USPSA 2.2.1 - Guest Comment

A few days ago I wrote about the rewrite of the USPSA rule book in regards to USPSA Rule 2.2.1, which cites fault lines which "extend rearward to infinity". I noted a couple of ways in which this verbiage could be problematical.

We had encountered these kind of problems a couple of years ago in the Columbia Cascade Section (NorthWest Oregon), and found that there were a couple of simple stage construction techniques which could be used to avoid the problems.

But I didn't mention them, because I chose to focus on the problem.
"Let someone else come up with a solution", I thought.

The solutions we found in my local section may not be the only, or the best, solutions. If other solutions were available, it seemed advisable not to stifle creative thinking by presenting both the problem AND the solution at the same time.

Happily Unofficial IPSC List member Stan Penkala saw the answer to all of the problems I had identified, and laid it all out for those of us who subscribe to The List.

I asked Stan if he would be willing to allow me to post his response here, and he not only agreed but included three pictures which he had composed to illustrate the situational variations.

This is our first Guest Blogger entry, and I'm delighted that it not only resolves all of the problems identified in the original article but represents the contribution of a thoughtful, experience and skillful writer.

Stan Pekala on USPSA New Rule 2.2.1:

There's nothing wrong with this rule


It allows stage designers to construct their creations without tremendous investment in unnecessary lumber, as you only need a 3 foot charge line running perpendicular to the 180, at either end of a COF, to prevent shooters from going around a barricade to shoot... given the stage command "Engage targets as they become visible from within the fault lines."



In cases where backing up is encouraged or necessary, the stage designer should create a fully enclosed shooting area with unbroken charge lines.







In cases where the stage designer wants to prevent the shooter from finding a sweet spot way up range, that can be prevented by putting 2 more fault lines... one on each side of the stage at the end of the side fault lines, so they point toward each other, or are angled rearwards and toward the center of the bay so that the projection of them meets at a reasonable distance behind the shooter. This would effectively place the imaginary continuation of these lines across the stage well before the sweet spot some shooter would otherwise be able to use. This situation would be clear to both the shooter and the RO. This is the situation that would negate the advantage used by several shooters in Jerry's video example.


Stan Penkala

_________________________________


About Guest Comments:

Sometimes, the comments you want to make just don't fit in the limited resources available in the usual 'comments' section provided by Haloscan. Stan noted that he had originally attempted to write much of these comments here, but the software 'disappeared' them when he hit the button.

As an alternative, he wrote the comment to The Unofficial IPSC List. I was so impressed that I asked him for permission to include the email as a separate article. Stan graciously allowed me to do so, and included the illustrations which he had created, and even allowed me to use his full name in the citation. I am grateful to Stan for his contribution and for his permissions.

I hope to present more extended Guest Comments in the future. If you are interested in contributing, look here for instructions.

USPSA RULES 2.2.1: "Extend Rearward To Infinity"

One of the 'general' changes applied to the (Draft - For Comment Only) "2007" version of the USPSA rule book is to remove all references to "Charge Lines" and replace them with "Fault Lines".

Historically, the term "Charge Line" was used to prevent the competitor from 'charging' the target, resulting in engagement at such close quarters that pasting tape was blown off the target due to the effects of muzzle blast. (This rendered the target "impossible to score", although in club matches .... especially during the Rainy Season which emcompases approximately nine months in Oregon ... the RO would often just give credit for whatever seemed likely. Decidedly, an argument in favor of Charge Lines in stage design and construction.)

The term "Fault Line" was generally used to refer to situations where the competitor was restricted to a shooting box, the outlines of which formed the physical limits of the shooting box, or to ground-barriers which were intended to restrict lateral movement.

Obviously these definitions are vague and subject to criticism, and it is with a sigh of relief that we unsaddle ourselves from the cumbersome, redundant, confusing (and vague) term "Charge Line".

If that was the only change made in Rule 2.2.1, there would be no need to comment except for the encouragement of a hearty "Atta Boy!"

However, there are other changes included in the rewritten Rule 2.2.1, and they deserve some attention.

Here's the complete text of the rewritten Rule 2.2.1:

2.2.1 Fault Lines - Competitor movement may be restricted through the use of physical barriers or Fault Lines.
2.2.1.1 Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material, must be fixed firmly in place, and must rise at least 1.5 inches above ground level, providing both physical and visible references to competitors.
2.2.1.2 Fault Lines used to control lateral movement and force the competitor to shoot at targets from behind physical barriers may be positioned at any angle extending to the rear of those barriers, should be a minimum of 3 feet in length, and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity.

For clarity, and to provide a reference to specific changes, here is what the "Old Rules" (from the 2004 USPSA Rule Book) look like:

2.2.1 Charge Lines and Fault Lines - Competitor movement should preferably be restricted through the use of physical barriers, however, the use of Charge and Fault Lines is permitted. Charge Lines and Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material and should rise at least 2 centimeters (0.79 inches) above ground level. This will provide both physical and visible references to competitors to prevent inadvertent faulting. Fault Lines and Charge Lines must be fixed firmly in place to ensure they remain consistent throughout the match.
2.2.1.1 Charge Lines are used to restrict unreasonable movement by competitors toward or away from targets.
2.2.1.2 Fault Lines are used to force the competitor to shoot at targets from behind physical barriers. They may be positioned at any angle extending to the rear of these barriers. Fault Lines should be a minimum of 1 meter (3.28 feet) in length and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, they are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity.

I started to show which words, phrases and concepts were changed by strike-outs on the old rule, but it soon became apparant that the changes were too extensive. Besides, most of them only served to removed the phrase "Charge Lines", or to remove redundant or awkward words & phrases..

Here's a convenient summary of the changes:

1. Remove "Charge Line" verbiage
2. Change minimum height of Fault Line from 0.79" to 1.4" (appropriate for a 2x4)
3. Change minimum length of Fault LIne from 1 meter to 3 feet (appropriate for US Measurements.)
4. There is no Point Four. That's all that changed.

Here's the thing:

There should be a Point Four. That should have been to remove the phrase:

"... are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity."

Well, maybe not. It's a nice idea, that we don't have to build fault lines back until they achieve absurd (and usually unhelpful) length.

I can appreciate the good intentions of the folks who wrote the original rule, and the folks who left it in the 2007 version. Unfortunately, in the actual event this may lead to competitor solutions to the shooting problem which are at least difficult or impossible for the RO to adjudicate, and in the worst cases render the stage 'illegal' under both current and proposed rules.

Remember those two phrases: "Difficult or Impossible to adjucate", and "Render the stage Illegal."

Here's why.

"Extend Rearward to Infinity" may make it Difficult or Impossible for the RO to adjudicate a Foot Fault":

Suppose there's a stage with two fault lines arranged in a "V" formation, with the point of the "V" downrange. Here are vision barriers arranged so that it is very difficult to see targets unless you are very close to the fault line on either side. The fault lines are only 10 (or 12 or 20 or 50) feet long, so you have to run from side to side to get around the vision barriers and see the targets.

Suppose a competitor realizes that he can position himself UPRANGE of the end of the fault line (which 'extends to infinity'), and engage all targets on one side; then he moves fleetly to the other side of the bay to engage all targets on the other side.

You are the Range Officer. You look at the fault lines and extend them to infinity with your Mind's Eye, and the competitor has obviously engaged the targets from a position on the wrong side of the line.

So, you're gonna ding him hard for a foot fault, per shot. Right?

Wrong.

Rule 2.2.1 clearly stages the physical dimensions of a Fault Line, and (not gratuitously) adds that the purpose of the Fault Line is to:

"...[provide] both physical and visible references to competitors."

Guess what? Where he is standing, there are no fault lines. He doesn't have a 'physical' reference to where they are (or should be), and you as the RO only have the Minds Eye view of where the fault lines would have been ... if they were physically extended 'to infinity'.

