteen, #1 (January, 2005) of Col. Cooper's commentaries, and once again I am reminded that it is impossible to read anything he has written without finding applicable value if you are a Gun Nut such as I.

Here's what The Colonel has to say about Fear:

Fear is an interesting study, and various authoritative people have studied it. Not everyone reads their work, of course, and the effect of fear on the marksman is not as well understood as it should be. An expert marksman is exclusively aware of his marksmanship at the moment of truth. This does not make him fearless, but it does make him unaffected during the few seconds necessary for him to bring off the shot. Thus a truly masterful shot displays a coolness under crisis which may be misinterpreted as fearlessness. When you shoot for blood you concentrate totally upon two things - your sight picture and the surprise break. No matter what is threatening you or at what distance, you are not thinking about it. In that moment you simply cannot be bothered! This may be why certain people have demonstrated astonishing coolness in the face of death but who do not do very well in formal marksmanship competition. The degree of concentration necessary for a perfect shot is the same on a charging lion as in a formalized shooting match, but the hunter need only bring this off once, whereas the target master must keep on doing it time and again up to 60 shots without fail. In a successful pistol engagement the same conditions apply. If you are forced to shoot an armed goblin, you should be so concerned with two things that you simply cannot muff the shot. Those two things are front-sight and surprise. They should be automatic, and if they are, you win. That is where the color code comes in. In Condition Red, which is the condition which you shoot from, you cannot be afraid - you are too busy with the important matters required for successful marksmanship.

Well. Nobody's going to say it any better than that. Certainly it's beyond my poor talents to embellish.

So let's talk about something I DO know about: Fear.

Fear can make you weak. Your muscles to quake, your bowels to betray you, and your mind to go South for the winter. Fear is those awful nightmares when you are being chased by the unknown and unknowable monster Chludthru, but you can't run because your legs are encased in mud, or cement, or (my own particular repeating childhood nightmare) the dreaded Tangled Slinkey.

Colonel Cooper has written elsewhere, and often, that one way to beat Fear is to develop Anger. Anger that this dispicable Goblin has confronted you, assaulted you, intends to Do Bad Things to you.

Anger makes you strong, decisive, and chases fear away. It's not as useful as Discipline, because Anger can also make you rash and impulsive. (This isn't always a bad thing, especially if the Monster is gaining on you and you can't hide and you can't run because ... well, you know.)

The thing about Anger is that, while it may not help you to act wisely, it may at least allow you to act. Sometimes, the worst thing you can do is to do nothing; it is better to act rashly, or wrongly, when action is necessary ... than to act too late, or not at all.

When Fear or Anger rule you, it may be that you don't have the capacity for rational thought. This is when you need to have Skills to rely on. You may not be conscious of drawing your pistol, finding the correct grip, releasing the safety and acquiring a sight picture. You may not be aware that you take up the trigger slack while you align the sights with your target. But if you have practiced the drills necessary to make these actions an automatic reaction to the need to engage a target, your chances of surviving an assault are much improved.

Thus it is that these skills are equally ... and much more often ... reinforced by competition.

(You were wondering, weren't you, if I was going to make this IPSC relevant or stay in the nightmare.)

The pressure of competition is not as intense or vital as the pressure of defense, but the skills are pretty much the same. Get the gun. Find the target. Gun goes BOOM! Repeat as necessary.

The Gun Rags (magazines such as Guns & Ammo, American Handgunner, etc.) have used the "IPSC CAN KILL YOU!" type of article as fodder for years, this same palid theme to be dragged out on rainy days when the professional gun-writers can't think of anything to say, but the rent is due and ...

... and so they parrot each other, repeating endlessly their cant that the skills leaned in IPSC are not only applicable to a defensive situation, but in fact they may teach you habits which are counter-survival. These 'bad habits' include failure to take cover, and ... uh ... well, I don't know. This is the only one for which I could find even the most facile justification.

