We interrupt this broadcast to bring you this important bulletin

The Intellectual Activist

Our friend, The Hobo Brasser, sent me a copy of this article today. I thought it important enough to bring it to your attention, and also to give the author recognition by providing a link to the original article rather than to quote it entirely.

The Hobo had cleaned up the "FWD: FWD: FWD ...." chain in the headers, but it seems to have made the rounds over the past four days.

Robert Traciniski wrote it for what appears to be a daily / monthly online opinion webmagazine. To be frank, it's one that I had never encountered before, and I am grateful for the introduction.

Here are a few snippets to pique your interest, but I do recommend that you go read the whole thing. It loads fast, it won't take long to read, but it does give an almost unique perspective on the "Unnatural Disaster" in New Orleans.

An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State

It took four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it also took me four long days to figure out what was going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.

If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.

Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists—myself included—did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.

But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.

The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over four days last week. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.

The man-made disaster is the welfare state.

. . .

What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to speed away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Superdome?

. . .

There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit—but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals—and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep—on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.

. . .

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining that other people aren't doing enough to take care of them and then shooting at those who come to rescue them—this is not just a description of the chaos at the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year history of the welfare state and its public housing projects.
. . .

I've stolen too much, and too shamelessly, from the eloquence of this excellent author. I won't try to gild the lily. Please click on the link at the top of the post, and read the whole thing.

2005 Croc Dundee Banzaii Ballistic Match

At last!

I don't know about you, but I've been waiting for months for the Croc Match.

If you're your familiar with the concept, this is an IPSC match featuring (this year) EIGHT stages with every stage requiring at least 50 rounds.

This year, the match was eight stages. Here's the line-up.

(NOTE: SWMBO spent the entire two days taking pictures. She took 692 photos, including the awards ceremony and a couple of dozen motion-picture videos. She got very tired of taking pictures and interviewing people, but this WILL result in a Front Sight article sometime in the intermediate future. We also have another half-gig of photos from Ron Downs, whose pix may be featured in the article or in future Blog entries. Unless you see the photo credit for Ron ... and thanx for sharing those photos, Ron .... all photo credit is SWMBO.)

Stage 1 (Bay 1) Eye of the Tiger

56 rounds, 25 IPSC, 2 USP, 2 plates ... 280 points. Course Designer: Paul Meier

Shoot 'em on the left, shoot 'em on the right, repeat.
Climb a ramp, shoot the eyes out of the tiger (8" steel plates), shoot the US Poppers (bounded by no-shoots) which activate two swingers.

Our squad (Squad 1) started on this stage on Day 1 of 2. It was a hoser stage, until you started shooting at the Eye of the Tiger. Then ... you had better slow down and get your hits, Bubba, 'cause the Tiger will eat you up if you miss!



This is Norm the Ungrateful, eying The Tiger back. He smoked the stage and bit the tiger's tail.

Stage 2 (Bay 2) Rock Around The Croc
56 rounds, 26 IPSC, 4 USP ... 280 points. Course Designer: Mike McCarter

Start holding a metal plate on top of head with both hands, drop the plate into the barrel and it starts two swinging targets. You pretty much HAD to start the stage from the downrange-most position possible, and work yourself back uprange engaging 8-round arrays on both sides of the bay as you went. As was the case with almost every stage, those who were limited to 10-round magazines immediately discovered that the best way to shoot the stage is . . . if you're moving, you had BETTER be reloading! Also as was the case with most stages, it's very difficult to fit this many targets into a single limited-sized bay without inadvertently building in "one-eighty traps". That is, between the need for awkward movement and the extreme angle of engagement, the competitor is required to be very aware of the '180 line'. As far as I know, of the 107 competitors at this (the biggest IPSC match in the PNW?), 7 of them were Match-Disqualified, and all of them for 'breaking the 180'.

Safety was the most important part of the match, of course, and the Range Officers (and the seven Squad Leaders) were specifically enjoined by Range Master Mike McCarter during the Shooter Meeting before the match started to "find for the competitor in questions of scoring, but all Safety Rules WILL be strictly enforced".


The shooter here is Gary Fish, RO is Jerry the Geek. ARO is Charley McAlister, and the observer in the foreground is Area 1 Director Bruce Gary. (More about him later.)


Stage 3 (Bay 3) Over Under Sideways Down

48 rounds, 24 IPSC... 240 points. Course Designer: Barney Brooks

Shoot 'em on the left, shoot 'em on the right,move forward to the window on the left, kneel down to shoot through the low barrel, far right to shoot through the OTHER window, throw yourself down into a prone position to shoot through the low port.

Here Rick Aragon (sporting his sporty Single Stack Match T-shirt) completes the stage under the watchful of RM and RO Mike McCarter.




Stage 4 (Jungle Run) Soda Shop Boogie

50 rounds, 25 IPSC... 250 points. Course Designer: Lorin & Sherri Orpwood

Shhhhh! It's a Surprise Stage!

But I can let you in on this much ...
Be vewy vewy quiet. We are hunting Cardboard.


Stage 5 (Bay 4) :The Doors"

62 rounds, 30 IPSC, 2PP ... 310 points. Course Designer: Marty Lee

Marty is such a quiet, unassuming and friendly guy. You would never guess that he has such a mean streak.
This is the highest round-count stage in the match, the most confusing, and features the most bizarre props.

When you hit the Pepper Poppers at the extreme left or right side of the back of the stage, it opens doors (window, actually) which allow you views of another 8-round array, and close off the view of the 9-round array you have just engaged.



The odd thing is, there's still plenty of room to engage the arrays whether the doors are 'open' or 'closed', because the doors (12" x 16" plywood panels) don't fill the windows (16" x 16" holes in the vision barrier". Why should you worry about the doors? Nobody knows, but almost EVERYBODY allowed themselves to be sucked into the mind-vortex of "following directions".

Me too!
I guess this was just one more example of the many ways in which the Croc Dundee cheerfully play with your mind.


As if that wasn't bad enough, it obfuscated the REAL challenge ... engaging three reclining targets behind barrels on the left side of the stage, which just SCREAMED for you to move&shoot fast.
Unfortunately, it was all too easy to break the 180 while screaming past this earlier barrel-hidden array. Of the 7 DQ's for 180 violations, three of them were in this exact spot!

Gotcha!

This was the last stage that Squad 1 shot on Saturday. I have to tell you, AD1 (Bruce Gary) was the RO when I shot the stage, and he came within a hairs breadth of DQing me for breaking the 180 on that barrel-array. In fact, he actually shouted "STOP!" . . . but I didn't hear him. After I broke for the back wall, he took a close second look at the array, my shooting position (clearly marked by the skid-marks in the gravel surface of the bay, I assume), and decided that although I had come very very close to breaking the 180, I actually engaged the targets within the mandated bounds of safety.

Well, I thought so at the time, but when somebody asked me "where were you when you shot at this target?" I couldn't honestly answer. I was so wrapped up in implementing the best solution to the shooting problem, I was running on auto-pilot and only ASSUMED that I was in a safe position to engage the targets.

It didn't make all THAT much of a difference, as far as my score for that stage was concerned: I had completely blown-by one of the targets, which earned me one procedural penalty and two misses. And I had got Alpha/Mike (or more often Charley/Mike) scores on four other targets, giving me a total of six mikes plus the procedural for a total of eighty points DOWN on a single stage . . . and I still was far from zeroing the stage. That's one good reason for loving a 310-point stage. It's really difficult to zero it unless you do very badly.

Bruce and I spent a lot of time discussing my shoddy performance on that stage, especially (a) whether I realized I was so close to breaking the 180 line (I didn't), and (b) whether he would have actually DQ'd me if I had stopped when he so commanded me to. We never got around to (c) whether I was DQ's even though I failed to stop, or should be DQ'd for not stopping when he gave the command (even though I didn't hear it) just on general principles.

This should be grist for a lot of future discussions, but for now I'm just grateful that I was ultimately judged 'legal' by sufficient margin to be allowed to continue competing on Day 2.

That's all the overview for the first day. Tomorrow, I'll describe the other three stages we so happily endured.