If I was the competitor and you were the RO that dinged me, we would meet again in the little sweaty stats-shack area reserved for the Arbitration Committee. You would invoke rule 2.2.1.2, I would invoke rule 2.2.1.1, and no matter what the outcome the match administrators would have gone to a lot of trouble and time to invoke an Arbitration Committee. More, a thoughtful Arbitration Committee would realize that if the stage designer/stage construction team really wanted to prevent me from shooting at that location, they would have made a few minor changes to the stage. But they didn't.

The results of this arbitration would be:

1. I 'cheat' and get away with it, or ...
   
2. I 'cheat' and don't get away with it ... but the report of the arbitration goes to USPSA where they have to justify it. But either way ...
   
3. The match is slowed down and a trumverate of competitors are pulled off the line and their match is enturbulated because they're spending an hour on an Arb Committee instead of working on their match ... which is the reason they paid the match fees, not to sit on committee.

Who do you think they'll be mad at?

Everybody. But the BOD will have to re-visit this rule, and maybe think about what they can do to prevent this from ever happening again.

Second case:
"Extend Rearward to Infinity" may Render the Stage Illegal":
Why "Illegal?" Because the stage design allows the shooter to move rearward to infinity until it was possible to engage all targets from a single position.

I entered a blog article about a specific example of this in January, 2007. I also provided a High-quality video of the stage, which I also provide in low-quality from YouTube here.



As you can see, at least one Open Division competitor managed to engage every target without movement from a single position. At least two other Open Division competitors did the same thing, taking only a single step to engage the last target .... but if they had move another step uprange, they wouldn't have needed to take that sidestep.

This is in clear violation of Rule 1.2.1, in both the 2004 and the 2007 versions of the rule book.

Admittedly, this is the consequence of stage construction problems. It was a good stage, it's just that it is illegal and will result in the stage being removed from the match as soon as one competitor manages to "engage all targets from a single location ...".

In either case ...

... there is a very good chance that the stage will ultimately be thrown out of the match. Why? The alternative is to change the stage(s) so that the next guy won't take advantage of "fault lines which are deemed to extend into infinity".

Remember, it's a game. If one competitor finds a superior solution to the shooting problem, every competitor who sees it will strongly consider applying the same strategic solution.

There won't be one person taking advantage of this hole in the stage design, there will be a LOT of them.




Call it "gaming", call it smart thinking, call it the Lemming Principle.

SUMMARY:

It may be impossible to find an elegant solution to this problem.

• We could remove the "extends to infinity" clause, but (until you review the consequences in detail) it looks like A Good Idea.
• We could include a reference to the rule (1.2.1) that precludes shooting all targets froma single location.
• We could ... well, I don't know. This is where you are invited to suggest our own solution.

Ultimately, this is a problem which can best be resolved by stage design and stage construction. It doesn't really suggest a good way to resolve it by writing rules. The above were the best ideas I could come up with, and if you have a better idea you should immediately write to your Area Director. Comments here are invited, and encouraged, but I don't really expect that the Board of Directors is going to monitor this site to discover the best way to correct the rule book.

Still .... where else are you going to find an extended discussion about the subtle flaws.

UPDATE: Guest Comment

Stan Penkala offers a solution to all of the problems identified.

USPSA new rule 1.2.1

The USPSA Draft of proposed new rules of competition serves four general purposes:

1. It removes all rules what are IPSC specific (that is, rules which are applicable to International competition under the provisions of the IPSC competition rules, buth which have not bearing on American competition. Example: Appendix D7 inclusion of the definition of "Modified" Division, which is not recognized in USPSPA.)
2. It clarifies rules allowing fair competion by people who are unable to perform some physical acts required by published stage procedures. A good example is the requirement for "weak hand" grip during classifiers. Some people are unable to fire a pistol with their "weak hand". The new rules identify the situations, and provide solutions which the RM can apply so that the shooter can continue to compete without either incurring unfair penalties, or incurring an unfair advantage over other competitors.
3. It removes rules which are not deemed suitable for USPSA competition because Americans simply deny that they are necessary. An example is the rule which penalize only the first to hits on a penalty target, no matter how many times it is actually hit by the competitor. Supposedly, this rule was imposed so that new shooters would not be discouraged by what they may consider 'excessive' penalties. Americans generally believe that you are responsible for your actions, and also that the rule was poorly written.
4. It removes or rewrites rules which, due to vague phraseology, were ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation.

Most of the new/rewritten rules are carefully considered and crafted, and the reason why the changes have been made are obvious to the experienced USPSA competitor.

However, there are other changes which may have escaped the attention of some readers. The purpose of these rules may not be immediately obvious.

Rewritten rule 1.2.1, defining 'General Courses of Fire', is a good example:

1.2.1 General Courses of Fire:
1.2.1.1 "Short Courses" must not require more than 8 rounds to complete and no more than 2 shooting locations.

1.2.1.2 "Medium Courses" must not require more than 16 rounds to complete and no more than 3 shooting locations. Course design and construction must not require more than 8 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to shoot all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view.

1.2.1.3 "Long Courses" must not require more than 32 rounds to complete. Course design and construction must not require more than 8 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to shoot all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view.

In reading this rule, we are struck by the changes which have been made. In the 2004 rule book, the definition of the Medium and the Long COF included this verbiage:

Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view.

The high-lighted clause dissallowing compeitotors to 'eliminate' locations or views is confusing at best. In its most extreme interpretation, it would require competitors to engage at least one target from every shooting box, and through every port ... even though the presence of several ports or boxes had been intended to allow the competitor to determine his own "best solution to the shooting problem", which is the essence of the Free-Style Principal of IPSC competiton.

Several years ago I emailed John Amidon, USPSA Vice President and head of the National Range Officers Institute asking for a clarification of this IPSC rule. Mr. Amidon focused on the last part of the clause: "... shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view", and determined (officially) that the intent and effect of this rule is that, in Medium and Long COFs, the competitor may not 'shoot at all targets from a single location or view'.

This is effectively an imposition on the stage designers and the match set-up crew. If they fail to set up at least one target which can only be engaged from a different location or view from another target, the stage is not acceptable in USPSA competition.

(NOTE that there is no penalty applied to the individual competitor who finds a way around this rule. However, if that happens in a match the stage must be thrown out of the match. Alternatively, it must be re-built to deny this access and everyone who has already shot this stage must be required to reshoot it for score. It is usually more productive, although still disappointing, for the match administrators to remove the existing scores from the match standings and disallow any more participants to shoot the stage.)

The new rule version is much more clearly stated, and the confusion described above has been eliminated. The consequences of bad stage design or stage construction has not changed, but since the rule is easy to understand it lessens the probability that stages which violate this rule will be inadvertently presented.

This is one of the Ten Good Reasons To Rewrite The Rule Book. (Actually, there may be many more ... even if we only consider nonsensical, arbitrary and/or inapplicable rules. Perhaps this is a valid subject for a future article.)

While I support the rewrite as presented, there is another change inserted into the rule which has been a Forum Topic on the USPSA Members Forum:

Course design and construction must not require more than 8 scoring hits from any single location or view

The 2004 rules were a bit more generous (or problematical, depending on your point of view) in that they limited stage design to 9 scoring hits from any location or view.

So why the change?

Before we start the discussion, we need to define some terms.

A Location is a physical, geographic spot on the ground. If you shoot at ('engage') a target from one place, that's a 'location'. When you take a stop, you have arrived at another 'location'.

A View refers to either shooting through a port, or any other physical restriction on your view of the target(s). Note that this may be accomplished by changing your stance ... standing, squatting, sitting, kneeling, prone.

The difference between one location or view and another is that a certain amount of time must be expended in movement of the body, rather than movement of the firearm.

The purpose of such a distinction is generally accepted to allow a person using a limited-capacity firearm to reload without incuring a time-penalty. That is, you have to spend time moving anyway, so you can reload during that second or two which is already invested in movement.

