Evil Bill's Oregon Star

Last Week (in "Geek's Bane") I warned my fellowIPSC shooters in Oregon's Columbia Cascade Section that our good friend and competitive benefactor, Dundee's "Evil Bill", had taken to heart my warning against the "Evil Star". (NB: this video does NOT show up inNetScape browser, but seems to work in Firefox and IE browsers.)

In return, Evil Bill vowed to modify an existing Texas Star to include added Evil Features.

Okay, it's a done deal and here is what it looks like in Evil Bill's workshop.




You can see the original video provided by Evil Bill here.
(3.02mb download) After this weekend's IPSC match at the Dundee range, I'll set up a sub-album in Jerry the Geek's Shooting Gallery showing how the Evil Oregon Star actually works in a
match.

I note in passing current (IPSC Handgun Competition Rules, USPSA Version, January 2004) USPSA rules include this restriction on target presentation:

2.1.8.4 - Static paper targets must not be presented at an angle greater than 90 degrees from the verticle.

This was proposed by IPSC (and subsequently accepted -- egregiously, I think) because the "Classic" target is roughly symmetrical in outline although the higher-scoring zones (eg: the "A-zone" are vertically asymmetrical.

This rule was imposed to the benefit of the competitor, who is often unable to determine the placement of this higher-scoring zone at a sufficient distance from the target. The "Metric" target, typically used inUSPSA competition, does not suffer from this design flaw.

For those who are wondering whether this target is legal under current IPSC / USPSA rules: yes, it is. As presented here, it is not a "static" target. That is, because the targets are moving, the rule does not apply to this target array. (One wonders what outrage would be generated if this target array were presented in anIPSC match when fitted with "Classic", rather than "Metric", targets.)

We in USPSA are encouraged by the recent publication of the draft 2008 USPSA rule book, which corrects this flaw as well as several others which are in the 2004 rule book and which have caused so much confusion and discord inUSPSA matches.

Liberal Americans Think ....?

Liberal Americans think Harry Reid is a Great American, when he's really just a cheese-eating surrender monkey.

Liberal Americans think Alec Baldwin is a fine actor, when he's really a child abuser.

Liberal Americans think Partial Birth Abortion is a legitimate birth-control measure, when it's really murder of a child in the very act of being born.

Liberal Americans think Sheryl Crow is an entertainer, when she's really a barking moonbat who believes using a single sheet of toilet paper to wipe your bottom should be enough for everyone.

(BTW, does anyone know her shipping address? I would like to send her a year's supply of toilet paper - in a #10 business envelope. What? It will only hold 150 sheets of Charmin? That's okay, as long as she doesn't offend herself.)

Liberal Americans think ....?

I think not.

A Case for Fruit Control

San Mateo Daily Journal

In keeping with my unfortunate tendency to equate gun-control messages with those which support ANY kind of 'hateful' weaponage, I give to you the Case for Fruit Control.

Tiffany Adler, 20, appeared in court Friday for the first time since being arrested on two misdemeanor counts of each crime. She pleaded not guilty and asked the court to appoint an attorney. She and her lawyer return to court July 2 for jury trial and she remains free from custody on her own recognizance.

On March 4, Adler reportedly lobbed apples and asparagus at a gay couple walking on the 500 block of Esplanade Drive. The van in which she was riding then turned around and Adler yelled “faggot” at the men, according to the District Attorney’s Office.

Pacifica police reported finding asparagus in Adler’s purse at the time of arrest.

Adler reportedly said the couple frequented the grocery store at which she works. She told police she was unaware the victims were gay and her actions were based on a prior conflict rather than discrimination.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe sees it differently.

“We definitely think this is a hate crime,” he said. “This one is pretty offensive.”

If convicted, Adler faces possible jail time and probation.

(Emphasis added)

The two high-lighted sentences are probably the most telling:

Pacifica police reported finding asparagus in Adler’s purse at the time of arrest.

Of course, that's prima facea evidence of intent, or ... uh ... something.

“We definitely think this is a hate crime,” he said. “This one is pretty offensive.”

Oh, dear! This one isn't a cross-burning, it's an ingenue with an itch.

"Pretty offensive"?

Please, spare me. The recent events (the VT massacre) provides a standard by which 'offensive' actions may be compared. This one event doesn't even deserve mention, let alone criminal prosecution. I'm sure the Pacifica police department has better things to do.

A Babe with Broccoli ("... and I'm not afraid to use it!") is a joke.

Why do I think that Zero Tolerance has gone mad in Pacifica?