BTW: The match results are not yet available on-line. When they become available, I'll let you know here.

Front Sight - 2005 - September/October

The Columbia Cascade Section (CCS) has the honor and the privilege to be prominently featured in the latest (as of September 1, 2005) edition of the USPSA 'house organ', "The Front Sight".

Starting with the cover, which displays CCS Section Coordinator at the Area 1 match, including page 45, with CCS member Harold the Barbarian, and including articles about the nth annual Single Stack Championship and the CCS Junior Program, this issue is jam-packed with illustrations of the many ways in which CCS is leading the region in progressive programs and reporting.

Speaking of illustrations (and getting to the reason for this post), most of the photos are rendered in monochrome rather than in color. This is a darned shame, as they look much better when there's color in 'em.

In a vain attempt to correct this situation, I want to make these same photos available in their original colorful glory.

Here's the first offering: Tom Angel shooting the Donut. See Front Sight page 57.


(All pictures can be seen in hi-res. Just click on the pic.)

Here's Brent on the same stage (Page 58)


Mikey, in his 'Mac' persona (Page 60)

Also on page 60, Rick Calli trying to get it together for the double-star stage.

The Juniors are featured on page 61.

And of course you have the URL for Harold the Barbarian. But just in case you don't want to type the URL, here's the link.

HR1423 Childproof Handgun Act of 2005

I want to draw your attention to a bill introduced in the House on March 17, 2005.

This bill would make it a felony to manufacture, sell, transfer or deliver any handgun which cannot be "personalized".

Huh? You mean it has custom stocks?

No, silly. "Personalized" means that it can't be fired by anyone but the owner or other authorized person.

In general, it's an amendment to Section 922 of Section 18 of the United States Code.

Here's the money quote:

(b) Personalized Defined- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `personalized' means, with respect to a handgun, that integral to the handgun is a device or feature that--

`(A) allows the handgun to be fired only by a particular individual;

`(B) is not capable of being readily deactivated; and

`(C) may allow the handgun to be personalized to 1 or more additional individuals.'.

(c) Penalty- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined not more than $500,000, imprisoned not more than 18 months, or both. The fine otherwise applicable under section 3571 shall not apply to an offense under section 922(z).'.

You can read the full text of the House bill here.

There's one iota of common sense in the bill. It directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study to determine whether it is technically possible commercially feasible to create such a handgun within 5 years after enactment of the bill. The study will consider:

(c) Commercial Feasibility- In determining whether the technology involved in personalizing firearms is commercially feasible, the Comptroller General shall consider the following factors:

(1) The reliability of the technology utilized in personalized firearms.

(2) The difference between the manufacturer's suggested retail price for personalized firearms and the manufacturer's suggested retail price for equivalent firearms that are not personalized.

(3) Such other criteria as the Comptroller General deems appropriate.

Two thoughts, and no more:

1. This bill would require extensive and expensive modifications to millions of handguns already in the hands of private citizens.
2. The penalty of a half-million dollars and 18 months in the pokey seems excessive, in a bill which fails to include a 'grandfather' clause.

This bill has been on the books for almost six months, and it isn't going anywhere. Chances are it never WILL 'go anywhere', because it's a piece of work which appeals only to low-life incompetents who get themselves elected to the U.S. Legislature for personal reasons entirely unrelated to the desire to provide intelligent leadership.

The reason this bill is featured here is to acquaint you with the people responsible for this boondogle . . and boondogle it is, as those of us who keep track of the technology know that such a criteria could never pass any reasonable test.

(This technological criteria ignores the fact that many of us who own firearms store them safely in a household containing children, and have done so for years, because we make the children safe, not the firearms.)

Here are the sponsors:

Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, [D-NJ]
Mrs. MCCARTHY, [D-NY]
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, [D-RI]
Mr. WEINER, [D-NY]
Mr. DELAHUNT, [D-MA]
Mr. PAYNE, [D-NJ]
Mrs. MALONEY, [D-NY]
Mr. CAPUANO, [D-MA]
and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) [D-IL]

These are the 'hopefuls', those who 'hope' that technology will rescue them from the Evil Gun.

I am shocked . . . SHOCKED . . . to learn that all of the sponsors of this bill are DemocRats from the New England States, with the sole exception of a DemocRat from Illinois.

Who knew that these people were a bunch of agenda-driven, know-nothing elitists? I certainly didn't.

If you look at the links, clicking on their name takes you to their House website. Clicking on the party-state takes you to snailmail contact information.

What you do with this information is up to you. Personally, if I lived on the North-Eastern Seaboard or Illinois I would be writing to these reps and trying to clue them into the fact that Technology and Gun Control doesn't save us from "Hand Gun Violence". There are a lot of other, much more difficult measures which can be taken (control of gangs, encouraging the maintenance of 'nuclear families' with two parents present, elimination of the Welfare Bonus for single moms, etc etc etc) and they may help reduce the HUMAN tendency to violence.

(Technical measures to offset human tendencies rarely work, if ever.)

Actually, if I lived on the North-Eastern Seaboard or Illinois, I would probably be scrambling to move to another climate; one which is represented more ably in Congress.

Oregon isn't perfect, but at least these idiots don't live there.

ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows -- 08/23/2005

ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows -- 08/23/2005


Welcome to Virginia. "Sic Semper Tyrannis" ("Thus Always to Tyrants")



According to the cited article, Tyrants run rampant in Virginia. Consider the charges:

At a recent gun show in Richmond, Virginia, ATF planted "at least 30 agents" in the immediate vicinity of the entrance to the show.

An ATF spokesman defended their action by stating that this was "same amount of force that we've used in all the shows." (Question: does the ATF typically post 30 agents at ALL gun shows? Who pays for this, and what is their purpose?)

Also present were " . . . nearly 500 Virginia State Police, Henrico County Police and Richmond City Police officers . . ." (Are they sure this is enough to do the job? What is 'the job'?)

The Gun Show sponsor ". . . said four marked police cars were stationed at the main entrance to the raceway parking lot and more than 50 marked and unlabeled but obvious law enforcement vehicles were positioned just outside the public entrance to the building." The officers' presence, the sponsor said, was intended to intimidate her customers. (Or to prevent littering, or a terrorist attack, or ... who knows why?)

. . . ATF Resident Agent in Charge Brian Swann told (the sponsor) that . . . (t)he only difference in (this) case . . . was that the command post was established at the site of her gun show.

"Virginia State Police (VSP) spokeswoman Corinne Geller told Cybercast News Service that her agency does participate in a task force with ATF and other Virginia law enforcement agencies. As part of the agreement that created the task force, Geller said, VSP agreed to refer questions regarding its operations to ATF." (emphasis added)

A Henrico County Police spokesmen acknowledged the participation of their officers, but refused to cite the numbers.

A Richmond City Police spokesperson stated that "... the gun show was not in our jurisdiction, so I have no record of our officers' participation." (Question: since the gun show sponsor typically hires Richmond City Police as security officers at these recurring gun shows, were the OTHER Richmond City Police officers hired during off-duty hours by the ATF? Who paid for their time?)

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told Cybercast News Service that he has received numerous complaints alleging that as handgun buyers were waiting for their National Instant Check System (NICS) background investigations to be completed, ATF was secretly conducting the so-called "residency checks."

According to the complaints he received, Van Cleave said officers were dispatched to the homes of the prospective gun buyers to speak with family members, asking for example: "Gee, did you know your husband was going to a gun show today? Do you have his cell phone number? Did you know he was buying a gun?

"If people weren't home they, in some cases, went to neighbors" to ask the same questions, Van Cleave said.

(The sponsor) . . . and her attorneys were in Washington, D.C., Aug. 15 to meet with ATF officials and seek an explanation for what happened over the weekend. After talking with several people in the ATF headquarters, (The sponsor) said she finally spoke with a supervisor, whom she would not identify, who assured her that ATF "is out of the residency check business, effective immediately."