Reloading without any change in position or view is called a "Standing Reload", which sometimes occurs no matter what the stage design allows or mandates. This most often occurs when the competitor misses a shot, thereby wasting ammunition.

The generally accepted reason for this "required hit-count limitation" is that it doesn't force limited-capacity competitors to make a standing reload, even if no targets have been missed. Since match participants who are competiting in the Limited-10 and Production Divisions can have no more than 10 rounds in their magazine (plus one in the chamber, hopefully), a nine-round limitation has not been deemed to constitute a hardship on these competitors.

After all, they have the option of reloading before they begin to shoot from this location or view, so they probably have 11 rounds in their gun. If they miss more than two shots they will have to make a Standing Reload, but that's just part of the game -- the Conventional wisdom is: Don't Miss!

So why make the change from 9 scoring hits to 8 scoring hits required?

USPSA Members on the USPSA FORUM have suggested that it is an accomodation to the Proposed Single-Stack Division. Ignoring any other theories, this makes the most sense to me.

Unlike Limited-10 and Production divisions, Single-Stack Division competitors are limited to 8-round magazine. Adding the one round up the spout, that gives them a maximum of 9 rounds in their pistol before they have to make a Standing Reload, assuming they miss a couple of shots.

Perhaps this hit-count limitation was reduced to encourage the new division?

We don't know. Nobody has told us yet.

But if that was the intent, there are a couple of reasons why some people may consider the justification insufficient.

First, the Provisional Single-Stack Division is, well, 'provisional. USPSA is allowing people to shoot matches while declaring that they are competing in that division, but it's not yet official. The new rule book includes that Division definition in Appendix D7, but as of the date of this writing it has not been officially accepted. It's unclear whether this is the unofficial official acceptance of this division, or whether it is a matter of USPSA positioning itself so that the official rule book is ready if and when it is officially accepted.

Very confusing levels of officiality, granted. My guess, in this limited context, is that USPSA is ready to accept the new division, but has not due to something like "we said we would give it a 12 month trial run" (or however long) and they can't legitimately accept until the trial period has been completed.

Let's leave that point for a moment, and get on to the other reason why some people may consider this inadequate justification for the hit-limitation change:

Revolvers.

Revolvers may be the Cat's Pajamas for you hard-core ICORE folks (Jerry V., I'm talking about you) but for most of us they are, sorry, the Red-Headed Stepchild of IPSC competition.

Revolvers are available which hold 8 rounds. However, the USPSA rules mandate that, if an 8-round capacity Revolver is used, it must be declared as Limited-10, Production, Limited or Open Division.

Here's the rule in the Proposed (Draft) rule book:
Appendix D5: Revolver Standard Division

16. No limit on cylinder capacity, however, a maximum of 6 rounds to be fired before reloading. Violations will incur one procedural penalty per occurrence

. Rule 6.2.5 reads:

6.2.5 Where a Division is unavailable or deleted, or where a competi­tor fails to declare a specific Division prior to the commencement of a match, the competitor will be placed in the Division which, in the opinion of the Range Master, most closely identifies with the competitor’s equipment. If, in the opinion of the Range Master, no suitable Division is available, the competitor will shoot the match for no score.

So what we have here is ... failure to communicate.

USPSA is doing a great job on this rules update, what with making the draft available to the membership for comment. Unfortunately, not all of the comments are going to fall into the "Yeah! You guys ROCK!" category. This is one of them.

I would like to know why this hit-count limitation has been changed, and whether it's really necessary. Also, whether USPSA thinks it's fair and necessary. After all, they have no compunction about ignoring the Revolver Division capacity limitations, why should they treat Single-Stack any different?

Note that I care.

I'm shooting in Open Division. I have a handful of 170mm magazines into which I can stuff 26 rounds of .38 Super ammunition, and one up the spout. I can load 'er up on Saturday and shoot for three weeks, including misses. I'm a Big Cheater, and I'm just proud to be here.

Well, actually I do care.

I want the rules to be fair, and consistent, and if any changes are to be made I want to know the reason before I buy into them. It doesn't really matter if the rules apply to me. What matters is that rules are not made or changed carpriciously, without any justification.

This is a problem which we have had to contend for the last two versions of the IPSC rule book, and it has caused a lot of hard feelings over the years.

We have a New Beginning, a New Hope (forgive the Star Wars references), and it would be best if we can reliably expect that rules changes are based in reality, driven by improvement and resolution of defined problems.

It would be less helpful, and the results less acceptable, if the perception continues that the rule-making process is capricious and arbitrary.

We've already done that, been there, own the T-shirt. That's the reason why USPSA has distanced itself from IPSC rules.




.

Grace Under Fire

When we talk about Practical Pistol (and 3-gun, and Multigun, and Rifle, etc.) competition, we rarely talk about the intangible aspects of the sport.

We never talk about sportsmanship. If we did, what would we say? "It's good; it's necessary; it reflects well on us as individuals to be good sportsmen; bad sportsmanship tends to lead the sport into disrepute." Vague stuff like that.

Fine, we really have nothing to say about sportsmanship. We accept it as a standard, but we don't really worry about living our lives that way. Either we're gentlemen and ladies, or we're oafs and buffoons. But we don't pay much attention to it, we take it for granted, because we don't really know what it is.

But we know it when we see it.

Here's a video example of sportsmanship.

Big Dawg shot a stage badly at an important match. He had a good game plan, but (like Dirty Harry) "in all this excitement, I kind of forgot ...". It was a complicated stage with so may different ways to shoot it, it's difficult under game pressure to remember exactly which way you had decided to shoot it. (When I shot the stage, I was so overwhelmed by the possibilities that I just found the simplest way to shoot it and ignored the fact that it was going to cost me a big time penalty.)

In the actual event, he failed to engage to US Popper targets.

That's frustrating, and embarrising and disappointing too. But he was squadded with friends who constantly tease each other, so he was vulnerable.

Worse, SWMBO had done exactly the same thing just a few minutes prior, and dealt with her disappointment privately. When she saw the mistake, she embraced and applauded him because, as she put it, "You Did It My Way!"

Many people would have felt taunted, and reacted with anger.

Big Dawg instead chose to accept it as intended. He didn't get mad, he just ... milked the moment. The result is a video showing two friends laughing off a mutual silly mistake, and turning a rainy day goof into an amusing story they can share for years to come.

Grace Under Fire in the societal sense:




When we talk about speed, power and accuracy, we ignore one of the most important factors of IPSC competition: physical grace.

I have talked to very good, fast-rising competitors who seem to have a natural talent for the sport, and one common theme when I ask them what makes them so good is that, as one competitor said, they "practice moving gracefully".

Maybe it's a facet of Situational Awareness, but good competitors always seem to know where they are in relation to the people and physical objects around them.

The U.S. Coast guard, a miltary organization who must daily accomplish their mission while at the same time keep track of the ship and the sea ("one hand for the ship, one hand for yourself") even has a webpage which defines the concept:

Situational Awareness is the ability to identify, process, and comprehend the critical elements of information about what is happening to the team with regards to the mission. More simply, it’s knowing what is going on around you.

Those of us who are not sailors ... more important, those of us who spend most of our lives in safe environments, must learn a special combination of mind-set and physical acuity to keep us safe when we are running with guns.

The final safety feature, when our situational awareness fails us, is that we must learn to move as if we are dancers. Never a mis-step, only a step in a direction for which we had not planned.

It's embarrassing and painful to fall down. What is worse, is to fall down when we are holding a loaded firearm, the safety off and our finger dangerously near the trigger.

I've fallen while running a stage, and I bet many of you have done so, too. The trick is to fall safely, accepting the injuries involved with using your hands to keep the gun pointed safely and in a safe condition (some competitors report having actually flicked the safety ON while falling) rather than to worry about blocking your fall.