Mossberg 590: "Buy A Gun Day" 2007

Yeah, I bought the Mossberg ("Security") 590 rather than the Remington 870 shotgun last week, because of the comparisons which I cited in my original post. After a couple of range sessions, I've learned a LOT about this gun and about "Practical Shotgun" issues in general. I have a lot yet to learn, but as of today (my second Range Session with the shotty), I have some new information to bring to the table.

The first thing I have to offer is actually something of a revelation to me, although it shouldn't be.

When you buy a new gun, you have to practice with it before you can claim any degree of expertise.

Even though I've been shooting guns of all types (name a type ... I've shot it, if it was invented before 1970 and it's a man-personal firearm) for fifty + years, I've just learned that I don't know much about what I will henceforth refer to as "Practical Shotgun".

Last Monday, April 16 (the day after I bought the shotgun) I spent about an hour on the range with SWMBO and the 590. First thing I learned is that when you're shooting Buckshot (#4, #00 and #000), that stuff makes a helluva kick. SWMBO said it was 'fun' and I wasn't about to contradict her since it was the first time she ever shot a shotgun and I didn't want to contradict her. But it kicked me around pretty good. I didn't have a bruise, but I had a lot of aches that I couln't account for otherwise.

Today, I met The Hobo Brasser at the Albany Rifle & Pistol Club range and gave the Mossberg a good workout. I shot the 590 with two loads of birdshot ... my #7-1/2 downloaded from 1-1/2 oz to 1 oz of shot, and his #6 birdshot. I also shot his 1100 in 20 gauge, and his autoloader (sorry, I hope The Hobo will tell usthe make and model) 12 gauge semi-auto "Practical Shotgun".


The FIRST thing I learned was not news to me: when you have a shotgun with a rigid stock, and it's too short fora physiognomy which only can be described as a "Beer-bellied Spider Monkey", a slip-on rubber recoil pad can make a HUGE difference!



The second thing I learned is that a shotgun which is sold as a 'security'
shotgun (ie: home defense) with a 20" barrel is NOT to be compared to a Winchester Model 12 "Featherweight" with a 28" + barrel and Birdseye Maple stocks. At least, not in terms of perceived recoil and definately in terms of indexing between targets and MOST definately in terms of pellet pattern when the Model 12 is a Full Choke and the 590 is a smooth-bore no-choke "cylinder" barrel.

I'm minded of the Star Trek movie "Undiscovered Country" here, if only because everthing I thought I knew about shotgun shooting just went out the window.


The Model 12 was set up for bird shooting. It was a fine trap-gun, because with the long full-choke barrel I could take my time shooting Clay Pigeons and pick up the last bird of a double ... often a triple ... when it was no more than 4' off the ground. Back in the '60's I was pretty smug about keeping up with my father's Beretta over/under with modified/IC choke on the trap range. If my fathere was still alive today, he would be chuckling about my new-found modesty. In fact, I can't help but think that he's looking down on me and smirking about my humiliation when the parameters of shotgun shooting have changed so dramatically .... although the word "parameters" would never have occured to him.

What he would have said was: "Kicked your butt, did it? 'Bout time, Boy!"

Yeah, it kicked my butt and it was all my fault.

I wasn't PREPARED for this kind of stuff, darn it!

[whine!]

The thing is, the pump on the 590 is lighter than I was accustomed to (years back, when I used shotguns much more frequently than I have recently) with a much heavier forward slide grip.

With the massive Birds-eye Maple forward slide grip, it was enough just to overcome inertia and get it moving. By the time it got to the end of its travel, it just naturally always locked into battery.

With the much lighter material, you have to muscle the pump to get it to reliably lock into battery, and I haven't got into the habit of SLAMMING the pump forward.

As a consequece, I 'very often' don't have a round completely chambered when I pull the trigger.

And it shows.

The Hobo Brasser was very patient about filming me as I took on a six-plate rack, and I have to say that the first run through worked perfectly. I hit every plate just right, and my trigger speed increased from the first plate to the last.

Unfortunately, there was a 'wardrobe malfunction' with the camera so I don't have a video of a good, clean run.

What I DO have is a whole series of videos where I either missed a plate, or (more frequently) I short-stroked the slide and while I was ready to shoot, the shotgun was not.



No, it's not the fault of the gun. It's just something that I don't consistently do right. Someday I'll get it right, every time. But today, it's just an exhibition of what NOT to do with your Practical Shotgun.


Ultimately, the 'last thing' I learned (but really the 'thing' I should have already realized) is that I need to find a spot on my loading bench where I can install my antiquated Lyman Versa-Mec Progressive Shotshell Reloader.

Lucy, you gotta lot of 'splaining to do.

Geeks Bane

I never thought I would be grateful to Evil Bill for designing another "Evil Bill stage", but I am so sick of talking about National Tragedies that I find myself in that awkward position.