I'm not going to beat this one to death, but it sounds as if this article describes a massive, uninvited (by any of the participants) and highly visible Police presence at a gun show for reasons which have not been satisfactorily explained. The article cites at least one attempt at intimidation of an attendee by what appeared to be a Federal agent. As a consequence of this show of force, the sponsor of the gun show lost money both by a reduced attendance (due to the intimidation?) and in subsequent expenses necessary to formally protest this police presence in post-show response.

Although I'm going to let you draw your own conclusions, allow me to describe a real-life scenario illustrative of the effects of significant police presence at a place of business:

Two weeks ago, I went to a "Sportsman's Warehouse" in Salem, Oregon, to buy some shotgun ammunition. As I pulled into the parking lot of the mall, I saw a police cruiser with its lights flashing; a four-wheel ATV with "SHERIFF" painted on it; a recreational vehicle (small motor home) with "Marion County Sheriff Department" emblazoned on its side, and a half-dozen uniformed Sheriff's deputies. All were surrounded by yellow ribbons proclaiming "Crime Scene: Do Not Enter". The Sheriff's deputies were outside this cordon, near the entrance to the store, and were seen to be talking to individual civilians.

I parked (not too near the cordon) and watched them for several minutes. My first impression was that this WAS a crime scene, and that the county sheriff had moved personnel and equipment to support an investigation. Was it a bomb threat? Were terrorists involved? Had someone been murdered? Any plausible explanation for the presence of all this equipment and personnel raced through my mind, and I was loath to get out of the car, let alone approach the scene.

After I had watched for a couple of minutes, I realized that there was no sense of urgency in the people involved. When I did leave my car and approach the store, I saw that this was some sort of "Support Your Local Sheriff" campaign, and there was actually no danger involved.

People were entering and leaving the store at will, and the deputies were handing out brochures to the civilians as they moved about.

My experience happened the weekend BEFORE the incident at Richmond, but I can attest to the intimidation factor of a conspicuous police presence. And these guys were all very friendly; not at all like the ATF people at Richmond.

In my personal opinion, the Richmond incident sounds very much as it was originally portrayed by the Gun Show sponsor ... an attempt (and a successful one, by all accounts!) on the part of a governmental Law Enforcement Agency to intimidate the prospective attendees of a legal gun show, for no better purpose than to discourage attendance.

I don't know what laws were broken, or how much it cost the independent sponsor. You do the math. But what I DO know is that the display of Police Power is likely to have been very successful in the supposed goal to make gun shows fiscally infeasible.

It's not enough to pass laws against abuse of police powers, or even a constitutional amendment. In order to prevent the continuance of this kind of unlawful activity, our government needs to provide some sort of oversight which will punish its authors and disallow further such displays.

After all, isn't this sort of overwhelming governmental intrusion into lawful commerce the very model of Tyranny?

Turks & Jerks

An article last week at TURKS.US reported that Australia is more than willing to follow England's lead in ejecting Muslims who preach Jehad.

Unlike Senator Lautenberg's pusilanimous attempts to violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this IS a 'common sense' approach to negating at least one root-cause of violence.

Here is the money-quote:

A day after a special meeting between Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Muslim leaders, Muslims who do not respect secularism and law were told Wednesday, August 24, to leave the country.

"If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Shari`ah law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, said on national television.

Well, heck. I think he oughta run for U.S. president in Ought-Eight. He has as good a chance as Arnold, and a lot more credibility.

------------------------------------------------------------

In other news, a few months ago when Pat Tillman's death was still fresh news, I wrote that he was killed by "Friendly Fire" in a "Blue-On-Blue" encounter.

Now Southern Mississippi's Sun Herald is running an Associated Press article which seems to confirm it.

Because the Sun Herald website specifically states (on Wednesday, August 24, 2005) that this article will be available for only a 'short time', I'll provide both the link to the story and the full text.

Tillman case reviewed

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's inspector general is reviewing the Army's probe into the friendly fire death of former pro football player Pat Tillman, a spokesman said.

"The other investigations were frauds," Tillman's father, Patrick Tillman, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

"People above should have been punished," added Mary Tillman, referring to her son's commanding officers.

Tillman, who played for the Arizona Cardinals, left football after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to join the Army with his brother.

After a tour in Iraq, they were sent to Afghanistan in 2004 to help hunt for the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

On April 22, 2004, Tillman was killed by gunfire from his fellow soldiers, who mistook him for the enemy as he got into position to defend them, military officials have said. After the reports of his death, the military for weeks did not dispute the widespread belief he was killed by enemy fire.

The Army announced later that Tillman likely died because of friendly fire.

His family has been highly critical of the military's handling of his death.

The Defense Department has already completed an investigation into Tillman's death that was aimed at concerns raised about whether the Army held back information, but its findings weren't made public.

The Army has previously said it should have better handled the information on Tillman's death, but denied it.

The link to my earlier post is not immediately available, but it's not the point. The point is that the army first reported that he had been killed by enemy fire, but after a period of investigation realized that he had in fact been fired upon, and killed by, American troops.

I assure you that I didn't immediately, in the confusion which reigned after the untimely death of Tillman, intuit that the Army's original explanation was in error. I read it in the newspapers, sometime in May.

I submit that the U.S. Army made a mistake in their initial announcement, and corrected it as soon as it was obvious that an American bullet had killed Tillman. It happens more frequently than we would wish, it's difficult to distinguish friend from foe when the bullets are flying from all directions. I recall mentioning "the fog of war" in my earlier post, and this not only applies to the immediate consequences ("Blue on Blue", meaning 'friendly fire') but also in the after-action reports. These are the documents describing the moment-by-moment events of a battle, and they are notoriously authored by people who were experiencing both an adrenallin rush and the after-effects of confusion and fear of being killed. They're good for understanding the first impressions, but not notable for having ALL of the information necessary to understand what was REALLY happening. The people who write After Action Reports don't necessarily have all of the information which would provide them the perspective necessary to tell what REALLY happened.

Thus it was, I am reasonably certain, in the Pat Tillman situation. They didn't even know he had been hit until after the battle was over(which is not unusual in combat).

Now, though, he family of Pat Tillman is looking at the earliest reports, comparing them to the latest analysis of the action, and the see the natural discrepancies as 'a lie' on the part of the authorities.

I'm sure the authorities, whomever they are, didn't have a clear picture of the action at the earliest moment and were all too ready to accept the common supposition that Tillman was killed by enemy fire. Certainly, if there was any doubt, they would have preferred to avoid any suggestion that Tillman's friends and fellow soldiers were directly responsible for his death. This would certainly not have provided any comfort to his family.

It wasn't until they were certain that Tillman was fired upon by American troops that they admitted that, yes, it seemed most likely that he was the victim of 'friendly fire'. A reasonable enough mistake, and an understandable one given their reluctance to visit even more pain upon the family.

Now, several months later and now that we know what is most likely the truth about the event, the family isn't focusing on the pain of their loss. They're not angry at Tillman's fellow soldiers who, in the heat of battle, engaged what they wrongly perceived to be a source of enemy fire and consequently killed their loved one.

Instead, they are attacking the army which Pat Tillman joined in an effort to 'make a difference' and defend his country.

Tillman's father considers the early reports to be "frauds" rather than honest mistakes. His mother asserts that "People above should have been punished."

We are left with an understanding, however second-hand, of their sense of loss. But we may not necessarily agree with the motivation they ascribe to the Army spokesmen who initially attributed directly to enemy action. (And wasn't it ultimatly 'enemy action' which forced the firefight which killed him?)

Perhaps it's the times, the month in which Cindy Sheehan has chosen to present an interminable tirade against George Bush and the consequences of his executive decision. We are left with the still small voice suggesting that families of fallen soldiers may be inclined to milk the incident of the death of their loved one for personal or political gain.

I may be too jaded to assume that the Tillmans are making a great media play for the sole reason of attempting to learn the truth of the death of their son . . . can it get any worse than the Army has already admitted it to be? But if not that, why then are they determined to prolong their personal agony, rather than stiving to accept that Pat Tillman was in the Army because he thought that was where he should be, and that he had already accepted that he could be killed in his endeavor? Wasn't it his choice? Do they do him honor by attacking the decisions he made, simply because they led to tragedy?