No, it's far far better not to fall, even though you may trip over obstacles which you did not perceive because 90% of your attention was focused on your goal, rather than your surroundings.

In this video, we see the lovely SWMBO navigating a course of fire which nobody in the squad had identified as particularly hazardous. What none of us had noted is that one of the firing positions was immediately adjacent to a vision barrier, the pedestal support of which was poking up higher than it should. The challenge is to move as quickly as possible between firing positions, but sometimes the need to set our feet 'just so' to stop our forward momentum, while at the same time being aware of the gun, the desire to position ourselves perfectly to engage targets ... [deep breath] results in an awkward encouter with a tripping hazard.

A professional dancer would handle this situation without comment. An athlete would take it in stride.

A Geek, even a Lady Geek, would probably not have been trained to deal with this rude interruption in a stroll across the park. But SWMBO has been competing in IPSC matches for going on 9 years now, and while not an athlete she has been taking dancing classes for some months.

Is it the IPSC competition experience, or is it the dancing classes which give her the ability to recover so adroitly?

No matter. She trips, but does not fall .. the gun is always pointed safely downrange, and she recovers almost unconsciously from an Unfortunate Encounter which may have left a less-body-aware person sprawling in the gravel.

We're glad that she maintained her poise, and even happier that she was not injured.

Was this just another of the common, everyday fortuitous "Breaks of The game" which turned out okay?

No, I prefer to believe it was just another common, everyday occurance of ...

Grace Under Fire, in the physical sense.



These videos can also be seen in higher resolution here. The "When Bad Things" video is 10mb, the "Tripping Hazard" video is 4mb.

USPSA Rule Book Update: Rule 2.5

Updating the rule book which regulates competition of any kind is kind of like making sausage: you may appreciate the end results, but you don't usually want to watch the process.

I've been competing in Practical Pistol competitions off and on for 23 (now 24) years, starting in 1983 under the auspices of Volume 1 of the USPSA Competition Rules.

We in USPSA have seen a lot of changes in competition rules. Some of the changes have been nearly seamless; some of them have generated bad feelings among the people who had to live (compete) under what they considered unreasonable expectations.

The current manifestation of the USPSA rule book is a case in point.

Incorporated in 2004, ex parte rules which were more appropriate to International competition (some countries in IPSC can't legally compete using the targets which were originally designed for this competitive shooting venue) chose to impose many Politically Correct rules having little to do with resolving problems which had been manifested in competition.

In 2006, as has previously been reported here, USPSA reached a meeting of minds with the International body (IPSC) which allowed the American Region to create it's own rules of competition.

Gone are rules which apply strictly to International and ex-American matches.

Added are rules which serve only to encourage participation by those competitors who, because of physical limitations, are not able to perform all of the actions readily performed by shooters who have full use of all limbs.

Rules which were subject to misinterpretation have been clarified, corrected, or simply deleted.

Finally, the USPSA rules can address practical shooting concerns which have little to do with competition in countries where the Second Amendment is little more than an expletive.

A sterling example of the tremendous improvement on Rules of Competition for Practical Pistol (which is the basis of rules for 3-Gun and Multigun) is that which deal with the conundrum: what do you do with a person who arrives at the range with a loaded pistol?

Concealed Carry is an increasingly important fact of life in America, where now 48 out of 50 states allow private citizens to carry concealed firearms. It's a curious fact that in most of America, you can carry a loaded firearm almost anywhere you go ... except to a shooting range.

Yup. IPSC matches, even here in America, feature "Cold Ranges." That means you can carry a firearm, but you can't load it until you come to the line to shoot a stage.

You can't take a firearm out of your car unless it is cased in a bag or a box. (The firearm, not your car.)

Since there is no provision for any situation except arriving at the range with all firearms secured, in Firearms Forums it is an eternal TFH (Thread From Heck) about the best way to handle the difference between legal concealed carry and Range Rules.

Do you drive to the range wiht your concealed handgun holstered, then stop on the road just before you enter the range and bag your gun?

Do you bag your gun before you leave home, thus rendering yourself without protection for the duration of the drive?

Do you go to the range and, under the cover of your trunk lid, remove your concealed firearm, unload it, and put it in a carrier ... thus violating the rules of IPSC competition and hoping that nobody notices, or says anything if they do notice that you are violating one of the primary safety rules?

This has always been an awkward situation for those who choose to travel armed, but now USPSA has suggested a way to avoid the conundrum entirely.

Announcing New Rule 2.5:

2.5 Unloading/Loading Station

2.5.1 If it is possible that some competitors arriving at a range where a USPSA match is being held may be in possession of a loaded firearm on their person (e.g. law enforcement officers etc.), (M)atch organizers should provide an Unloading/Loading Station to enable such competitors to safely unload their firearms prior to entering the range, and to safely load their firearms again on departure from the range. The Unloading/Loading Station should be conveniently located outside the entrance to the range (or outside the portion of the range allocated to the USPSA match), it should be clearly sign-marked and it must include a suitable impact zone.

Notice a couple of things about this rule:
First, it says "should", not "Must". This indicates that it is not a necessary prerequisite to identifying the even as a "Practical" match, or identifying any relationship to USPSA or IPSC at all.

The only purpose is to establish the acceptability of such an arrangement for the convenience of match patrons, and the understanding that competitors who take advanage of their Second Amendment rights are welcome, encouraged to attend, and are not required to resort to subterfuge in order to perform the simple act of moving (armed) from their automobile to (disarmed) the range environs.

In other words, it provides for a transition stage where participants can legally acknowledge "Cold Range" rules without giving up their "All Hot, All The Time" preferred mode.

You may think this is a minor issue; if so, you probably don't carry a concealed weapon as part of your daily regimen. You're probably not a Law Enforcement Officer, or Military, or a member of any other profession which allows ... encourages ... requires you to be armed at all times.

And you're probably not licensed by your state/county to carry a concealed firearm, which typicaly requires a complex and complicated legal requirements to be bestowed on you. (Yes, I know, it shouldn't require any legal permission; I also know that babies appear magically in a cabbage patch after a long journey via the Stork Express.)

In truth, I don't care whether my local range incorporates this rule and allows me to unload before entering The Match without penalty. I don't even care, really, whether this rule change actually passes (although I think it should.)

What I DO care about is that USPSA has acknowledged that this is a situation which is problematic to a significant number of participants ... or even an insignificent number. It doesn't matter.

This rule is a positive and substantial recognition of the culture of America. If nothing else, it serves to put the world on notice that Practical Shooting Competition in America recognizes the right of its citizens to go armed, to protect themselves, and to do so without fear of penalty from one of the few organizations which nomitively professes a belief in the right of ever citizen to self-defense.

On top of all this, USPSA has presented this new rule as one of a number which define guidelines for conduct at shooting matches in America.

Can you believe that?

I live this sport, this organization, this country.

Not everyone can make this claim.

x

USPSA New Rule Book Resources

I've finally completed my evaluation of the proposed USPSA rule book.

I'll decline commenting excessively here, now. I've made comments on at least one of the files to which you will find links below.

The purpose here is to provide you with documentation of the existing rules, the proposed rules, summary of the differences between the two versions and detail (both PDF and DOC format) of the new rules.

I've also made an exhaustive annotated version of the new rules, and both an annotated version including only those rules upon which I have a comment and those rules upon which I have a criticism or a proposed change.

Here are the links to the various rules sets and versions:

1. The current (2004) version of the USPSA rules in PDF form (1.22mb)
2. The current (2004) version of the USPSA rules in DOC form (1.33mb)
3. The proposed (2008) draft of the new USPSA rules in PDF form (1.91mb)
4. The proposed (2008) draft of the new USPSA rules in DOC form (3.08bm)
5. A summary of the differences between the two versions in PDF form (15kb)
6. A summary of the differences between the two versions in DOC form (92kb)
7. Document with detail citations of deleted, new & changed rules in DOC form (352kb)
8. Same document as (7), but with my comments/explanations added (411kb)
9. The same annotated document, but not showing rules without comments (284kb)
10. That same doccument deleting all comments except suggestions/criticisms (269kb)
    

The primary purpose of creating the annotated document versions is to facilitate your own understanding of the rules and to foster discussion. The goal is to provide you with the tools and references to provide your own feedback to USPSA via your Area Director.