Do you recall the Evil Texas Star stage I discussed a few weeks ago? It was a Texas Star backed (or alternatively, 'fronted') by a windmill of penalty targets.

You can see the original here (note: may be viewable only on IE, perhaps on FireFox, definately not on Netscape.)

As if the Texas Star was not sufficiently difficult (read: "Evil") taken in combination with a windmill of Penalty Targets it's downright diabolical.

I accept the blame for having thrown the gauntlet at the feet of Evil Bill. As soon as he saw this incredibly ugly target array he declared "I'm gonna make me one of these!"

Apparently, he has done so. He sent me this stage design file this evening, and we can expect to see it at the regularly scheduled Croc Dundee club match on April 28.


It's a dark, dark day when we find ourselves confronted by this.

(Click on the image for full size)

If I understand Evil Bill correctly, we can look forward to engaging this stage design at the nex Dundee Club Match. It's a 21 round, 105 point stage and I suppose we should feel grateful that there are enough points in the stage that a couple of hits on the backing 'penalty targets' just MIGHT not lead to a zero-points stage. That's right. This stage is so Evil that, even though I haven't seen it yet, I'm already in a state of dread.

Shouldn't be this way, right? I mean, all you have to do is hit the target (the plates) and no rounds will impact a penaly.

(Note: if the penalty targets were in FRONT of the five Texas Star plates, and you shot through the penalty targets and hit the plate behind it, this would constitute a Range Equipment Failure which would mandate a reshoot. Uh huh, like I want to shoot this stage more than once in my lifetime.)

I'm not sure whether I'm looking forward to this for the challenge, or whether I'm dreading it for ... being a Survival Stage.

One things for sure:
It's not going to be boring.

I'll keep you posted.

LiveJournal dot Com, and Friends

Looking at my readership statistics, I see an amazing amount of traffic from websites which typically appeal to young people who are interested in reading my original post about the Virginia Tech Massacre.

I've backtracked them, I see no links on ANY of the cited blogs. But still, they come here to read even though their websites don't mention the article.

I have no idea WHY they come here, but I am glad they came to share the story.

Many of them, however, comment independently about the question of HOW could this Slaughter of Innocents could have been controlled.

Not 'avoided' ... Evil stalks the land and there is no way to prevent it.

The word is "control", and sometimes these students demonstrate a wisdom beyond their years.

For example, MapGirl (who actually published a comment on the article) offered her own experience in School Shooting:

During my senior year of college there was a shooting on campus where one student who recently graduated had shot another. It was very sad.

[...]

I had met the perpetrator and ... he gave me the willies. ... it was an anomaly and precipitated by the relationship of the victim and killer.

One of the witnesses was friends with both parties and a friend of mine from our freshman year and from the on-campus Catholic community. That friend turned into a gun control advocate as part of his later work. I am so proud of him for turning this defining moment into a powerful motivator for positive change.

Another person who read the article was "airynd", who later wrote a HUGE (to his embarrassment) article of his own which discussed brilliantly he concept of personal defense as a civil liberty. I've already read it a couple of times, and will read it again. I encourage you to read it for yourself, here.

The money quotes are:

Years ago, in another life, I thought that gun control laws would help to protect people from getting accidentally shot or shot by bad people on purpose. I thought that registering guns was a good idea, and that making people wait to buy their guns was also a good idea. Currently, I think both of those are really bad ideas. Background check? Those are great - those are perfect. Check the hell out of some one's background before they buy a gun. Still, as I mentioned, if a criminal wants a gun...well, they don't need a background check in Vinni's basement.

... and ...

I kind of hate it that I'm making the same arguments that, a decade ago, I thought were asinine.

... and ...

"A well-armed society is a polite society." I'm not sure how accurate that saying is, but I think it might be on the right track. We see it all the time in the animal kingdom; if two animals both have the capacity to seriously kill or injure each other, they don't do it unless there is a sincere and pressing need to do so. There's too much at stake. Too, when an animal's life is at stake, it will fight back. A seal in the jaws of a great white bites at its attacker, even though it is usually futile. A rabbit will bite at the nose of the fox as the fox attacks, and sometimes, the bunny gets away because the fox is so surprised at being bitten by a fucking rabbit that it has no response for that situation. Animals fight to survive with whatever tools they have when their lives are threatened. I think, were I faced with a maniac wielding a shotgun, I'd like to have another gun as my tool. Then I wouldn't have to be helplessly and powerlessly blown away.

I think this young man, as did MapGirl, does actually 'get it'.