The fact is, when the need to use a pistol Right Now! arises, any gunhandling skills you have may be the ONLY thing that saves your precious patootie. If you have to think about the separate functions of engaging a target, you're probably not going to do real well on your final exam. This isn't the kind of situation which is usually resolved by the application of your vast intellectual resources.

Colonel Cooper says: "An expert marksman is exclusively aware of his marksmanship at the moment of truth." Unfortunately, most of us are not expert marksmen. Markspersons? Whatever. We are the average Joe who finds himself in a situation where all preparations are found to have been woefully inadequate in the real 'moment of truth', which is much murkier, more violent and immediate than any 'moment of truth' we may have envisioned. We're no Stone Killers; most of us have never even pointed a firearm at another person, we can't fall back on experience in defence. Our only resource is a skills-set which has been repeated so often in less frightening circumstances that we can draw on it at will.

Think of competition as making deposits in the First National Bank of I Wanna Live. When you really really need a gun, that's a major withdrawal. If you haven't made the investment, you can't afford the inevitable bankruptcy procedings.

Is this a "coolness under crisis"? It may seem so to the uninvolved observer, but probably it's just a matter of reflexive functioning.

Every time you step up to the line at an IPSC match, you perform the same actions. If your pistol is at where you have learned to expect it to be, all you have to do is put your hands on it. everything else either happens, or it does not.

Do the math.

"Preventing gun violence" in Indiana

Journal Gazette | 02/04/2005 | Preventing gun violence

This from The Unofficial IPSC List member John H, who voices a certain ... reluctance ... to accept the presumed expertise of LEOs to accurately identify citizens who suffer from "Mental Illness".

Legislation allowing law enforcement officers to temporarily seize guns from individuals when there is a reasonable suspicion of mental illness is not a gun-rights issue. It’s a safety issue.

You can tell right away that the publication has no opinion in this unattributed article which is NOT part of the Editorial or Features sections of the website.

Here's one way you can tell it's not an opinion article: if the item makes some attempt to provide more than one side of the story, OR if it resists the temptation to judge the subject, it may be a News item.

So just how does the Fort Wayne, Indiana, Journal Gazette handle this sensitive subject?

Indiana’s lawmakers need to support this legislation, which would protect people from firearm violence.

Well, that sounds fair and neutral to me, don't you think?
But wait ... there's more:

Legislation in the House would permit law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms from individuals for 45 days when an officer thinks the person is mentally ill and dangerous. It allows prosecutors to petition the court to extend the hold on the weapons and gives the court the authority to issue search warrants for weapons possessed by someone who is dangerously mentally ill. It also allows individuals whose guns were seized to petition the court for a review of the weapon retention order.

Where do we start?
How about qustioning the practice leaving the evaluation of mental illness to the judgement ... or opinion, or bias ... of the arresting officer?

Maybe, to go right to the point, we should wonder when a Psychologist or other person who is qualified to evaluate mental competence becomes involved?
As nearly as we can tell from this article, the answer is ... NEVER!

Don't get me wrong here. I don't like the idea of a NutCase With A Gun any more than the average Joe does. But the whole situation is a set-up for abuse. What's to stop a cop with a grudge from arbitrarily deciding that, for example, his girlfriend's husband (to use an extreme example) should be unilaterally disarmed?

Where's the review process?

Well, I don't know. I don't see it in the article. Maybe it's in the text of the bill, which is conveniently missing.

So what does the NRA have to say about this?

Rep. Larry Buell, R-Indianapolis, who authored the bill, says that he consulted with the National Rifle Association when he drafted the bill and that it supports the legislation. “We think it’s a balance to a person’s right to bear arms and the safety of individuals who might be harmed,” Buell said.

I subscribe to the NRA-ILA newsletter, and they didn't send me an ALERT about this today. Nor is it mentioned on the NRA website. Nor is it featured on the NRA "Reckless Lawsuits" website.

Hmmmm... this is three days AFTER the Indiana Journal Gazette article, and the NRA still hasn't acknowledged their support of the bill. I know it's risky to judge from negative input, but I can't help thinking that if the NRA signed off on this one, they should have said something by now. You don't suppose that Rep. Buell lied, do you? After all, I can't find it in the NRA's Legislative Alerts and Updates, nor in their NRA-ILA Grassroots Alerts feature.