Note the evolution of the final four documents:

Document (7) merely presents the text of the deleted rules, the text of the changed rules placed together with the existing rule, and the text of the new rules. Some comments are included to identify salient points of interest or to explain certain changes which only result in a reorganization or reformatting of the rules as they are presented in the draft.

Document (8) contains all of the information found in Document (7), but the explanatory comments have been expanded.

Document (9) contains all of the information found in Document (8), plus my comments evaluating the individual rules. Note that, by the use of highlighting, I have attempted to identify those parts of the original rule which have been changed or deleted, and the new verbiage (which often consist of entire new sentences, perhaps introducing new concepts or changing the meaning of the rule in whole or in part.) I even found a typo, which I high-lighted and identified by the phrase (sic) Consider this the Geek Comments document.

Document (10) contains all of the information found in Document (9), except those changes which I consider non-controversial or not needing comment in Document (9) have been deleted. This was created to minimize the amount of text necessary to identify changes/additions which I wish to draw to the attention of my Area Director. Consider this the Geek Lite Comments document.

In appreciation of a caution from my Area Director, note that the three PDF documents are copies of those authored by USPSA, who owns the copyright (they are reproduced here as a courtesy and a convenience, with my thanks to USPSA.)

The three *.DOC (MS-WORD formatted) files are converted from these PDF files, and USPSA owns the copyright of the contents. I only own the converted files, which are not copyrightable.

The remaining four documents contain USPSA rules, but my own comments are copyrightable.

You are invited to download these documents for your evaluation, and may copy my comments --- they are usually identified by special formatting such as color and font styles for emphasis, etc.. I only ask that you not change the text without noting your own changes, and that any references acknowledge my authorship where applicable.

(All files Copyright Cogito Ergo Geek - jerrythegeek.blogspot.com - 2007)

Please notify me of any broken links, my email address is always available at the bottom of the page. I have tested all of the links, and it is my belief that they all function correctly.

USPSA New Rule Book

For the past two years on this blog (and for ten years before, on The Unofficial IPSC List) I've been complaining about the rules under which we compete in the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA).

I didn't really get 'into it' until July of 2005, when I complained about how easily the rules were misinterpreted because, well, they weren't clearly written or easily understood.

Part of that has been caused by the USPSA rules being essentially the International IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation)

Again in August of 2005, I complained about a "stupid rule" which prohibited a competitor from using a "tool" to clear a jam ... in this case, a pistol had the slide locked back when a magazine was inserted in a bit too forcefully, making it impossible to drop the slide into battery. The resourceful competitor (The Hobo Brasser) used another magazine to pry the jammed magazine loose, allowing the slide to come into battery. He re-inserted the magazine and moved on. The discussion with the Range Officer was interesting, as was the discussion with the Area Director (t was a USPSA Sanction Level II Section Tournament) and the Vice President of USPSA by email days later.

The discussion revolved around whether the magazine was a "tool".

In my mind, the discussion which should have taken place was whether we need such a draconic yet cryptic rule at all.

On May Day of 2006, USPSA announced that they had come to a 'new relationship' with the governing organization, IPSC, allowing the American Region to establish a rule book subtly (actually, substantially) different from that used by the rest of the world.

Why was that necessary?

The United States not only has a much more 'open' (and less 'politically correct') attitude about firearms ownership and usage than do many other nations whose citizens compete in Practical Shooting. And, we have the Second Amendment to put teeth into what some may consider merely a cultural anomaly.

You may think we can "all just get along", but it happens that many people in other countries believe that "the amies" (as they refer to Americans) are not only arrogant, overbearing and childish but also WRONG in failing to appreciate the priorities of the sophisticated and civilized European Union. Americans get so upset over little things, such as the imposition of a new target design because some countries will not allow their citizens to shoot at targets which "represent the human body".

As a consequence, a week after the anouncement of international amity I entered into an embarrasing little kerfluffle with my Hungarian friend, Ivan, over whether IPSC really needed the trouble-making Amies as much as USPSA needed IPSC.

I say it was embarassing, and that's an understatement. I only mention it to show that a new, improved, and distinctly AMERICAN version of the competion rule book is needed. It is needed not only to satisfy the USPSA membership, but also to show what the USPSA thinks are necessary, clearly written rules applicable to our (American) culture and sensibilities.

Finally coming to something like 'a point', about a month before USPSA announced an unprecedented grown in membership they also announced, in a much quieter 'family' mode, that the Board of Directors and National Range Officer Institute had been working on a new rule book.

And they're going about it in the right way, too. After carefully going through the existing (2004) rule book to remove unneccesary rules, rewrite existing rules, and add a few necessary new rules, they then put together a Draft version in PDF and invited the USPSA membership to take a look at it and offer suggestions, comments, criticisms, rants and any other form in which our arrogant, overbearing and childish little minds may offer an opinion.

Of course, they put it much more politely, and sincerely. They truly want to make sure that there are enough people looking at it that errors, ambiguities and unwanted rules are identified before they actually publish it.

We have until March 31 to get our comments in. I've just spent 6 hours working on mine, and I'm only half done.

Here's the good news: USPSA not only uploaded the draft, but also a SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES for our convenience.

The bad news is that they're in PDF form, which are impossible to cut and paste for embedding in any kind of letter or email.

I find it very difficult to work with so much view-only data (the draft is 79 pages long, and I don't want to retype all the new rules), so I used a PDF converter to translate both files into *.DOC files, which can be cut-and-pasted using MS Word.

The PDF converter is imperfect. It didn't handle the tables as well as they might have, with the consequence that when I tried to paste them into the detailed summary of ALL changes I'm working on, I found that I had to create a table and then paste the contents into each individual cell.

But I'll eventually have my detailed summary (already at 40 pages!) ready for uploading to the Internet and submittal to my Area Director.

Don't worry, Bruce, I'll make the version I send to you as small and easy to read as possible.

However, I'll provide some other documents for people who want to go through their own painstaking detail evaluation.

For a start, you can get the 3mb MS-WORD version of the draft here, and also the 92kb MS-WORD version of the change summary here.

When I get all of the documents completed, I'll post them on this site ... that is, I'll post LINKS to them because you know they'll all be Geek Length.

The Big and Small Of It

Sometimes we just need a break from 'serious stuff'.

This is one of those times.

Walt posted this to email:
Here's "The Small of It" -- a cell phone pistol.


In a response, Rob posted this:
Here's "The Big Of It" -- a .60 Revolver.


Can you tell which is which without the labels?

Zumbo

I just spent an evening describing the reasons why I have No Confidence in the efficacy of the National Rifle Association in representing your RKBA rights.

You may not agree with me, and that's okay.

But this was curiously timed to coincide with a new Kerfluffle unintentially ( I suspect ) initiated by Jim Zumbo.

Zumbo, it appears, is a professional writer and has contributed articles to both Outdoor Life and Reminton, Inc.

Word is, he mentioned in a sparse pair of sentences (actually, 3 sentences) that he sees no use for semi-automatic rifles in hunting. No, that's a little too faint. What he actually said (in regards to " AR and AK rifles" was:

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles.

I have never read Zumbo before ... he appeals to a different readership ... so I yield to Michael Bane's article on the subject. The link quotes Zumbo's entire article.

Here is a man (Zumbo) who has spent years speaking to the American Sportsman. Shooters of all ilk and discipline. He writes 38 little words, and suddenly he is Anethema.