When you read the 'whole thing', disregarding his embarrassment at having posted such a 'Geek length' article, you get the sense of someone who has travelled far in the past few years, and in the process arrived at an understanding which was previously denied him due to a simple lack of experience.

As has (perhaps erroneously) been attributed to Sir Winston Churchilll:

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

I cannot attest to the accuracy of either the quote or the citation. I just vaguely remember the thought, and Google what I remember. What comes out the other end may only be compared to Sausage Making to the detriment of an excellent sausage.

But I can say that I was a Registered Democrat until well into my forties. I only changed my political affiliation upon the advent of The Clinton Era. It's personally embarrassing to admit that I couldn't admit to the error of my ways until the wrong-thinking of Billary had manifested itself in the egregious Social Medicine plan.

So when I congratulate these folks for their logical courage, you can take it as given that they are far, far smarter than I am.

Apologies to the subjects of this conversation if that seem like damning with faint praise. It wasn't intended that way.

VT Massacre: Gun Control Advocates Are Revolting

We're starting to get the 2nd level reaction to blogger assertions that allowing concealed carry on campuses might have lessened the number of victims in the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Oleg Volk is the source for the above ugly bloodsplatter image, which I personally think is disgusting.

Not because it is ugly, but because it is probably a reasonable representation of the scene in Room 204 at Noble Hall at Virginia Tech, and the massacre which occured there is disgusting.

Oleg Volk performed a service by giving us a graphic of the probably crime scene. It's something we can relate to, and provides a reminder of just how ugly the scene of a murder ... in this case, multiple murders ... will invariably be.

You can see Oleg Volk's article here, and I encourage you to visit it if only to read the comments. These are a curious mixture of people who suggest that the policy of disallowing carry of weapons for personal may have contributed to the horrible death toll, and people who are unable to re-evaluate their conviction that the only reason folks would choose to carry a concealed handgun is (I assume) because deep down inside they really want to shoot somebody.

As nearly as I can tell, this last group rejects the concept of personal defense, and would rather trust in such urban myths as 911 and "Police Protection".

Before we go any further, I would like to mention to this group that the police have no mandate to protect you or to prevent crime. Their job is to arrest people who may have committed a crime and present them for trial ... AFTER someone has been victimized.

This means, gentle reader, that if someone comes after you with a gun, you're on your own. The police may find, capture and present for judgement the guy who killed you, but you may find that scant comfort in your present circumstance (which is to say, in the hospital at best; six feet under in the "Worst Case" scenario).

As you read Volk's article (another sly reminder), pay attention to the two sides of the question which are vigorously espoused.

One side, call them SIDE "A", think that there is no legitimate reason to allow people to carry firearms on a university campus.

The other side, call them SIDE "B", think that there IS a legitimate reason to allow people to carry firearms on a university campus.

(You may pick the venue in which it either is or is not reasonable to 'carry concealed', but let us restrict the scenario to one which immediately comes to mind this week.)

As you read Volk's article, you might consider the comments section the most informative. Here, the SIDE "A" folks generally identify themselves as "Anonymous". Some of you (particularly those who tend to agree with SIDE "B" contributors) may think this is a cowardly way to make a statement without 'owning' it.

I don't think so.

I think these are the contributions of people who don't generally read RKBA websites, but who are daunted by the VT Massacre and have searched the Internet for references. When they happen upon a blog which supports Concealed Carry, they are outraged not only because it goes against everything they have been taught, but also because they are so appalled by the massacre that they reflexively reject ANY reason to have a firearm.

In other words, they have just had The Power of The Gun demonstrated to them, catastrophically, and they are in no mood to consider that there is a GOOD reason to Have A Gun.

I can't blame them for that. People who shoot People are the sorriest people in the world. It's not easy to distinguish between those who WANT to shoot people, and those who are WILLING to shoot people. Either way, the results are sad and nobody who has a modicum of social responsibility is willing to put himself in the place where the only choices ... kill or be killed ... are both bad. Generally, we just go about our daily lives and hope that we will not be called upon to make this choice.

In fact, there are people (trust me on this) who, presented with these two unpalatable choices, would submit to being murdered rather than to defend themselves by killing their aggressor.

Some of you may find it difficult to believe this, but I again point you to the evidence which we see on Volk's Blog.

In fact, I point you to a comment on my own blog, where a reader of my initial comments on the VT Massacre reacted (anonymously) in the following fashion:

Let's just issue everyone an ak-47. That makes sense! Don't regulate weapons of death, why it's perfectly pratical [sic] to have a semi-automatic handgun that can fire 20 rounds in a matter of seconds...someone might steal my dvd player. Idiot.