I don't know. There is too much Cindy Sheehanism in the world for us to sit back and explore the events in the context of their hapening. Instead, we witness families torn apart less by their loss than by their interpretations of the effects of their loss.

I grieve for my country, and for the people who have lost so much but just can't seem to be able to accept the decisions of their sons.

Was it always like this?

Shotty Match

I've been delinquent in blogging recently for the sole reason that I hurt too much.



I mentioned that I went to an all-shotgun match. Well, this is the consequence of shooting over 200 rounds with a borrowed shotgun which is just a little too long.

My shoulder? My shoulder is fine, just fine. The slight bruising left after a day or two, with no residual soreness or marking.

My upper arm is, obviously, quite another story.

For the almost-full story, check out Random Nuclear Strikes webpage. Go here , then here, then here. He's missing a couple of stages, but these were only the last three and, frankly, by the time we got to them we were all so hammered (and I mean this in the sorest sense of the term) we didn't really much give a sh*t about taking pictures. We just wanted to get through the ten stages.

The good news is that the match was originally scheduled for 12 stages, but the host club (Tri-County Gun Club) decided at the last minute that they couldn't field enough set-up folks to actually build that many stages. Thank GAWD!

Here's a picture of the last stage we shot that hot, oppressive afternoon.


Actually, this is about one third of the stage. It was only 16 rounds ... one round each (SLUG rounds!) at each of 16 IPSC targets) but after the previous stages it seemed almost too much to endure.

I'll tell you what was 'too much to endure'. It was the 29 round stage ... all shot (and you had better be using #6 shot, or larger) that was the 8th of ten stages for the squad I was on. There were some stage design issues, and when I shot my first shot at THAT stage I inadvertently hit a cable which activated a clay-pigeon thrower. (It was that kind of stage: very interesting, challenging, but after spending 6 hours on the range in ninety degree heat, it was a cruel variation on a sadistic theme.) The consequences were that I had already pumped out 4 or 5 shots before I realized that the clay-pigeon thrower had 'malfunctioned', so I had to reshoot the stage. I really did NOT want to reshoot, but had no or little choice. I have to tell you that I dreaded every single shot on that reshoot, because every . . . single . . . shot . . . hurt like bejimineeze.

I did it, but I felt stupid every time I pulled the trigger.

Why would a reasonable man endure such needless pain?

Either Machismo, or stupidity.

You choose. (I know what MY choice is!)

Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!)Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!) Bang (Ouch!)

I've spent the past four days trying to convince myself that it was "A Fun Match!"

Guess what?
I'm not that good a liar.
It was an exercise in pain and frustration, there was too much shooting on a day that was too hot to reasonably endure, and it definately kicked my ass.

Not to mention my shoulder, and upper arm.

The good news was that the match fee was only $15.

The bad news was that each and every one of us spent between sixty and seventy five dollars on ammunition, and if anyone got through the match without bruising themselves badly I don't know who it was. I'm sure somebody there didn't hurt for five days after the match, but I think I don't want to hear about it.

My philosophy is, if I hurt a lot, EVERYBODY had better hurt a lot!

Fortunately, my squad buddy Phil, A.K.A. The Anologue Kid, must hurt as much as I do. At least, he says he does.

And the after-action pictures indicate that he got badly hammered, as did Norm the Ungrateful (good for him, the ungrateful wretch!)


Note that the proud poppa of purple pustilence on the left is Norm. The other dude is The Analogue Kid; he of Redneck Fame.




Here's the REALLY good news: Norm got a bad sunburn on his nose. It looks like 2nd degree burns, to me. I hope. At least SOMEbody must be hurting more than I do. I hope I hope.



Momma ain't gonna be kissing your nose to make it well in the fore-seeable future with that pustilential ooze, Normie. Small solace to me, but you take what you can get in this man's world.

Good Heavens! I'm still a cranky, hurtin' misanthropic mess who wishes misfortune on his friends! Shradenfreud Reigns after the All-Shotgun Match From Heck.

Well, whatever it takes. I'll know better than to shoot a 200 round shotgun match with a misfit loaner shotgun NEXT year. ( Insert your definition of "experience" HERE.)

Oh, by the way, if you're still interested in how the match looked ... you can read The Analogue Kid's description here and here.

Good luck. If you plan on shooting the All-Shotgun Practical match at TCGC next year (this was touted as the "First Annual", you're gonna need it . . .

. . . You stone-cold iron-man you.

(BTW, the results from the match are here.

Ouch!

Blastorama and Practical Shotgun

I've been talking the talk for a couple of weeks now, about two shooting events which were scheduled for the same weekend.

These had nothing to do with IPSC competition. Rather, it has to do with some Bloggers, blog-readers, and other shooting afficianados getting together to burn up a lot of ammunition.

Saturday, August 20, Rivrdog and The Analogue Kid and I met in Portland (Oregon) with some reader-chums to do some shooting.

While I was waiting excitedly for the weekend to start, I ran a scenario through my mind (I know you've never done this) about showing up at the counter of The Place To Shoot . . . the location where the PNW Blogger Blastorama was sheduled to occur . . . where I would announce the following:

We're all members of The Americian Union of Typesetters, Offset-press Printers And Linotypers (A.U.T.O.P.A.L.) come to shoot on your range. You ought to give us a discount on the range fees, because we have the same motto as you do:

"We Deal In Lead, Friend!"

They would be so impressed that an immediate 90% discount, and follow us around the range for the rest of the day.

Of course, it didn't work out that way. I never found the opportunity to throw out the line of patter. It may have been because I was so intimidated by the cyborgs who managed the lane, but that didn't matter. I was there to have a good time and meet a bunch of New Chums.

It started a month ago when The Analogue Kid responded to my continued plaintive posts about how I wanted to get together with some other folks in the area who maintained WeBLOGS about shooting. He suggested that he come down for the All-Shotgun Match at Tri County Gun Club (TCGC) scheduled for Sunday, August 21, and on Saturday we go shoot each others' guns.

That sounded good for me, I'm always up for a day at the range and that Saturday was opened.

Comes the day, I drive up from Corvallis to Portland and show up at BJ's Restaurant, Bar and Pizzeria (whatever) at just a few minutes after noon. I had worn my IPSC Internet Region shirt (more on this later) because I have no idea what these guys look like, so it's only fair that I let them know at a glance who I am.

Prince Andrew (a reader of both Cogito Ergo Geek and Rivrdog) and his friend Mark (I never found out if he was a reader, but he was a heck of a nice guy) met me in the parking lot, having only just arrived themselves. When we went into the resturant and told the hostess that we were meeting someone there, she pointed us right at the first big table at the right.

There were a brown-haired guy (Phil "The Anlogue Kid"), a grey-haired guy (Dan, a 'reader' and also a Japanese Interpreter by profession), and a white-haired guy (George "Rivrdog") at the table and they all greated us most warmly.

Five minutes later, while we were still perusing the menus, John I (a reader and avid shooter from the Portland Area) showed up and joined us at the table. While John I and I were bemoaning the untimely demise of Waddell's Restaurant, John II (another reader, and a 911 operator in Portland) showed up.

We ordered (except for John I, who had had a late breakfast), and got to know each other over lunch . . . as well as we could carry on a conversation over a long table in a room crowded with the lunch crowd.)

I couldn't begin to tell you all of the subjects of conversation. Sometime during the lunch Dan mentioned that a friend of his was testing a .22 caliber conversion unit to fit on a .45acp 1911 frame but, unlike current offerings, allowed the original slide to be used. He wanted to discuss the marketting possibilities. I suggested that it would have to be competitive with current available conversion units, but selling for a significant amount under one hundred dollars. The Analogue Kid echoed my opinion, and Dan was looking a little disappointed, when Rivrdog (George) offered an entirely different perspective. George referred to the ACE conversion unit, going back some 50-plus years, which used the original 1911 slide and not only allowed .22 long rifle rounds to be used but somehow managed to impart a recoil effect similar to that of the original .45acp round. He mentioned that the unit was still available from private collectors and at gun shows, but sold for somewhere in the $450 range. Then he proceded to provide a ten-minute discourse on the history and technical aspects of the ACE conversion unit.