There's more, much more, in the article. Go read it yourself. I have no expectation that the supposed concern for mentally ill people is the primary concern of the sponsors of the bill. Sorry, maybe I'm paranoid, but I'll leave it up to you to decide.

And while you're at it, you can decide for yourself how much you trust the ability of the average Cop On The Corner to determine the difference between a mentally ill person, and somebody who just pisses him off.

Practical Shotgun

Last week I received an invitation from my old fried, Randomly Hittin', to join him at the Tri-County Gun Club monthly 3-gun match ... which (this month) is a "Shotgun Only" match.

He provided the appropriate incentives. "I've got plenty of cheap shot shells, and we can share my (semi-auto!) shotgun. The club will have slugs for sale at $1.80 per box of five, and you only need 13 slug rounds to shoot the match."

The last time (also the first time) I shot a Shotgun Only match was about 3 years ago, at Dundee, where I also borrowed a shotgun. I enjoyed that match, but didn't really know what it was all about. This week I couldn't refuse such a generous offer, so I readily accepted.

The match was scheduled for 9am on Saturday, and I got there about 8:30am. It was a foggy, foggy morning in The Great Northwet, so it took longer than I had expected to drive from Salem to Portland.

SWMBO had looked out the window that morning, calculated "foggy + cold + possibly_rainy + early_Saturday = no way!" She decided that she would spend the morning doing laundry, and in the afternoon she would rebuild her PC (add a 2nd hard-drive, another 256k of memory, and load Win98 over Win95.)

What a GOOD list of incentives for a Geek to be out of town!
I knew I would miss her, but I'm an Applications Programmer: I do software; I don't do hardware.

When I got to the Range, Randomly was busily hauling steel targets out to the various bays and helping to set up stages. He took a few minutes to hand me his shotgun and suggest that I go find a safety table where I could get use to the gun.

I mounted the gun to my shoulder a few times, and discovered that the stock was too long to shoot while I was wearing my heavy winter coat. No problem, I can take off the coat. I had three layers of shirt under the coat, including a heavy fleece sweatshirt. Found the safety, right where it belonged at the rear of the trigger-guard. The bolt release was on the right side of the receiver, there was an 8-round extended tube which gave me 9 rounds when one round was loaded into the tube. He had used velcro to attach an 8-round shellholder along the receiver, plus another 2-round shellholder just in front of the bolt port "so you can load easily to the chamber in case you shoot to slide lock."

Okay, I'm just a little intimidated.

After he finished his part in setting up the match, Randomly joined me again to explain the finer points of Practical Shotgun.

"It's all about reloads. It's just as if you were shooting a pistol with an 8-round magazine, but you don't have magazines. Every round is loaded individually, from either the shellholders attached to the gun or from the 16-round bandolier that I'll let you borrow if you're a very good boy. That means you load the bandolier and the shellholders before you shoot, and after you shoot so I don't have to do that stuff."

(Well, he actually didn't say that last part, but that's the way I paid him back for the free ammo!)

We started out with 17-round stage shooting at Pepper Poppers from shooting-boxes. Having been warned, I was not surprised to learn that the biggest time-waster was reloading ... which everyone had to do. A feature which was new to me (as an IPSC Handgun competitor) was three Pepper Poppers with Rebar 'wires' attached, two per popper, each holding a bright orange-collered Clay Pigeon. As soon as you hit the Popper, the pigeons were presented at targets. The first array had an 8" plate, a US Popper, and the Pepper Popper with the clay pigeons ... 5 rounds minimum. Then you moved to another box (reloading frantically!) where you could engage three more US Poppers. Then (reloading frantically, because you needed nine shots to finish) you moved to the 3rd box where you shot two poppers with double clay-pigeons attached, plus three 10" plates. If you got to the shooting position with a full (9 rounds) load, and didn't miss anything, you got a good time. If you missed anything, you lost time while you fumbled more rounds into the shotgun.