I assume that this outraged comment was in response to the transcript from the Lars Larson radio talk show, which discussed Concealed Carry as a legitimate self-defense measure ... even on a college campus. The implication is clear, if unexpressed, that I support the preposition of the Radio host: if faculty and staff (and students) at VT had been allowed to be armed, they may have been able to stop the murder of literally dozens of innocent victims.

But really, the issues go beyond this.

Professor Liviu Librescu ( Professor, Engineering Science & Mechanics), a 76 year old Holocaust survivor, heard the shots and screams from the classroom next door and realized what was happening. He used his own body to prevent the .... shooter (the only term universally acceptable) ... from entering while he encouraged his students to jump out of the windows of the second story classroom. Nine students successfully escaped; at this time, it appears that 3 or 4 or 5 students were still inside the room when Cho killed Librescu and gained entry to the room, killing everyone who had not yet managed to escape.

Librescu is a hero. He held he door as long as he could, interposing his body to save his students. The remaining students were killed, we still don't know if they were trying to escape when Cho entered the room, or what their actions were.

Again, at this point we don't know what the students were doing; they may have been trying to escape, they may have been attempting to hide, they may have been rushing Cho in an attempt to overwhem him.

Sadly, there is yet no evidence that any of the students attempted resistance.

I hope and pray that at least some of the students were resisting the murderer, and we are still waiting for forensic analysis of the crime scene for any suggestion that this was the case. Early reports have not addressed this question, but it would be a comfort to learn that not all students were submissive to their fate.

But Professor Librescu is the hero of the hour. He recognized Evil knocking at his door, and realized that the only way to resist evil is to stand up to it. Which he did, in the finest Horation at the Bridge style.

John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

In giving up his life for the lives of his students, Professor Librescu has taught the greatest lesson of this or any other university.

We can only hope that his students, and all of us, have learned from his example.

Hope and Healing

Forgive me, Father, for I have been listening to Larry King on the Radio.

Money Quote (from a Virginia Tech coed):

... I have found Hope and Healing ...

To recap: yesterday, some ass-wipe murdered 32 of her friends and neighbors, and today she is finding "hope and healing"? May I suggest that it may be just the teensy-est bit shallow for us to find "hope and healing" in a short 24-hours?

I know, I know, we're suppose to celebrate our strength and recuperative powers, and it's probably pretty shallow of ME to criticize our grief-process time frame. Still, if we were all that broken up about the death of THIRTY TWO of our fellow students, one might be forgiven for suggesting that going on the Larry King show to tell us all how we have already found HOPE AND HEALING is ... ah, never mind.

If we have to ask, we wouldn't understand.

I read Dennis Prager this afternoon, and while he wasn't there, at least he has a good understanding of the way the grief process works.

Sure, college students are definitively The Me Generation (I was, at that age), but one would like to think that they have enough sensitivity to view the slaughter of their fellow students in terms of someone else (for example, the dead kids?) for just a little while.

And what is it about mass murderers? They rampage through whatever venue they choose, kill a lot of innocents, and THEN they shoot their face off?

Why can't they take a short cut? Why don't they shoot their face off FIRST, and save us all this grief?

This Cho, this toilet paper to the rectum of humanity, had a lot of choices; but he was 'in pain' because of his, supposedly, suffering from romantic rejection and societal disillusionment.

What a piece of work you were, Cho. You sociopathic sick fuck.

Isn't that a nasty phrase? I've never used it before, never thought I would say that about another human being. But it perfectly describes the being, and perfectly expresses my feelings.

"You sociopathic sick fuck." I don't want to feel your pain. I just want you to be dead Dead DEAD for all eternity and may you rot in hell. I don't want to feel this angry toward another human being again.

Damn you to all eternity.

We have ALL felt his pain. But instead of getting over it, and instead of doing the decent thing and blowing his brains out at the first sign of dejection with his filed-off-serial-number (what's that all about?) Niner, he kills his One True Love and their 'mediator', takes two hours to gear up, and then trashes the lives, the hopes and the expectations of our most precious natural resource; our young people. The best and the brightest.

Kipling could have given him the nod, if the shit-for-brains idiot could have taken just a moment to get over himself:

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Am I'm angry?

Yes!

There is NO sympathy for a baby-turd who is so full of himself that he can consider no higher calling than to make a big splash, and chooses the life of his fellow man as his canvas.

I am absolutely against suicide, but when the alternative is this sort of National Horror, I'm thinking it's a Good Thing to internalize your pain for the few moments it takes to eat your own gun, you self-centered idiot.

Yeah, I'm talking to Cho the Ho, may you rot in hell you insufferable egomaniac.

I do so wish I could find "Hope and Healing" today, but that's probably too much to ask.