It was a fascinating and educational lecture, which warned me that Rivrdog was not a man who could be bullshitted. If the information is available, George has it in his head and is happy to share it with you . . . if only to help clear the misama of information out of your head!

Eventually, everyone pronounced themselves as full of food as they were likely to be or some time, and eager to get to the range.



The eight of us paid $25 per lane (two per lane) to rent four lanes for the rest of the day, and it took several minutes for us to tote all of our gear ... guns, ammunition, and incidental gear such as earmuffs, safety glasses, magazines and above all cameras . . . through the double doors of the range.





Rivrdog resisted shooting the STI Open gun (with a C-More electronic sight) because he typically couldn't see the sights, and hadn't brought the eyeglasses which would have helped him. It took me over an hour, and several offers, before he would try the IPSC Competition Gun.



After he had shot it, I took this photo. He later said that this was probably the biggest grin anyone had seen on his face for years. He couldn't remember the last time he had put 25 shots into one big hole at over 10 yards. He had been counting his shots, and realizing that he could put them anywhere he wanted he casually poked the last three into the "B-Zone".




Phil, The Analogue Kid, wasn't as reluctant to try the Race Gun. There was no confusion in his mind. That Dave Skinner Creation put every shot where he wanted it, as fast as he could pull the trigger. I think I'm going to have to give them Mr. Skinner's address, if I can talk Phil and George into going out for IPSC competition.





JohnII is caught photographing Phil, as he works out in Lane 9 with his Kimber. Later John and I would trade photographs.

Dan, on the other hand, was fully involved with his target shooting. Here's a man who know hows to concentrate.



Didn't I mention that we'd see more of John II? Sometimes, the photographer is photographed. John seemed to be having a great time.



Unfortunately, John I left before I had a chance to take a picture, or even talk to him.


After the match, RivrDog, Analogue and I retured to George's boat at the Multnomah County Yacht Club (North of Scappoose).

Beautiful place.


We had a couple of drinks, and talked a lot.

Often, George talked


. . .and Phil listened.


(I took some pictures.)



I left around 7pm to go back home to SWMBO. George took Phil to the BBQ where Phil lasted long enough to eat something and crashed in George's boat.

The next day, Phil met me at the Tri-County Gun Club for the All-Shotgun Practical Match.

But that's another story.

In the meantime, you can get more Blastorama details from Rivrdog and Random Nuclear Strikes.

Vile Bill's IPSC Shooting Genesis

Vile Bill and I have been exchanging email for the past week, and I have to say that referring to this gentleman as "Vile Bill" is similar to Robin Hood referring to the oversized John Little as "Little John". Bill seems to be a genuine Nice Guy, and a devoted convert to IPSC competition.

He retains this gentle humor even though he lives in Canoga Park, California. Canoga Park may be a nice place to live, but the politics of his home state are difficult to endure. For example, he wants to start 3-gun competition but can't own an AR in California. Bummer, Dude!

Bill sent me the link to an article he had written for this website. (You can read the article by clicking on the title of this article, or click here.) While the original article refers to "combat shooting", he is really talking about his introduction to IPSC generally, and USPSA specifically.

The experiences of "The Wizard of Canoga Park" (note obscure reference to Edison) are typical of many people who found IPSC as a means to fill a need, and actively sought a sport that matched their criteria by searching the interned. I told him that a thousand people could sign their names to his article, because surely that many people took the first step (an Internet search) of their own volition and were surprised by the warm reception they received.

Essentially, Bill wanted to shoot his pistol but found bullseye unexciting. His Internet search referenced both IDPA and IPSC/USPSA. The tone of IDPA was dismissive and contemptuous of IPSC, so naturally he chose IPSC. This isn't surprising to me. In my experience, the people who choose IPSC over IDPA may be a little rebellious, but they uniformly do not respond positively to a group of people whose instinctive response to competing venues smacks of elitism. This should, perhaps, be a lesson to us all.

Bill not only found an exciting sport in IPSC, but he found people who were inclusive and friendly. As Bill wrote in a private email:

If I dare say, I think it's a good account of someone who came across a great recreational outlet and some of the greatest people he's ever had occasion to associate with.

I always have the hope a non-USPSA'er might see it and give it a, er, shot. . . . (I)t's really about the people and the camaraderie. I've gotten the tips, the trigger jobs, etc. In fact, I think I trust my gunsmith/buddy more than I do my doctor!

I share his hopes that this will be read by people who don't currently shoot IPSC, who may even be entirely unaware that the competitive venue exists. It may encourage them to research the competitive venues available, and decide (as so many people who read this website have decided) that IPSC is a fun, safe and exciting sport.

Here's where I get on my soap-box.

I think that the individual clubs can do much more to attract new participants than USPSA itself. While the regional headquarters does provide a small amount of funding for some grass-roots programs, there is no leadership or policy to actively encourage clubs to make the effort.

Maybe our leadership needs to work on policy in regards to marketing the sport.
Maybe we need new leadership.

I don't know what we can expect from USPSA, but we (as IPSC competitors, and members of gun clubs which host IPSC competitions), don't need to wait for USPSA to show us how to build membership. We can design our own programs.

For example, one of the cheapest ways to attract new people would be for the club to print up a 3-fold brochure about the activities available at their club (prominently featuring IPSC competition, of course) and put them on the checkout counter of every gun store in their area. They need to follow-up to make sure that plenty of the folders are still available, and resupply the stores as needed. The brochure should include a contact number where anyone could call for more information, and even a website URL if available.

Every club which runs IPSC matches in the Columbia Cascade Section (CCS) has a website, and links to their IPSC program are on the main webpage. Also, at least one of the clubs (to my certain knowledge) has both USPSA brochures and club brochures, which they provide to attendees at their semi-annual gun shows.

A couple of years ago, SWMBO and I hosted a table at the gun show. We put out all of our various pistols, all the holsters and belts and magazines and magazine carriers, and wore our STI shirts and hats as a sort of uniform. The bright colors attracted some attention. Even more effective, we had a video tape a friend had made of the last Area Championship match, and we had that playing (with the sound turned up!) on a portable TV/VICAR combination on the table. We alternated the match film with training films I had purchased from Ron Avery. Between the two video sources, we had constant sight-and-sound attractions which often caused the aisle to clog up because we had so many people standing there, watching the videos.

SWMBO and I constantly manned the table for both days. We were friendly and happy to talk about IPSC and any other shooting-related subject the passers-by asked about. We repeatedly described the equipment differences between the Divisions, as represented by the various pistols on display, and we gave away so many brochures the first day, we had to go to Kinko's that night to print up another hundred in black-and-white (we were paying for this out of our pockets, so we weren't about to spring for full-color copies!)

The club had sponsored the table, and all we had to do was provide decorations and exhibits. They provided the initial run of brochures and they had the club table right behind ours, with a somewhat larger supply PLUS the club president and vice president on hand to answer more questions.

Also, they had sponsored a table for the Full-Auto (Machine Gun) program at the club, and sited that table right next to ours. Between the three tables, they had a crowd of people clustered in a small area at all times.

They didn't track any of the new memberships, or new IPSC competitors, who were enrolled because of that two-day effort, but judging by the number of visitors we had I assume that both the club and USPSA gained some new members through these efforts.

Not every gun club can present a website for their club AND a separate one for their IPSC discipline as does the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club.

But every club can, and should, provide brochures advertising the club and describe the kind of shooting activities available there. One of our friends, Awesome Al, recently showed me the prototype of a brochure which he had designed on his home computer. It was a 3-fold brochure (8x10 printed on both sides, full-color, folded into thirds) which was camera-ready for submittal to a printer. I hope his club provided the funds for the printing, and equally as important established a plan to distribute these brochures where they would be picked up by people who have already demonstrated an interest in shooting.

Again, any place where shooters gather is a good place to advertise. Gun shows, gun shops, public ranges -- these are all good candidates.