I lucked out; because I was so conservative, and dubious about my shotgunning abilities, I took my time aiming and actually didn't use any extra shots.

Funny thing: this would have been about a 15 second stage if it was an IPSC handgun match, but I felt fortunate in completing it in under a minute. But of course, it got worse.

The next stage (17-rounds), you started with aslug- shot at a gallon jug of water, which was dangling from a wire approximately two counties away. It was really only 50-yards (!) away, but I needed someone to point it out to me because I hadn't noticed it W-A-A-A-Y down at the far end of one of the two big bays. Then you marched down to the end, shooting square plates and pepper poppers ... one of which started a Texas Star revolving.

In my 9-man squad, ONE shooter hit the water jug. Many of the shooters found a kneeling position with a rest, where they could get the best possible shooting position. They didn't hit it. When it came my turn, I took a snap-shot at the water jug and just moved on ... I know I couldn't hit it because I had no idea where the gun was hitting at that range with a slug.
Randomly swore I missed the supporting wire by THAT much (indicating fingers held 3/4" apart.) I paid him $5 to say that, so I know my reputation is safe. Realistically, I'm pretty sure I hit the twelve-foot berm behind the target, but I wouldn't swear to it.

When I got to the Texas Star, I started off pretty good. But some of my shot hit the supporting arm instead of the plate, so I had to reload a few rounds. A couple of times. I finally knocked all the plates off the Star, but my time was noting to brag about.

We had three other short ranges where I acquited myself somewhat less than admirably, then we got to the "All Slugs, All the Time" stage. The targets were IPSC cardboard. Two of them were long-range (which I consider anything over 10 yards, but I think these were about 20 yards)

The rest were from 7 to 10 yards, and two of them were moving targets. I mention this only to make the stage sound more difficult than it really was, in excuse for my mediocre performance.

Before I got up to shoot this stage, Gary The Toolman said:

"Hey, Jerry! Shoot Fast!"

"Shoot Fast?"

"Yeah, shoot fast. Don't worry about hits, just ... go really, really fast!"

You may not know it, but I LOVE to shoot fast. This was as close to a "hoser" stage as I could find, so I got up there and shot really, really fast. Including 4 rounds reloaded, I finished in 21 seconds! Wow! I was really impressed with myself, and I had no trouble at all ignoring the 3 misses out of the 12 possible hits on the stage.

I had Shot Fast!

Sometimes, it doesn't take a lot for me to impress myself.

Others in the squad were not as impressed, but they all agreed that I had, indeed, "Shot Fast."

Style Points, that's the ticket. When you can't shoot for shit, shoot fast.
That's my motto.


The final stage was something of a divergence from the rest of the match. You could call it a "deal breaker" stage.
It was set up in a HUGE bay, probably 50' from side to side and 100' long. There was a lot of steel, although only 18 rounds were required to complete it. There were three 'traps' involved, each of which held one clay pigeon which threw a bird from one side of the bay to the opposite corner. The rule of thumb on fast, low quartering shots on birds is, as I understand, "you can't lead them by too far". I shot the static targets on each of the 3 arrays, then turned to where I could see the birds start. Followed the birds with the gun, waited until I got at least eight feet ahead of the bird, and shot while the muzzle was still moving.

I got one of the three birds.

Wow! I thought. I've got this licked.

The last two shots were from the end of the shooting area (a 10' wide by 30' long roped-off area), stand in a shooting box, and knock down two 10" plates close to the ground.

I managed to knock down the first plate ... and then realized that my front foot was touching the shooting box ... but I wasn't in it.

Taking another step forward, so I was entirely in the box, I knocked down the last plate.

I got points for hitting one of the three birds, but a procedural penalty for not being in the box for one of the static plates at the end.

RJ the RO said "okay, we got one in 3 birds, plus all the static targets, so two misses. Plus one procedural for not being in the box while engaging that plate down at the end."

Tough, tough RO.

My time? I don't know. Not enough to be Somebody, surely not enough to Be A Contender.

At least I didn't embarass myself.