Maybe I've been too hard on the poor dear who was so eager to express to her new best friend, Larry King, that she found what I so desperately crave.

Once I killed people. In battle, and for what I thought was a good reason. As I walked the battlefield and counted the bodies, I felt a deep and abiding sense of sorrow at the total waste which is violent death.

I swore to myself I would never put myself in that dark place again.

No avail.

Once again I find myself there through no fault of my own, and the sense of waste is not lessened by the passing of years. If anything, it is increased by time and distance, and the helplessness.

What a total waste.

Jesus wept.

The Shooting Wire

This week in The Shooting Wire, the most excellent Jim Shepherd provides a feature article on former UN Ambassador John Bolton's address to the NRA's 136th Members Banquet.

Mr. Bolton had a lot to say about the United Nations, especially in regards to the attempt to impose International restrictions on the ability of American citizens to own private firearms. He also addressed the problem of the "Internationalism" of American diplomats:

For an American diplomat to "abandon the United States Constitution" in order to "get along" with the diplomatic community, said Bolton was "a deliberate tactic of the leftists to shift firearms into a different political environment.

After all, Bolton says, "many nations of the world want the United States to keep footing the costs for the United Nations, " but are "looking for ways to reduce our influence around the world." Limiting the rights of U-S citizens to have firearms, said Bolton, would be one way that "diminishment" could be accomplished.

I would love to cut&paste the whole article here, but instead I urge you to sign up for your own free subscription.

That would save me a LOT of trouble when I want to tell you about the fascinating articles available here.

http://www.shootingwire.com/subscribe_shooting.php

April Massacre: Virginia Tech

At least 33 killed in shootings at Virginia Tech - Roanoke.com

As I suspect most of us have done on this Monday, April 16, 2007, I have been shocked by the murder of "at least 33" students and, perhaps others at Virginia Tech.

I was sheltered, perhaps, from the horror because my personal schedule was involved with a family visit and other selfish activities. I didn't spend half my day (or more) being appalled by the terrible events at an American University.

Instead, I had an almost idyllic day with my son and his wife, my mother, my grandchildren and my true love. Until I returned home, I had no idea that this American Tragedy had occurred, let alone the extend of the slaughter.

For the past few hours, I have been engaged for an Internet search for more information, until I am so heart-sick that I can no longer bear to immerse myself in this sickness.

But there are certain trends to the reporting and, perhaps more significantly, the opinions which are necessarily a near knee-jerk reaction to what has become an American tradition in the month of April.

Since the Columbine massacre (April 20, 1999), the Oklahoma City Bombing (April, 19, 1995), the Waco (April 19, 1993) outrages, the month of April has been a continuing April festival of horror. And I for one am sick of it.

We are all disgusted by this annual rage of violence and slaughter of the innocents, and we all look for a solution to this distinctive American sickness.

But, what is it about the month of April which leads to such a death toll?

April Massacres didn't happen just in America:

April 18, 1995: The Kibeho Tragedy (Rwanda, Africa) - 2000 people massacred in a Rwandan refugee camp.

April 9, 1986: Tblisi, Georgia (the country, not the state) - an Anti-Soviet demonstration leads to a violent 'dispersal' by the Soviet Army, leading to 20 deaths and hundreds of injuries.

April 26, 1986 - The Chernobyl Tragedy.

The deliberate massacres, however, seem (per OKC and Columbine) to be based on Hitler's Birthday: April 20.

So we establish Hitler as the cause of many massacres in the 20th and 21st century.

But what is it about the latest outrage which will, presumably enrage so many American citizens?


It's not just that this 33+ (?) death toll is the largest fatality list in the history of American "School Shootings", but that the same people who reacted to Columbine (and other, more recent "Schools Shootings" are using it to advance their own anti-2nd Amendment agenda.

The Lars Larson featured an interview with Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. While careful not to suggest that any restrictions should be applied to "lawful citizens", he carefully made the point that "... maybe we should make it harder for individuals to get some of these guns in the first place. Not you, but people like the shooter today". He was unable to present a cogent argument differentiating between the radio talk-show host, and "the shooter today" except "We don't have any information on exactly where he got the gun or how he got the gun, but I think, you know, part of the solution is not just shooting the bad guy when he started but trying to keep it ... make it harder for the bad guy to get these guns in the first place."

In answer to Larson's assertion that there are "20,000 gun laws" regulating possession of firearms, and they don't seem to be making any difference in keeping guns out of the hands of 'the bad guys', Helmke suggested that "Maybe we aren't making the right laws" ... "Maybe we need more effective laws."


When Larson suggested that an armed student LEO stopped a school shooting at Virginia's Appalacian School of Law in Grundy, Va., Helmke stated "That's not true, that's an Urban myth."