Here are other places where these brochures may be placed in quantity, or at least displayed:

• the bulletin board at your place of work
• shopping centers
• churches (yes, churches!)
• community centers
• schools
• youth centers
• flea markets
• yard / garage sales
• sporting events
  
• tucked behind windshield wipers in parking lots
• on ranges at your gun club (people attending may not be aware of the wide variety of shooting sports available to them)
• on ranges at OTHER gun clubs (it may encourage the BOD of those gun clubs to offer other shooting sports, or draw shooters to your club to try new sports)

I'm sure you can expand on the list. You know best where members of your community gather.
You will note that my list includes venues which cater to children. The USPSA Junior Program conducts an active youth drive, and of course parents are strongly encouraged to attend -- or even to join their children.

The emphasis on safety and training in IPSC is paramount; everyone who participates must receive training and undergo a testing regimen which insures that every participant is aware of, and is able to abide by, the necessary basic rules of gun safety AND the special techniques which are part of IPSC competition. Nobody is allowed to actual participate in competition until he or she has proven that they have both the skills and the maturity to safely handle firearms under the pressures of competition.

I have personal knowledge of people who had the desire to participate, but were unable to demonstrate safe firearms handling knowledge and skills even after training was competed, and were prevented from joining competition.

This is an extreme sport. It isn't for everyone. While we would like 'everyone' to participate, this isn't possible. IPSC is perhaps one of the safest action-shooting sports available if only because its standards are high.

The 'State' cannot -- or will not -- set standards of proficiency to insure safety in competition. It is to the credit of USPSA that this organization will and does set standards, and enforces them. When any competitor, no matter how experienced, fails to meet minimum safety standards on any given day, he or she is immediately stopped and Disqualified from further competition for the remainder of that match. Those who continually fail to meet safety standards (and they are few, given the rigor of the training and certification process) eventually drop out due to repeated disappointment; or, if their violation of safety standards is particularly egregious, USPSA acts to revoke their permission to compete.

Ultimately, IPSC is a safe sport because the safety standards are set high. They are constantly monitored by experienced and trained Range Officers. Any violation of safety rules immediately results in punitive action, which means that the offender is stopped from shooting.

This permits the sport to activively solicit juniors (with the consent and participation of their parents or guardians), and people who may not have previously considered Action Shooting as a viable sport.

This is a completely results-oriented sport. If you can meet the standards, you can compete. If you can meet the safety standards, but aren't particularly competitive -- you can still compete. If you are not a safe competitor, you can not compete.

In this day of ignoring responsibility for our individual actions, there are no excuses.

What could be more fair?

Thus Vile Bill can work to attract new participants in IPSC, with the comforting assurance that those who cannot participate safely will be weeded out. Those who are left will be at least safe. Whether they are good company will be accepted or rejected by societal pressures.

IPSC shooters will not abide a "jerk" among them.

They find no friends, and they don't get invited to the barbecues

Michael Yon Online Magazine

You probably have noticed a few things here. First, this is primarily a 'sporting blog', supporting my love of IPSC competition. After that, it's a RKBA blog -- again, having to do with the 2nd amendment, not always in terms of competition.

After that I get down to the politics and writing 'whenever I have something to say, or when I just feel like ranting'.

The bottom line is that this serves as my own personal bookmark.

I often (see below) add a link to my sidebar and encourage people to visit the referenced website because I think it's interesting. The thing is, whenever I sign on to the Internet I go to my blog first, and then I use the sidebar links to go to the places which I have found interesting in the past.

Such a place is Michael Yon's Online Magazine.

You can't spend as much time as I do surfing the internet without coming across references to Michael Yon. He is a free-lance journalist who has gone to Iraq to find out what is happening, so he can report it to the world at large. Often he does this by going out on patrols with American troops.

Tonite I came across a link to one of his recent articles (I don't even remember who was the source of the link, I was so impressed with the content) and found it to be incredibly real, incredibly pertinent, and extremely well written.

Flashback: One of my great-aunts died a few years ago, and while I was helping the family clean up the house so it could be sold I ran across a book of Ernie Pyle's articles. More important, inside the book I found a veritable treasure trove of Ernie Pyle articles from World War II which she had carefully clipped out of the newspapers and saved. (My family has always been readers, and compulsive savers of information; you can see that I came by my retentive tendencies naturally.)

These new writings are similar in content and quality with the greatest War Jounalists of our times. I don't feel at all self-conscious about comparing Michael Yon with Ernie Pyle. In fact, Pyle often was so consumed with the need to make each individual soldier 'real' to his readers that he would slow the narrative by introducing each according to a formula. (eg: "Private First Class Joseph Smith, 23, of Salt Lake City, Utah.")

Yon introduces the people in his articles, but usually he has no need to pander to the editor of the Salt Lake City "Tribune" or the Dodge City "Kansan". In fact, he sometimes deliberately declines to provide more than a tagline identification to the people he writes about. For example, he writes with great respect and affection of "Captain V", but he does not slow down the narrative to identify him further.

All of this steamy series of accolades are the result of reading a single article by Yon. Here is the link to that article, and here is the link to his website. I will add the website link to my sidebar as well, because I can see that I will be revisiting it daily to see what else is new, and also to read all of the archived articles he has published.

I don't even have to clip the articles out and press them in a book. They'll be there, any time I can get my hands on a computer and a modem.

My great-aunt would have killed for the information access I enjoy.

Now you can have the same access for the low-low price of -- free.

Only a fool would resist such an offer.

UPDATE:
Scrolling back through my browser history, I can give "Firing For Effect" the hat-tip for his reference to BlackFive which provided the link Michael Yon.

( I can see that I'll eventually be including links to BlackFive on my sidebar as well, for my own personal convenience if for no other reason.)

Fire for Effect

I reaped a comment the other day from a reader who signed himself "Vile Bill". Nobody with a nickname like that should be ignored, so I followed his link to his website, "Firing For Effect".

VileBill's an IPSC shooter from Canoga Park, California, who has been posting for . . . well, all I know is that his archives go back to January of last year. His sitemeter is recently installed, so don't let the hit-count fool you. The thing is, VileBill is an IPSC shooter, and as such he is okay in my book.

I just wanted to let you all know a little background on VileBill, because I'm adding a link to his blog on my sidebar. Go check it out, and be sure to browse through his archives. From my brief tour, I can see that he's providing an interesting journal of his progress from IPSC NuGuy to someone who is buying a wide-body pistol to support the transition from Limited 10 to Limited.

There's a hidden agenda here, and it's mine. VileBill told me where I can get software that interfaces seamlessly with BlogSpot so I can now support TrackBack processing. I'll check that out, and hopefully install it next week sometime. You can see, I owe the man.

Oregon Blastorama

It appears that the scheduled bloggershoot is -- er -- on schedule.

Saturday, August 20, a few (4? 6? 8?) PNW bloggers will doff their pajamas and climb into the cleanest-smelling bluejeans they can find in the laundry for an afternoon at the range in Portland, Oregon.

As is typical of the most important technical conferences, this one will begin with lunch.

Lunch is noonish at BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse on Center Street in Jantzen Beach. (This is on the West side of the I5 Freeways, I think around Exit 302).

After lunch, the whole shootin' match will move over to the shootin' range: "The Place To Shoot" at 940 N. Haden Meadows Drive ... which is located on the EAST side of the freeeway.

There was some discussion of a BBQ afterwards, but I can't speak to that.

I'll be bringing my IPSC pistols, plus the .41 Magnum Blackhawk affectionately known as "The Hand Cannon". IIRC, TPTS allows magnum pistols to be fired on their range, so be prepared to double-up on ear protection.

I have no idea what kinds of firepower the other participants will bring, but it's a great opportunity to shoot each other's pistols for fun and bragging rights. If you plan to attend, you might want to bring something to shoot. That is, something I've never shot before, because I'll want to shoot it. Bring plenty of ammunition, okay?

My main priority will be to meet new chums, and take a LOT of photographs.

You'll recognize The Geek. I'll be wearing my "Usual Suspects" hat.
See the photo in the upper right-hand corner of the blog? That isn't it.


This is it.