I even got some photos.

Maybe I don't have any pride in myself, maybe I'm not motivated, and maybe I had low expectations at the start of the match.

But I went to the Practical Shotgun match with the intention of having a good time, spending the day in fresh air and occasional sunshine with my friends. All of these expectations were met. I don't care that I didn't win the match. I didn't care that I looked like a Bozo out there, trying to figure out the rules as I went along.

I've been shooting IPSC handgun matches since 1983. I have vague memories about how intimidated I was back then, being the NuGuy and not understanding the rules. I didn't remember the FEEL of being a NuGuy, or how nervous I was at my first IPSC matches.

Perhaps I've got a little of that back now.

I knew most of the people I was shooting against. I have some confidence in my basic gun-handling abilities, my understanding of the rules of gun safety, and the etiquette of shooting a "Practical" match.

Still, I found myself somewhat intimidated by the knowledge that I was, after all, a New Guy.

You should know that when a New Guy shows up at a match, he isn't sure how to act or how he will be accepted. The best thing you can do, as an experienced competitor, is to be friendly. Include him in the cameraderie of People Who Shoot Guns Because It's Fun. Applaud his successeses, no matter how small they may be. Don't focus on his errors, and don't give him 'tips' unless they're essential to being safe. Just let him make his mistakes ... he'll figure out what he can do to 'do better' the next time, or the time after that. If you have a lesson to share, do so in the context of mistakes YOU made ... don't dwell on the mistakes HE made.

The most important thing is not to be critical of the new shooter.

I guarantee it will increase his confidence, his determination to come back and try it again and again.

Let the new guy find a home, and friends, in competitive shooting. He'll come back time and again, to eventually evolve in his own time and at his own pace, into someone who wants to encourage the next New Guy as much as he was encouraged in his first few matches, and into someone who you will be happy to be part of your squad.

He won't ever say anything; but if he did, he'd thank you for it.

PS: I don't know that I'll ever take up "Practical Shotgun" as a regular activity, but I have to say that I was impressed by it and wouldn't mind trying it again, sometime, if the conditions are right. My thanks to Randomly Hitten' for his contribution to my enjoyment of what would otherwise have been a no-shooting-matches weekend, and for introducing me to another aspect of competitive shooting.

About Rules

One of the main reasons I started this blog last December is because ... well, because I Have Opinions.

I'm not too good at keeping opinions to myself, and sometimes I've been accused of being less than tactful about expressing my opinion. For the last 7+ years, I've had said what I thought on The Unofficial IPSC list when my thoughts turned to IPSC competition.

During the 2004 competitive season, I composed a large (and largely rambling) post to that list every Sunday night. I called the series of letters "Geek Musings", and while I didn't actually manage to post every week, I racked up a lot of 'bandwidth' , whatever that is. While this series managed to generate some interesting controversy, some people couldn't resist commenting that I was putting a LOT of fire downrange. I finally decided that I could speak my piece in another venue, so that if I wanted to refer to the subject on a mailing list I could just provide the link and anybody who didn't want to read a "Geek Length" opinion, they wouldn't have to follow the link.

This has worked fairly well for two months, and I've found that some of the subjects I wrote about in this blog have helped me formulate my thoughts so that I can use the IPSC list when I want a knowledgeable answer to a question. Conversely, some of the thoughts of people on the IPSC list have generated 'blog eat' which I can explore on posts to this blog.

As it happens, some very interesting things have been happening on the IPSC list lately, and I've been so focused on new 'rules' questions that I haven't been doing any blogging lately.

(There has also been a lot of Columbia Cascade Section [CCS] business which has taken much of my free time to address. I foolishly allowed myself to be talked into running for the office of Competition Director ... I ran unopposed, because nobody else was sufficiently naive and/or gullible to actually ASK for the job, so I was eventually elected ... and it turns out that there is a lot more administrative work involved than I had been led to expect. Perhaps I'll write more later about the things I've learned about the duties of Competition Director.)