Larson then suggested that the only way to stop anyone (no evidence yet whether the citizen was not legally prevented from buying a gun) from coming onto a campus and shooting people is to allow other law-abiding citizens to carry guns to stop him.

Helmke's response:

" What we need to see is if there are things we can find out that would have tipped us off that he was [not] a law-abiding citizen."

"There's no bans on hi-capacity clips. He apparently comes in with a nine-millimeter [pistol] that has a hi-capacity clip. He's getting twenty rounds off in under a minute. There's no background checks in gun shows in Virginia. We don't know all the details about how he got this gun."

Larson's continuing question: "Should we make it harder for law-abiding citizens to buy guns?"

Helmke:
"I don't see any problem with law-abiding citizens having to do a background check. That's the main thing The Brady Campaign pushed..."

Larson interrupted:
"That hasn't answered my question."

Helmke, obviously unable to answer the asked question, changes the subject:
"Okay. How about extending background checks to gun shows? .... How about, uh, limitations on high-capacity clips?"

Larson:
"No. ... If you go to the range, and the pistol I carry has a 14-round magazine ... and hand somebody a gun with a 10-shot magazine .... and give them 10 more of them ... the difference in firing (100 rounds) from 10-shot magazines and from 14-round magazines is relatively small. So arguing about magazine size is relatively ridiculous."

Helmke:
"Well, then you go to the issue of semi-automatics ... and how fast they can fire."

Larson"
"Then you want to ban semi-automatics?"

Helmke:
"I didn't say that ... although I thought the Assault Weapons ban made sense ... they were something that could have been written better ... "

The conversation degenerated from that point, as Helmke attempted to defend the Assault Weapons Ban (and was unable to identify a single crime which was prevented by the tentative 1995 federal law, which Sunset in 2005 because nobody was able to show that it effected a reduction in 'gun crimes' ... with the possible exception of violations of the law itself.)

This interview served two purposes. First, that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence is willing (eager!) to use any tragedy to advance their agenda, regardless of the facts; and second, that the legal measures which they propose would have no effect on the kind of mindless violence to which the Virginia Tech students, faculty and staff were exposed today.

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

I have to admit to a personal investment in this question. I work on campus of an American University, of about the same size student body as Virginia Tech. I'm very aware of my personal exposure to random violence in my day-to-day life, and especially in the workplace.

It is impossible for a student, faculty or staff to carry a concealed weapon on an American campus. If caught carrying a handgun, a student can be expelled (possibly, in some states, subject to prosecution). No education, no career, and a black mark on his record forever.

Faculty and staff are subject not to expulsion, but to being fired (again, possibly subject to prosecution.) No references, no transfer and again no career.

Note that in Oregon, there are no state laws preventing CHL authorized citizens from carrying a firearms on campus. However, the universities can still establish a policy against it and nobody is willing to challenge that policy. The sole exception is Lars Larson himself, who was invited to speak on the subject on the University of Oregon campus in Eugene, Oregon. He insisted on being allowed to carry his concealed handgun when he spoke on campus. The University of Oregon withdrew the invitation.

Who among us are willing to chance being Black-Listed from our educational education or place of employment for the 'crime' of providing for our own self-defense? Very few of us. Nobody that I know personally. Certainly I am not willing to carry a firearm on campus, although I am legally entitled to carry almost anywhere else in the state. I have completed all training and background checks, and possess an "Concealed Handgun Permit" issued by my local County Sheriff. According to my state legislature, this is defense against most objections. Except ... well, you know.

What's my exposure if I don't carry?

Exactly the same as the students of Virgina Tech, including the 32 or more students who today were shot to death by a marauding fellow student because they were forbidden by their school from the means to defend themselves.

There's nothing I can do to change the situation ... today.

Perhaps tomorrow, this tragedy will serve as a wake-up call to Higher Education in America.

No, I don't believe it will happen, either.

In the meantime, expect to hear a LOT from the confused, agenda-driven "gun control advocates" as they attempt to advance their goal of removing firearms from the hands of every American.

They won't say it that way, of course. Instead they'll focus on the same old 'baby steps' that have worked so well for them during the Clinton administration.

Smaller guns.
Less magazine capacity.
No 'ugly' guns, no 'Saturday Night Specials', no guns with 'no legitimate sporting purpose'.

No guns based on 'military design'; which pretty much includes ALL guns, but they won't say that, either.

Offer to outlaw everything except muzzle-loaders (as Lars Larson did), and you can hear them salivate, then reluctantly reply "No, I didn't say that". But that's what they are thinking.

Then all they would have to do is figure out how to get rid of the muzzle-loaders over .35 caliber.