Ugly looking thing, eh?

The cap is starting to look a little shabby, too.

Keystone Kops III: What Is A Tool?

In response to popular demand (Zippy wanted to know, according to an earlier comment on this blogsite), I've decided to post ONE MORE ARTICLE about the 2005 Columbia Cascade Section Tournament.

This is about IPSC Rules of Competition. If you're not interested in the subject, there's nothing happening here, move on.

We had two incidents at the CCS Section Match which presented questions concerning the interpretation of the current rules. One was "What Is A Tool?", and the other was "I've Lost My Ears And I Can't Get UP!"

What Is A Tool?>
In the Keystone Kops match, a competitor experienced a firearms malfunction in that the magazine of his CZ locked up the slide when he slam-reloaded at slide-lock.

This happened twice to this competitor. I was the RO on the second occurance, and had heard that this was a malf that had happened on an earlier stage that day. I didn't stop the competitor, but after he had completed the stage I had the time recorded and before I scored the targets I called the Range Master (who was doubling as the Match Director, and also happened to be the Section Coordinator) to the stage. Aware that this would be a controversial call, I described the circumstances and the activities of the competitor, and asked the RM what would be the appropriate penalty.

He (the RM) thought for a moment, and declared one procedural penalty for using a tool to clear a malf. I conceded the point without comment and continued to score the targets.

I didn't agree with the call.

Here's the applicable rule, according to the current rule book:

5.7 Malfunctions – Competitor’s Equipment

5.7.1 In the event that a competitor’s handgun malfunctions after the start signal, the competitor may safely attempt to correct the problem and continue the course of fire. During such corrective action, the competitor must keep the muzzle of the handgun pointing safely downrange at all times. The competitor may not use rods, or other tools to correct the malfunction. Violations will result in a zero score for the stage.

Later, the RM reconsidered his decision and rescinded the procedural penalty. The competitor's score was arbitrarily altered to remove the procrdural penalty, and he was allowed to have used his spare magazine to clear the jam without penalty.

This may turn out to be a more controversial decision than I expected.
For example, Bruce Gary (who is the Area 1 Director in the USPSA Board of Directors) brought up this question in his recent comments in the USPSA Forum discussing this topic.

The consensus in that forum seemed to be that the use of a magazine to clear a jam did not constitute the use of a 'tool'. This position is give credence because Troy McManus, one of the National Ranger Officer Institute's (NROI) Instructors conceded that a magazine was not a 'Tool' in the sense suggested by the rule.

Do I agree with this decision?
I do not!


It is unfortunate that the rule book does not define the word "Tool". That makes it much more difficult to interpret the rule.

To further complicate the question John Amidon (VP of USPSA and the NROI Director) responded to a question in the then-current issue of the Front Sight Magazine (July - August, Vol 22 #4, Pp. 4.72) which touched upon this question. Unfortunately the question directly addressed the use of 'props' to clear a jam, not the use of 'tools' or the definition of the term. The resulting Interpretation served only to NOT define a 'prop' as a 'tool', and allows the use of a 'prop' to clear a jam -- "as long as it is done safely ...".

Do I agree with this decision?
I do not.

I happen to belong to the "Chimpanzee" school of thought in regards to this queston; anything that would be considered as a 'tool' if a Chimp used it to draw a snack of ants out of an anthill, will be considered a 'tool' if it was used by an IPSC competitor. Thus any object used to clear a malfunction would incur imposition of the zero-the-stage clause of the rules.

Here's an interesting question: do I agree with the rule?
I most decidedly and emphaticallyl do NOT!
I think it is, to resort to the vernacular, a "Stupid Rule". It serves no purpose, it needlessly penalizes the competitor, and if there was a legitimate goal to the emposing this restriction it should necessarily have included a definition of the word 'tool'. However, since it did NOT define the term, then all objects which are not something you were born with must be considered a 'tool' and its use penalized to the degree specified by the rule book.

Either that, or you (a) define the term, (b) lessen the penalties at least under some circumstances which have not been defined, or (c) delete the rule as unenforceable.

My choice would be to delete the rule as unenforceable.
Nobody knows what a 'tool' is, and the latest "interpretatioon" by the Director of NROI serves only to obfuscate the rule, not clarify it. If John Amidon can't come up with a clear and all-encompassing interpretation, who can?


My second choice would be to define the term 'tool' so that everybody understands what is and what is not prohibited.

Is a magazine a 'tool'? Or is anything that is not a "rod" a tool?

I think that if you have a Leatherman on your belt, and you can use it to clear a jam, the RO should just shut up and sit back; as long as the gun is pointed in a safe direction, the competitor can use whatever is available to clear a jam.

If the competitor comes to the line without sufficient tools on his person to clear whatever malfunction may occur, it's the competitors problem for not being ... competititive.

I voiced my displeasure about this rule a year ago, and my voice was not heard. I doubt it will be heard now, but you KNOW the question will arise again and the answer will be every bit as unsatisfactory as it is today.

What's the bottom line?

A 'tool' is whatever the RO de jour says it is. The rule is unenforceable, so it will be enforced arbitrarily and inequitably.

Lose the rule, Dude; it doesn't work and it should never have been accepted by the USPSA BOD. Their bad for letting it slip by.


I've Lost My Ears And I Can't Get UP!

Here's another interesting situation which occurred during the CCS Section Tournament.

During the Jungle Run, a competitor tripped over the log which restricted access to the Jungle Run. His ear protection (ear muffs) fell off, and he was sprawled on the ground. He kept the muzzle of his pistol pointed safely downrange, so he was not DQ'd. Using only his weak hand, he managed to put his ear muffs back on, got to his feet, engaged the targets before him successfully, and moved down to engage the last target in the array.

Unfortunately, he was a little distracted and dragged the muzzle of his gun past the 180-degree line on that last target. He was stopped by the Range Officer (RO), and received a DQ (Match Disqualification.) This DQ was justified by the circumstances, as ragged as they were.

Here's the rub:
the competitor should have stopped himself, or the RO should have stopped him, because his ear protection had been dislodged in the fall.

5.4.3 If a Range Official notices that a competitor has lost or displaced their eye or ear protection during a course of fire, or has com­menced a course of fire without them, the Range Official must immediately stop the competitor who will be required to reshoot the course of fire after the protective devices have been restored.

Unfortunately, the RO was not aware (or not familiar with) the applicable rule, so the he didn't shopt he competitor.

The competitor didn't know he could call for a break, so HE didn't stop himself.

Ultimately, the competitor continued with what had already been a disatrous run on the stage, and consequently performed an unsafe act.

Should the involved people (the RO and the competitor) have been familiar with the applicable rules, and stopped the stage? Darned right they should, and as a consequence of their inaction the competitor went on to perform an unsafe act and was DQ'd.

But I can't fault either party. I wasn't sure about the actual applicable rules myself, until the rule book was brought out and we started reading the rules.

There is no happy ending to this story. The only thing I can suggest is that everyone who competes in IPSC competetition read the rule book thoroughly and memorize all the cheesy little rules that may make the difference between completing the match and being DQ's. Sometimes, the rules that mess you up aren't the rules that cause you to be DQ'd.

Think about it, and if you're not already a certified RO you might consider taking the training.

It could save your match.

Tears In My Eyes:The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: Tears In My Eyes

While I often find the ranting of The Emperor Misha entertaining, I don't always agree with his radically extreme conservative viewpoint. That's the reason that I put his website in a special category in my sidebar. Essentially, I visit his blogsite (which is vastly more popular than my own poor efforts) only to reassure myself that extremist viewpoints may be viscerally satisfying to the author, but don't always show him as a rational person.

I don't quote his opinion because I don't use such rough language except in the rare occasion when I am so outraged that calmer expression will not serve my purpose. Misha seems to find it appropriate far too frequently for my taste. Perhaps I suffer from excessive dispassion, but since I don't agree with him I won't clutter up my own work with vulgar invective.

Misha's point is that he is distraught and outraged by the images of Israelis forcing other Israelis out of their homes. That's understandable, and I share the same distress.