Paul, a friend of mine, who is a CCS Board of Directors representative for the Dundee Club, has from time to time asked me questions about rules interpretation. He asks questions that would never occur to anyone else, and I have finally decided to refer to him as "The Unibomber" because I have learned to fear opening mail from him, lest it blow up in my face.

During the past couple of weeks, The Unibomber has asked two questions which I couldn't answer. They were so provocative that I took them to the IPSC list, to see if I could find someone who could provide an answer.

Wow! Was I surprised at the responses.

But let me walk through the questions, so you have some grasp of what I'm talking about.

The first question was in response to rule 1.2.1, which I had already mentioned here ... and again here.

9 shots from one location. Is that location a shooting box. What is it if it's the fault lined area at the end of a wall or prop. You have 2 or 3 feet of movement for shooting so is that more than one location. Or are we more going on the fact of can the targets be accessed from more than one location.

As I pondered the question, I realized that there were hidden implications in the 'general' rules for both Medium and Long courses of fire. Accordingly, I asked the IPSC List members questions bout the NEW clause which is included in both sub-rules:

"Course design must not ... allow a competitor to eliminate a location or a view in the course of fire by shooting at all available targets at an earlier location or view."

What is the definition of a location, or a view? The Glossary in the new 2004 rule book defines location as:

"A geographical place within a course of fire."

Okay, that's a start. So what constitutes a 'different' location. Do you have to shuffle your feet to another part of a shooting box? Do you have to move out of or into a shooting box? How big a step does a competitor have to take before he will be considered to have moved to a 'new' location, which is different from the 'earlier' location'?

And what is a "view"?

I couldn't find a definition in the rule book, so I arbitrarily decided that this would be a port, or around one side of a Bianci Barricade. There's no justification for this, this was just the most logical working definition I could envision. I had hoped that someone on The IPSC List would expand on this, or propose an alternative, but that didn't happen.

Then, The Unibomber struck again.

One stage that I was talking about was one we called Board Room. 6 targets around a table with 2 others off in the distance. One shot per target of the 6 around the table, reload, one shot again on the 6 around the table, reload and double tap the 2 distant targets. The mandatory reloads violate this stage more than anything but other than that you are standing in one spot in a shooting box with 8 targets. I take it this type of stage is now illegal because you are firing more than 9 rds from one location. This nice rule is going to make some of the short stages hard to do. Or am I getting confused and all mixed up.

This isn't a bad stage design, actually. The only problem is, it appears to not be a legal IPSC stage.

First, it requires 16 rounds to complete (6 + 6 + 4) so if it's a General Course (rule 1.2.1) it would be defined as a Medium Course (' ... no more than 16 rounds to complete ...") per rule 1.2.1.2.

However, John Amidon (NROI Chairman and VP of USPSA) has provided an interpretation of rule 1.2.1 which essentially says that ... well, I'll just include his entire statement:

JA-What this means, and has been the case for several years, you cannot shoot all the shots from one location or view[:] prior to the change in the wording, IPSC only allowed 9 shots from one location or view[.] [T]this kind of contridicted free style, all it accomplished was to take the boxes off the ground and place them onto walls as ports. With the added language, they are allowing you to have more shots from one location or view, you just cannot shoot them all from one.

(Emphasis added.)

Okay, so we can't " shoot" all of the targets from one location ... is this necessarily A Good Thing?

Some folk on The Unofficial IPSC List suggested that this stage would be a Standard Exercise (rule 1.2.2.1), and therefore the "General Courses" clause wouldn't apply. Unfortunately, this stage doesn't feature 'strings' and therefore wouldn't be a Standard Exercise under rule 6.1.2.

????

What's the point?
While I had been voicing my confusion and my dissatisfaction with this NEW RULE during this discussion, I began to receive some unexpected negative responses to my temerity in raising the question at all.

Specifically, one European IPSC member suggested that I was being unreasonable in questioning the rules, and I'll address specific comments here (although I resisted the temptation to do so in the original forum):

I personally do think that you really should stop whining
about the new rules, but other than that, I recommend you
to read the rules 1.5.1 and its sub-paragraphs, which might
answer to your supposed question: "Level I and II matches
are not required to comply strictly with the ... round count
limitations."