His blog is gone. His relationship with Remington is gone. His friends call for an immediate retraction, and even though he instantly apologizes for, and explains his statement ... it isn't enough.

His friends are gone.

There are those among the Shooting Community who actually believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to ALL firarms, no matter how ugly or how apparently inappropriate to the use to which they are putl

(And no matter how awkward the sentence construction of those who would write about it!)

Also, there are those among the Shooting Community who actually 'get it'. Those who believe that there is a "legitimate role" for even ugly semi-automatic rifles -- even as hunting tools, go figure!

The 2nd amendment is my primary concern in all of my writings. But perhaps it's timely to mention the 1st Amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see it?

"Congress" made no law "abridging the freedom of speech"; yet, popular acclaim applied its own right to disparage an unpopoular statement. (In truth, I rather suspect that "Congress" would embace Zumbo's statement, if only to put one more brick in the wall betwen Private Citizens and the 2nd Amendment.)

Zumbo has lost his means of livelihood, his Iron rice bowl, yet it is not a result of governmental action. Instead, it is the result of popular opinion.

Or, if you prefer, it is the result of 2nd Amendment Activism.

Perhaps the NRA will pay attention, and discontinue their tendency to defend the 2nd Amendment (weakly!) in terms of hunting, and even more ephemeral concepts.

Perhaps they will defend the 2nd amendment in terms applicable to the original intent of the Constitutional Authors.

It's an Individual Right, and the looks of the Firearm in question are not a significant factor.

The Liberal NRA

Last week, in a moment of banter with my co-workers (most of them confirmed Blue-Staters) who know that my hobby is IPSC competition, I commented that "No, I'm not a member of the NRA. They're too liberal."

Big laugh. They thought I was joking.

I wasn't. Here's why.

The First reason why I think the NRA is too liberal:


Charlton Heston.


Oh yes, I've been a member of the NRA; often, and frequently. For years I was on their mailing list (still am) and they would send me appeals to join. I did. They sent me magazines that didn't give me much more information than I would get at other places, except for "The Armed Citizen". I consider that their greatest contribution to RKBA issues, but it wasn't enough. Sometime in the mid-1990's I declared "enough". Having joined, and quit, three times I finally just ignored their offers.

Then in 1997 they elected Charlton Heston President of the NRA. I thought "Wow! This is great. They finally have a spokesman I know and respect." I remember all of the "I Am The NRA" ads featuring Heston with a broke-breech double-barrel shotgun over his shoulder, and I just knew that he was the iconic figure who could make sense out of the confusion.


My love affair with Charlton Heston lasted until his first public interview as the representative of the NRA, on May 6, 1997. In a San Francisco Radio Interview during the morning drive-time slot, he uttered the fatal words:

"AK-47's are inappropriate for private ownership, of course."

(Thanks to Dean Spier at The Gun Zone)

I was devastated. "Of course."

Why?'

Up until this very moment, I thought that the NRA stood for the Second Amendment. I thought they understood that it had nothing to do with hunting, or even competition. I thought they understood that it had to do with the right of a private citizen to protection against aggression, whether by a mugger or a State. As a constitutional amendment, and only 2nd among 10 of the Bill of Rights, it was the provision which insured all other rights "when everything else fails".

Most important, I thought it was the entire reason for being of the NRA. It was our protection against losing our protection. It wasn't about the type of arms we deemed necesary to protect our rights. It was objective and the NRA protection of this right applied to all firearms.

(I wish I could find a video, or at least an audio, copy of that interview. I doubt a video exists, but I know I listened to an audio file on the Internet over and again to make sure I heard it right. I did, but after ten years they no longer are available.)

Sure, Heston went on to give many memorable speeches (see here and here), and I loved him as a man, and a performer, and I loved everything he said "after". But I always remembered that when he spoke extemporaneously ... he revealed a soft center. He believed in civilian firarms ownership. But only for 'some' firearms.

He always thought it was about duck hunting, and trap shooting.


Second reason why I think the NRA is too liberal:


Wayne LaPierre.

If there ever was a member of the NRA BOD who impressed me, it isn't him. I know I should be grateful for his contributions for the cause of citizen firearms ownership, but I have to say this is not my idea of a champion for 2nd Amendment Rights.

Surely the NRA can find a stronger voice, a more convincing advocate than this.

As evidence, I offer the "Great UK Gun Rights Debate". This is a debate between Wayne LaPierre and "international gun ban proponent Rebecca Peters."

(Hat Tip to Phil at Soft Green Glow, via Say Uncle.)

While I encourage you to go to both websites in recognition of their contribution, and for their general contribution to The Cause, l've provide the link to YouTube videos of debate segments directly.

There are only four brief segments of the debate offered here, but I have to say that LaPierre's defense (and he is always on the defense) is so weak and ineffectual that even I have to say that Peters outscored him on every point of contention.

Why?

Because LaPierre insisted on discussing HER point of "legitimate firearms role" without once referring to either personal defense or the basic reason for the 2nd Amendment ... the ultimate protection of all other civil rights by a tyranical government. As long as he avoids this issue in debate, he will not present a reasonable argument against the concept that guns are only means of hunting and competition. That is to say, "sporting usage" (which the BATF had arbitrarily decided does NOT include IPSC competition.)

LaPierre can't even win a debate in his home country. How does he hope to win a debate in Socialist Nanny-state England, or Australia (home of Rebecca Peters, who presents her home-country record as evidence that "gun control works" regardless of the fact that both England and Australia have seen soaring rates of Violence committed with guns against unarmed citizens since they instituted their own "gun control" laws.)

For example, Peters presents the argument that "there is no justification for semi-automatic rifles to be owned by ... members of the civilian population." She offers this in the context of hunting, and goes on to cite the Australian Professional Hunters' Association, whom she quotes as having said: "Anyone who needed a semi-automatic to kill animals was a 'City Boy', who shouldn't be out there with a gun in the first place!"

She goes on to say: "Yes, we believe that semi-automatic weapons and shotguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands; and not only that, HANDGUNS have no legitimate role in civilian hands!"

What is LaPierre's counter?

"We're just finally getting to the point. I mean, the fact is that Miss Peters ... and her UN crowd believe that EVERY firearm has no legitimate use. Not just semi-autos, but pump-action shotgun(s), any rifle that can shoot over 100 yards ... hunters know that's every rifle out there. Handguns, they don't believe handguns have any legitimate use. The truth is, there's no legitimate role for a firearm. Isn't that your real opinion, Miss Peters?"

Peters replies:

"No. We recognize that hunting, for example, plays an important role in many cultures. You do not need a semi-automatic firearm, you do not need a handgun, to kill a deer. To go hunting. We recognize that target shooting is also a sport in many countries. One of the concerns that was raised with the reform of the gun laws in Australia was that this would affect our Olympic performance. [snip] You can be a sporting nation without semi-automatic rifles or handguns."

[blink]

The fact is, LaPierre allowed the debate to be conducted entirely by his opponent. He never brought up his own point, beyond "we're not going to let you do that", although he never bothered to say how the NRA could prevail over a well-funded NGO drive against civilian possession of firearms, when he couldn't even prevail over a bright and personable young lady in open debate.

I do not have access to either a video or audio clip, nor the transcript of the entire debate. And while the YouTube video purports to be provided by an "NRA" proponent, it's entirely possible that the linked segments are hosted by an anti-gun faction which deliberately presented only those (edited) clips which shows Peters in the best, and/or LaPierre in the worst light.

Still ....

If this is the NRA, is this is the best defense we can present against the world-wide attempt of socialist nations and agenda-driven NGO onsloughts on the 2nd amendment, then we would do as well to present NO defense and save our (your) membership fees and spend them instead on 4" plastic tubing, super-glue, duct tape and dessicant.