His other point is that it's all George W. Bush's fault. He thinks it was an American decision, forced upon Mr. Sharon, and that Mr. Bush should be the recipient of all the invective and disgust which many of us feel as a result of this shameful occurrence.

I don't agree.

Misha doesn't cite any references to support his theory, other than his own passion. My readings convince me that this was NOT an American tactic, that the White House was NOT the author of this socio-political boondoggle, and that to blame him for the wrongful decision of the Israeli Prime Minister is to be uninformed, irresponsible, and wrong. (And I have told him just that, in a comment to the website of The Anti-Idiotarion Rottweiler.)

I consider Daniel Pipes a much more credible reference to the events occurring in Israel today.

In a recent article, Mr. Pipes states:

The Israeli government's removal of its own citizens from Gaza ranks as one of the worst errors ever made by a democracy.

This step is the worse for being self-imposed, not the result of pressure from Washington. When the Bush administration first heard in December 2003 that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had unilaterally decided to pull all soldiers and civilians from Gaza, it responded coolly. Months of persuasion were needed to get the White House to embrace the initiative.

I don't know about you, but I'm more inclined to give credence to a man who wrote about the situation four months ago, when it was current-news, than I am to accept the diatribe of a man who makes apparently unfounded accusations.

You'll have to read the citations provided here -- and please go find your own references before you make up your own mind -- to make an intelligent, informed decision that you can defend.

You know what I think.

I think that uniformed passion is not the best measure of a painful event.

staghounds: Moslems stand AGAINST murder, no publicity...

staghounds: Moslems stand AGAINST murder, no publicity...

Staghounds is a blogger who just doesn't blog enough.

I added him to my sidebar a couple of months ago because he says things, and presents perspectives, which nobody else can offer.

And I don't read his work as often as I should. Maybe he'll take the hint and blog more frequently, but that may not be the best solution; unlike others I could name, he writes when he has something to say. I could learn from him.

A month ago, he wrote about the Moslem reaction to Islamic Extremists. I'm reading what he says, and it is encouraging that Moslems are denouncing the murder of innocents.

In this one instance, his take is much more positive than mine.

Here's why:
This morning I was listening to the radio while I was getting ready for work. I listened to the Laura Ingraham show, on a station which I have tuned in on my alarm-clock/radio because her voice is so irritating that I am driven from my bed. (This is important, because I am NOT a "Morning Person"!)

A representative of the American Moslem Community was the guest commentator, and he was saying all the right things, until he hit a bump in the ideological road. I don't have direct quotes for the whole thing, so some of this should be taken as a paraphrase. (I'm not willing to pay six bucks a month to the Laura 365 Club to access the transcripts. Perhaps a reader who does have the membership can find the transcript and forward it to me.)

He said:

The world has a problem with the extremists, and moderate Moslems are the only ones who can do something about it. We represent a religion of peace ... When we have Moslems strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing up people, some of them Moslems, then .....

(emphasis added)
and he lost me there.

"Some of them Moslems".

THAT is the problem.

I have yet to hear a clear, unequivocal Moslem denouncement of terrorists blowing up people. There's always a qualifier. In this statement, the qualifier is that "some of them (are) Moslems".

What has that to do with anything? Sure, it's a shame that Moslems are being killed by their own people ... both in the sense of adherence to a religious belief and frequently in the sense of common membership in a national/cultural/geographic group.

The way these statements are worded, they give the impression that the priorities are:
(a) we're killing our own people, and that is not justified by the effort to achieve a goal, or
(b) it's not that we think it's wrong to kill people, but it's wrong because it makes all Moslems look bad.

Why can't we hear just ONE Moslem spokesman say:

"It's wrong to kill people. Even killing declared combatants is deplorable, but there is a group of Moslems who feel justified in killing ANYBODY, even non-combatants, in the most horrible manners imaginable. We Moslems must speak out against this and make it clear that we do not support terrorism or murder regardless of the espoused cause and regardless of the religion of the victims."

When I hear that kind of statement, which doesn't equivocate and doesn't present a sense of outrage based on the fact that members of their religion are adversely affected by terrorist actions, then I'll begin to believe that "Moderate Moslems" are equally as horrified as the rest of the world.

Until that day, I can't accept the proposition that "Moderate Moslems" are all that moderate.

They cleave to a sense of "Them" versus "Us", and until non-Moslems are unconsciously accepted "Them" as part of "Us" there is no real credibility in the concept of Moslems being part of a community which is being equally preyed upon by the terrorists.

Until that day, the Radical Islamists (?) will continue to assume, and rightly, that they have at least tacit approval and support from ALL Moslems.

Anything less is just bullshit. Damned insulting bullshit, at that!

Croc Match I

"Barsoom" posted a warning to the Unofficial IPSC List that the 2005 Annual Croc Dundee ("You Got Bullets?) Hi-Round quasi-IPSC match was scheduled for Labor Day weekend, and mentioned that it features the Surprise Jungle Run stage.

I want to take some of your time and precious band-width to give you an idea of just what we're talking about when Oregonians ("Ory_Gun_Ians") say "Jungle".

It's a Rain Forest, Folks!


(Photo Hosting courtesy of ImageShack.com ... click on all photos for hi-res image)

Here's a picture of the June Club Match at Dundee, The Club Match. No surprises here, the competitors get to walk the stage before they shoot it. (A similar stage was also offered at the Columbia Cascade Sectional Match in early August ... again, it was NOT a 'surprise stage'; every competitor knew where the targets were, and what they looked like.)

After you get started, there are various targets stuck back in the ferns and brush, and MOST of them are readily visible ... if you're paying attention.


Here's a couple of targets which you can easily see from the trail you're RUNNING on. Note the log over the trail? Some people think they can hit the target while they're in the air, jumping over the log. Note that the ONLY Match DQ during the CCS Section Match was from someone who jumped over the log instead of stepping over it. (Note also that this person did NOT DQ because he tripped over the log ... which he did ... but because he broke the 180 Degree line by running past a later target while he was shooting at it!)

Here's what a LOT of targets look like, at the end of the trail. Lots of targets, lots of rounds to have in your magazine when you get there.




The thing about the Croc Match is that you have to keep track of the rounds you have actually shot, so you know when to reload. Y'see, there are EIGHT stages, and the round count is estimated at OVER 450 rounds. Do the math. You'll be shooting over 50 rounds for EVERY stage. Um, do I need to say that sixty-round stages are NOT uncommon?

I shot this match several times with a single-stack pistol (The Beloved Kimber), with Chip McCormick 10-round magazines. Then, they had nine stages and 400+ rounds, which means I could get away with having five 10-round magazines and a bunch of 8-round magazines. Chances are, I would have to do some standing reloads with that gun this year. I wouldn't want to go to the match with less than six 10-round magazines, and a bunch of extra mags as well.

I have seen a couple of revolvers at this match. One year, Steve Alley ("Alley Cat") showed up with a little red wagon which he had modified by bolting vertical 1/4" dowling to the sides, so he could slide his speed-loaders on them. The speed-loaders were handy there, but he didn't drag the wagon with him. He put the six-round speed-loaders on his belt, and he looked a lot like Pancho Villa with all that ammo on him. He also put several speed-loaders in his pockets, because it's difficult to put more than a dozen on a belt without dragging your pants down around your ankles.

The good news is that the ("Banzaii Ballistic!") Croc Match stages are usually 10-round friendly. The bad news is that the targets are not always easy to hit, and if you have to make up a miss it can ruin your whole stage.

Even people who are shooting open guns, with magazine capacity of 25 to 30 rounds, find themselves either making a standing reload or dumping a half-full magazine in the middle of the stage because they JUST CAN'T COUNT!

Here's a photo of someone who will NOT be going to the Croc Match:


Am I Going to compete?

I don't know. I just shot a lost-brass match last week, and to be honest I hate to take brand new Winchester .38 super brass to a a lost brass match.

Here's a picture of somebody who WILL be there.


And here are people who are just ... not sure.



Okay, so many I'm not real sure about the last two, but it's still a Great Match.
Okay, it could happen.
I'll be there.

You'll brass for me, right?