Okay, so according to this person I'm not legitimately asking for clarification; I'm whining. Well, that's an opinion, I can live with that.

However, it's not helpful.

Nor are the suggestions about rule 1.5.1, because

1. it doesn't address the question about any stage which might be proposed for a Level III [national] match,
   
2. the USPSA rule book only allows this 'not required to comply" clause in Level I matches, but does not exempt Level II [sectional] matches,
   
3. this rule offers no guidelines on which "round count limitations" may be ignored, and
   
4. the original question had very little to do with round count anyway.

Other than that, it was a lot of help.
NOT!

Our Eurofriend continues:

Therefore, while the rule you so vehemently oppose
actually does not prohibit the application of the
stage you've described, but other rules do. However,
with a small modification the stage might be legal:

Actually, the rule which I "... so vehemently oppose ..." may invalidate the the stage which I described, but I'm not sure why this should be so. This was the reason I asked the question in the first place, yet this yahoo person chose to ignore that. Instead, he began to propose changes in the stage which "... might be legal ...". Amazing. He can't find a rule which might make a perfectly delightful stage (which was legal last year) legal this year, but he can imagine ways in which to change the stage to fit the rules.

Apparently, it will never occur to this mindset that there might possibly be something wrong with the change in the rules.

His final comment is perfectly typical:

When it comes to rules and their application on the stages, IMHO it's more productive to be inventive than crabby. But of course it might depend on thepersonal preferences, plus the definition of the words "crabby" and "inventive".

"IMHO", he says.
Well, there's nothing either humble or inventive about THAT opinion. What he's saying is that the rules are the rules, there's nothing you can do about them, so just take another big ol' bite out of the crow and STFU.

And that's the core of this entire discussion.

There are a lot of people in this world who allow themselves to be presented with "new rules", and accept them whole-heartedly and without reservation. As a consequence, the rules don't have to make sense; it's enough that they are the rules, they are official, and no discussion is either encouraged nor allowed.

On the other hand, there are people who are presented with "new rules" and ask: "WTF? What's this all about? What does it mean, why were they implemented, and how the heck are we suppose to try to make this work when it doesn't make any sense?

Neither group of people will EVER understand the other, because their backgrounds are not mutually compatible.

The EuroPeople don't understand why "We The People" object to the arbitrary imposition of nonsensical rules, rules which don't address any clearly defined problem but seem to have been enacted for no obvious purpose.

The other group can't understand how the EuroPeople can swallow this stuff and still maintain a "it's all right, everything is fine, just follow the rules and nobody will get hurt" attitude.

I think it's because the EuroPeople don't have "The Wizard Of Oz" as part of their cultural background. They don't react to a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" situation.


This is exactly why the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) will never accept the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) rules without modification. In fact, it's the reason why USPSA should never accept IPSC rules unquestionably.

Those people just don't realize that they are "We the People".
They don't understand that saying "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" is an acceptable reaction.

You can't talk to the EuroPeople when the subject is The Rules.

I'm not going to even try.

I'll just feel sorry for them, when they try to expand the E.U. into a quasi-national body and then can't imagine why it isn't working.

Stage Construction and Fault Lines

This past weekend I competed in an IPSC match which was very well designed. The stages were designed to for competitors to move from one side of the bay to the other in order to even see, let alone engage, targets. This not only helped ensure that round-count per shooting position was easily kept within the 9-round limit (USPSA rule 1.2.1) but also competitors were unable to bypass shooting positions in non-compliance with USPSA rules 1.2.1.2 and 1.2.1.3.

However, the match featured one stage which required the competitor to engage some targets inconveniently placed 'around the corner' of a vision barrier. The construction team had placed a 12' two-by-four from the corner of the vision barrier extending back toward the starting box, in an apparent effort to ensure that competitors not move too far laterally to engage the targets. I'm not sure how this 'fault line' improved the stage, but it was there and was obviously intended to be observed.