That's right, my friend. If you expect the NRA to defend your right to Keep and Bear Arms, you may as well get started early in the effort to pack up your firearms and bury them in the garden for your grandchildren (optimistically speaking) to dig up in the next century.

No doubt about it. If Wayne LaPierre is your first, best line of defense against gun-grabbers, you might as well give up now and use what remains of your self-reliance to hide your guns against the predations of the inevitable licensing, then registration, then confiscatory measures which will be imposed upon you and your children.

Prove to me that I'm wrong.

Please.

IPSC Certification

Do you remember last week's Blog article which depicted a New Shooter who earned a Match Disqualification because he lost track of the 180 Degree rule?


Yeah, that was Les.

Well, he showed up at the next Section match and shot for certification ... clean and safely.
We filmed his performance at the last stage, and recorded the excitement of his squad when they realized he had sataisfied the requirements of the training.

Everyone in the squad was aware of what was at stake, and we were all pleased that he completed his training sccessfully.

This isn't an exciting video .. unless you are inordinately pleased that a New Shoter has proved that he can meet the stringent requirements of this sport.

Dean Speir, Formerly Famous Gun Writer

Last August 17 (2006) I wrote an article about The Glock KaBOOM!

I borrowed extensively, at least in terms of encouragement that my opinion was 'right' and anyone who disagreed with me was 'not right' (my favorite form of fantasy, excepting those fantasies which end up with washing out my lingerie) from a fella named Dean Speir, author of The Gun Zone.

Get the spelling right, he cares about the accuracy of his name speling.

Several days after I published the KaBOOM! Article, I received an email from Dean.

I found his comments to be flattering and informational. We swapped spit (via email only!) for a week or two, and one day I mentioned that I enjoyed his stories about things IPSC and casually asked if I could post them on this blog.

One thing failed to lead to another, we quit corresponding ... mostly because we had just about exhausted the topic of the connections between Leigh Bracket and John Wayne movies ... and we both moved on to other things.

Within the past two weeks, two things occurred to draw my attention back to the original article and to Dean's comments.

First, Dean reread his old emails and sent me his permission to post his email.

Second, a reader identified as "CW" commented on the article, and in the process graciously offered corrections about the various Glock models and their associated calibers.

Reading back on the KaBoom! article, I found that CW's criticisms were accurate, so I scurried about the internet to find a source of Glock technical data. In the process I learned the www.glock.com had been a primary link to some of my technical points but has since been deleted from the Internet ... I needed to fix some of the "404 - Not Found" links.

After fixing those links, the incorrect references to Glock caliber-related models, and various other links, I discovered that I had providently posted Dean's comments on a draft-mode (ie: "not posted") webpage.

Serendipity is A Beautiful Thing, so just to make sure that you don't miss anything I'm going to link here to the original KaBOOM! article, as well as to Dean's comments.

And in case you haven't yet discovered the link on the sidebar, I'll include The Gun Zone link. I'm sure you'll find as many pleasant hours reading about, among other things, the perfidy of the Gun Zine culture. (Translation: Gun Magazine, such as Guns & Ammo)

If you're a blogger, and you decide to link to this article ... for Gawd's Sake, Be Sure To Spell The Name Right! I changed the text on my original article and managed to change "Speirs" to "Speir" and re-publish.

Jerys teh Geeks

So many Useful Idiots, So Little Time ...

Gilbert and Sullivan, in "Pirates of Penzance", suggest that "A Policeman's Lot Is Not A Happy One".

I submit that "A Gunblogger's Lot Is Not A Happy One", either.

In support of that thesis, I give you H.R. 1022 - To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and other purposes."

And while I was writing about "Bad Boys in the Outhouse" and other significant IPSC-related stuff, our Congress was hard at work retaking another first step toward taking YOUR legal firearms (when you bought 'em) away from you ... using a legal tactic which was empirically determined to have absolutely NO effect in "reducing gun violence".

Since I don't have a television and don't read newspapers regularly, and since I don't even usually read the internet news in the Friday-through-Sunday period because I'm focused on preparing for, competing in, or whining about IPSC matches I completely missed the new news that the Democ-Rats have resurrected this most infamous of egregious encroachments on the Second Amendment.

In fact, if I hadn't formed the habit of reading Gun Bloggers on Sunday Evenings, I still wouldn't know about the February 13, 2007, attempt of Rep. Carolyn McCarthey (D-NY ... duh!) to demonize what can only be characterized as 'ugly rifles and carbines'.

(Hat Tips too numerous to mention, but just for starters include Michael Bane, LawDog, and Jim Shepherd of The Shooting Wire.)

Here's a short memory course:

• Remember how in 1994 the Democ-Rats established an Assault Weapons Ban, and the Republicans introduced a Sunset Clause stating that, essentially, "We'll try it, but if after 5 years it doesn't do any good, we'll drop it?
• Remember how after 5 years it was proven to have absolutely no value in the sense of having reduced crime?
• Remember how it was dropped like a big brown turd in a Cloistery punchbowl?
• Remember how, when the Democ-Rats ascended to power in the 2006 elections, they promised that they would work for concensus?
• Well, they lied ...
• ... and it's back.

Let's talk about what this bill proposes:

• A long list of specific rifle and shotgun makes & models would be banned, with a 10 year prison term imposed for their possession (including, for example, the M1 carbine)
  
• ten-round magazine (detachable or otherwise) capacity limitations
• banned semi-automatic rifle with the ability to accept a detachable magazine with features including a folding or telescoping stock; a threaded barrel; a pistol grip; a forward grip; barrel shroud
• A semi-automatic pistol with the ability to accept a detached magazine, and has a second pistol grip; a threaded barrel (so much for compensators); the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip; a fixed magazine of more than 10 rounds
• A shotgun with a revolving cylinder
• A conversion kit
• A semi-automatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use or a firearm based on the design of such a firearem, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.

Further restrictions impose a penalty for transfer of such firearms except through a licensed firearms dealer, including a 'high-capacity magazine" during the sale of an "Assault Weapon", in importation of a "high-capacity magazine".

And there is no sunset clause.

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

Essentially, all of the bad parts of the original 1994 AWB have been re-proposed, even though the original law has been proven to have had NO EFFECT ON "GUN VIOLENCE" or any other measure of felicitous effect on public disorder. This is not a test; they really mean it this time, and there are no trappings of supposing to have a beneficial effect on public order. The bill is simply a "you can't do this because I say you can't do this, and what I say goes because I say so, dammit!" law.

A gunbloggers lot is not a happy one, because if we didn't bring this to your attention almost immediately, it implies that we're not paying attetention to the priorities of our readership.

Well, I'm not really a gunblogger. I'm a USPSA Competition blogger, and all I want is to be allowed to go to a Practical Pistol match on at least 3 weekends a month and have a good time.

In other words: I'm not causing any problems and neither are my friends, so leave us the heck alone and I'll leave you alone.

Unfortunately, those dimwits in Washington with their newly acquired majority are going power-mad, and this is just an early entry into their heady presumption of authority. The only surprise is that this re-enactment of a bad idea, ill-conceived and poorly executed, arrives so early in their power-curve.

I don't really expect it to pass, but the mere fact that it is number two on their agenda (coming right after the "Get Out Of Vietnam Iraq NOW" movement) is indicitive of their cockey confidence. They really believe that they can make sweeping changes in the culture of their Country, just because they are in the CatBird seat.

As in the 1975 C.W. McCall novelty song, "Convoy", the Democ-Rats are "in the Rocking Chair" and in their rebellion they can do whatever they want because there are too many rebels for the Smokies of civil rights to fight all of them. The Democ-Rats are counting on the weakness of their Republican opponents; the Conservatives can't win all of their fights, so they will pick the fights they can win. Hopefully (for the Dems), this is not a fight worth the effort as the Republican try desperately to regain a small modicum of their previous influence. They will figure that the Republicans are too weak, too frightened, and all too aware that they must husband whatever influence they retain to 'waste' it on what must appear to them to be a niche issue.

We have to help our representative realize that the RKBA issues were central in the 2004 Presidential election, and our determination were based on our core values, not on the personalities of the candidates.

Speaking objectively, the Dems may have chosen a win-able issue, however inadvertently. A small infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights may be the perfect issue to get a toe in the door of Republic self-assertion.

If you don't write to, or phone your representative TODAY with the message that this bill is completely unacceptable to a significant and vocal portion of their constituency, you don't have a dog in this hunt and you haven't established the fact that you care about your civil rights.

And when they come to take your firearms away, when they throw you in jail because you have 14-round magazines, there will be nobody left to speak for you.

I'm writing my congressman tonight with that message. You may think your voice won't be heard. But if you don't speak up, my voice alone won't be enough to protect your rights.

Bad Boys in the Outhouse

Here's an interesting and controversial IPSC stage for you, from the February 10, 2007, ARPC Club Match.

The shooter starts out sitting in an outhouse. Literally. (See the video) Gun is placed on a barrel three feet in front of the outhouse door.

Right at the outhouse door is a foot trap: a ground-mounted device which initiates a moving target when you step on it. Plastic barrels on both sides of the foot trap direct the competitor right over it.

The thing is, when the foot trap is tripped, it starts a bobber mechanism which waves a no-shoot target in front of two (maybe 3) of the 10 IPSC shoot targets downrange. The thing is, this no-shoot is suppose to be waving into your sight picture while you're trying to shoot.

Why would you want that?

You wouldn't. And it presents some interesting Range Officer quandries, in that if you put a hole in the bobbing no-shoot you shouldn't be awarded the score for the hit on the backing shoot target.

The trouble is, obviously, that it's really difficult to determine which 'hit' went thru the notatively impermeable no-shoot target.

The competitors didn't want to deal with the shooting problem.

The Range Officers didn't want to deal with the scoring problem.

So when someone pointed out that the published stage procedures didn't REQUIRE that the no-shoot bobber target be activated at any specific time, it seemed like a self-resolving problem.

Just ... step over the foot trap and move on. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain who wrote at the bottom of the Stage Procedures:

INTENT: ACTIVATE THE MOVING TARGET BEFORE SHOOTING

The word 'Intent' is sort of a feel-good weasel word in this context. At least this is the opinion passed on from the "Bad Boys" squad which preceded us on this stage. They didn't activate the bobber, so we didn't either.

We figured, the MD's options were:

1. throw out the stage
2. make everybody who shot it without activating the bobber reshoot
3. ignore it.

It was a long rainy day, we didn't think the MD wanted to drag it out any longer.

Other than that one little technical failure-to-communicate thingie, it was too interesting a stage to arbitrarily throw out.

Ultimately, the MD chose to ignore it. I'm sure it irritated the few people who actually activated the bobber and had to contend with the irritating white flash in front of their targets. Well, they had as much opportunity as every one else at the match to make strategic decisions about how they chose to shoot the stage.

So what do YOU think?

Were those who activated the bobber no-shoot on the side of the angels?

Or were those who stepped over it justified in assuming that it was a 'logic trap' inserted by the stage designer to test our ability to fit the stage procedures into the context of the existing rules?

You be the judge.

I hope someone uses the phrase "GAMER" in the discussion. No, not The Hobo Brasser or Whitefish. We already know that they're Bad Boys.




(You can view all videos from this match here, or you can download the original 13MB vidoe of this stage here.)

Global Warming Deniers

(Note: Non-IPSC content.)

Have you been following the Global Warming controversy? Are you in the "Ho-Hum" stage yet? If so, you might be a Global Warming Denier.

Okay, I'm one of 'Them'.

I'm not sure whether I'm of the "there is no Global Warming" school of thought, or "Global Warming is merely a natural cyclic event" school, or the "Global Warming may or may not be a fact, but it has nothing to do with the Greenhouse Effect as affected by Human Actions" school.

All I can say is, when this became a matter of ideology, when science was overwhelmed by Politically Correct speech, when the Main Stream Media decided that there was no controversy here, and most important when the Weather Channel announced that weather persons on TV who failed to enthusiastically embrace Right Thinking should lose their accreditation ... I opted out.

Well, I didn't completely opt out. I decided that if these useful idiots embraced the concept of Global Warming Is Real, And It's All Your Fault!, then I rejected it.

I've resisted writing about this for several weeks, but I read a lot of articles about it and (sneaky bastard that I am) I saved the links.

Heh heh heh.

The single event that caused me to decide that the Global Warming Freaks (hereafter GWF) wer just wrong, wrong, wrong was when I read Michael Crichten's 2004 novel "State Of Fear". While I don't necessarily consider Crichten a Climatologist, an atmospheric physicist or a scientists of any kind, his citatations were credible and his reasoning persuasive.

Besides, it was a good read, even though Crighten is not without his detractors.

That set me up for Mark Steyn's article in Jewish World Review: "Don't ruin economy over tiny temp rise", which featured Steyn's typical charm and wit. It convinced me that it was time to unleash the power of all the articles I've saved.

Have you read the Steyn article yet? Go ahead, read it. We'll wait for you to catch up.

Done? Okay, let us continue.

Going back to 2 feb, 2007, the United Nations "International Panel on Climate Change" released its "Climate Change 2007" report. Summary: we're in deep doo-doo, and it's all your fault.

The Center for Science and Public Policy replied: "The Panic Is Officially Over". Which is a nice, British-style way of saying "you people are SO full of it, your eyes are brown".

Fortunately, the Contra Costa (California) Times had already weighed into the discussion by announcing that "Global warming is nothing but a paper tiger".

Oregon's Governor, The Egregioius Ted, fires an OSU professor from the purely symbolic title of "climatoligist" because his scientific opinion doesn't meet Ted's preconceptions about climatology.

Why fire him?

"His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies."

Whoa! Guess what? It's no longer a matter of scientific theory, it's Politics!

And in my home (red) state. Who could have predicted THIS?

In the meantime, Al Gore (failed politician, failed climatologist, failed progenitor of The Internet, failed anything-he-has-ever-tried) accused President Bush of paying money to scientists in an effort to encourage them to become Global Warming Deniers.

Finally, and most interesting, the Czech president Vaclav Klaus on February 9, 2007, explained his views on the IPCC panel.

This was high-lighted on The Drudge Report (the link is transitory) . Read the entire interview here.

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say..

Range Equipment Failure

Got a new one for you.

A "clamshell-type" target (hitting the steel plate pops up an IPSC target) fails to activate the object target on a 'good hit'.

Major power cartridges take it down easily, but Minor power cartridges can't make the reactive target function.

What do you do?

Here's some background.

The stage features "Classic" targets (eg: "Turtle", "Stop-Sign", "Amoeba" etc.) design targets.'

It's a rainy day, so targets are replaced frequently.

By the time THIS squad reaches the stage, the targets have been replaced at least twice.

The hitch is, the previous competitors aren't accustomed to shooting this target type so instead of ripping the 2nd (replacement) target off before replacing it, the previous squad just ... stapled another target over it.

Did I mention it was a rainy day? I thought so. The cardboard is fairly well saturated, so there's a lot of weight counterbalancing the initiating steel plate. This changes the dynamics of the target array.

As a consequence, the last squad (of six) to engage this stage learned the hard way that a counterbalanced target array is subject to the changing dynamics of one, two, THREE targets stacked up on the counterbalance.

Worse, the shooters don't always know how to handle it when the increased weight causes the reactive target array to fail.

This video demonstrates how important it is for the competitors (never mind the RO) to know the rules of competition.

If you hit the initiator plate fairly with a minor-caliber round, it should fall. If it doesn't, the fault may not be yours even if the Major-caliber rounds don't seem to have any problems.

Uh ... another point?

Don't shoot Minor.