The problem was that this legal fault-line was short. It was arguably advantageous for the competitor to engage this target array from an area which was not bounded by the fault line ... say, from 20 feet away from the vision barrier.

While I was serving as Range Officer, one competitor did engage these targets from this 'grey area'. The Match Director of this club match happened to be a member of this squad, and took exception to my failure to penalize the competitor for failing to observe this fault line. the competitor was, in fact, standing several feet beyond (to the "rearward") of the end of the physical fault line.

The Match Director's objections were that:

1. Fault Lines "... are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity [2.1.2.2] and
2. The competitor was obviously (to the observing Match Director) standing in a place where the extended fault line would not have allowed him to engage the targets.
   

I refused, as Range Officer, to assign a procedural penalty to the competitor; on the grounds of faulty stage construction.

My reasoning was based upon current IPSC rules:

[2.2.1] ... fault lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material and should rise at least 2 centimeters ... above ground level. This will provide both physical and visible reference to competitors to prevent inadvertent faulting.

I judged that he, the competitor, couldn't have discerned by "physical and visible reference" that he was or was not beyond the boundries of the hypothetically extended fault line.

The competitor might arguable have been able to look down and see that the board was pointing somewhere to the north of his southern-most foot, but who among us (as competitors) will allow ourselves to be distracted by this petty activity, at the cost of losing our focus and taking valuable time? Competitors have the reasonable expectation that stage designers will establish a fulat line which conforms with the definition established by the current rules. It is perhaps reasonable to assume that if the stage designer, and the stage construction team, wished to enforce this fault line ... they would have taken the time and trouble to construct a fault line which was in accordance with the guidelines defined in the rule book.

A "Fault Line" (or "Charge Line", in different circumstances) is not 'a line in the sand'. The competitor is focusing on targets. The Range Officer is focusing on the gun. The Assistant Range Officer (often the score-keeper) is usually charged with observing foot faults ... which in this specific instance did NOT happen.

(UPDATE: I am reminded by the gentleman who was score-keeper that he DID observe the 'foot fault', and he did bring it to my attention. Thanx for keeping me honest.)

The "line in the sand" concept is not in accordance with IPSC rules, and is in fact unenforceable. when there is no obvious fault line for reference, the Range Officer AND the competitor are placed in the unenviable position of having to judge foot position by subjective means.

The rule [2.2.1] is clear about the definition of a fault line. If the stage construction team fails, through lack of materials or for other reasons, to construct a legal fault line, then the competitor is not liable to penalty by virtue of THEIR lapse.

And the Range Officer is placed in the uncomfortable position of either proliferating the 'assumed' intend of the stage designer, or allowing the competitor a great degree of leeway in deciding for himself whether he is standing to the left, or to the right, of the' extended' fault line.

(There's an implied contract here. The stage designer will decide that a fault line will exist. The stage construction team will build the fault line, which will conform by rules & guidelines universally recognized within all IPSC regions. The competitor will observe a legal fault line, and the Range Officer will enforce the observance. When one member of this contract fails to abide by the implied contract, the contract is rendered invalid.)

The moral of the story is: if you are the Range Master (or, in a club match, Match Director), you are required to evaluate all stages for potential problem areas before the match begins. If a stage construction 'malfunction' causes an unexpected controversial approach to shooting the stage, then you have no recourse but to either allow 'unintended consequences', correct the problem and have everyone affected by the change reshoot it, or to throw the stage out of the match.

Folks, we (competitors and Range Officers) do the best we can with the shooting problem we're given. Match Directors and stage construction teams have MUCH more time to de-bug the stage than the competitors have to evaluate it and decide on a reasonable solution.

(Disclaimer: I realize that when you're in charge of a match and you're trying to build a half-dozen stages on match-day morning, you don't really have as much time as you would like to find all of the problems that might arise. It helps when the competitors look for these oversights and draw them to your attention during the walk-through.)

The Range Officer ... just calls 'em as he sees 'em.

(updated 1-24-05 to correct mis-statement, add the 'disclaimer', and reword some phrases)