Rudyard Kipling - Tommy

Haven't had a Kipling Night for a LONG time.

Given the shameful quarters for wounded soldiers at American military hospitals, Nancy's trip to Damascus, the pork-barrel Appropriations Bill, the failure of Congress to send a bill version that the President can sign ... perhaps this is the most appropriate of Kipling's Barracks Room Ballads.

Tommy

Rudyard Kipling

---

I WENT into a public-’ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ’e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play,—
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but ’adn’t none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-’alls,
But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls!
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, wait outside”;
But it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide,—
The troopship’s on the tide, my boys, the troopship’s on the tide,
O it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide.

Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit.
Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ’ow’s yer soul?”
But it’s “Thin red line of ’eroes” when the drums begin to roll,—
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it’s “Thin red line of ’eroes” when the drums begin to roll.

We aren’t no thin red ’eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;
While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, fall be’ind”,
But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind,—
There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,
O it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind.

You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ’is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool—you bet that Tommy sees!

The American Congress today is no better than British Parliament 120 years ago.

And the American public no more supportive of its brave fighting men.

Shame on us.

Ten Ways to Screw Up in England

Oh, where to begin.

Great Britain is becoming a prototypicaly Socialist "Nanny State" ... one where the government seems determined to deprive citizens of rights, then find fault in every conceivable aspect of life, and finally to designate victims as villains.

Here are Ten Ways To Screw Yourself In England.

(1) Blair has identified "Black Culture" as the cause of "gun and knife violence", and asserts that "Political Correctness Is Not Helping".

Here are a couple of the sweetest Money Quotes:

"... the recent violence should not be treated as part of a general crime wave, but as specific to black youth."

Well, he knows his national culture better than I do. But remember, GB has made it impossible for an honest person (and even some 'dishonest persons') to legally possess a firearm. What is the consequence? "Gun Violence" has degenerated into "Knife Violence". While the "Gun" part is somewhat shifted, the "Violence" goes on and on:

Giving the Callaghan lecture in Cardiff, the prime minister admitted he had been "lurching into total frankness" in the final weeks of his premiership. He called on black people to lead the fight against knife crime. He said that "the black community - the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law abiding people horrified at what is happening - need to be mobilised in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids"

Mr Blair said there needed to be an "intense police focus" on the minority of young black Britons behind the gun and knife attacks. The laws on knife and gun gangs needed to be toughened and the ringleaders "taken out of circulation".

...

The Home Office has already announced it is looking at the possibility of banning membership of gangs, tougher enforcement of the supposed mandatory five-year sentences for possession of illegal firearms, and lowering the age from 21 to 18 for this mandatory sentence.

What? I thought the Brits were already imposing draconian sentences of imprisonment for firearms possession and usage. Didn't they imprison some home-owner for umpteen years for using a shotgun against a home invader? (No link cited ... of course they did, several times in a continuing trend.)
Here's the juicy part:

He called on black people to lead the fight against knife crime.

Oh, well done! You've imposed every possible restriction on firearms ownership, on the grounds that there is no legitimate use for a firearm, and your people are now using knives to kill each other.

Mr Blair spoke out as a second teenager was due to appear in court charged with the murder of 14-year-old Paul Erhahon, stabbed to death in east London on Friday. He was the seventh Londoner under 16 to be murdered since the end of January, and his 15-year-old friend, who was also stabbed, remains in hospital.

How will you justify the imposition of laws against the possession of knives? If you find a way, Tony, The Missus will be reduced to jointing a chicken with a cricket bat and the Yobs will be using their mum's cricket bats to clobber their neighbors.

Don't you GET it yet?

The problem is not the guns, or the knives, or the cricket bats ... the problem is the VIOLENCE. By mandating against means of personal defence, you're only disarmed the honest citizen. Yobs will always be armed.

_______________________________

Here are other ways that Great Britain is invoking Big Brother:

(2) Are you a 'bad neighbor'. You will be sent to Coventry.

(3) Even if you're a perfectly law-abiding citizen, your children will be finger-printed in anticipation of future prosecution ... even if the school headmaster has to lie to them to do the job.

(4) Park your car in a 'no parking' zone? It's no longer an 'oopsy'; it's a criminal action which allows the Bailiffs to enter your home (without a warrant) to serve you.

(5) Got a good "Squirrel Joke"? The Bobbies will hunt you down to make sure you're not abusing rodents.

(6) UK Schools may no longer tell their students that the Nazi's slaughtered 6.5 Jews in WWII concentration camps. It may offend a Muslim, who has been told by his Imam that the Holocaust is a lie.

(7) Join the Royal Marines to defend King and Country? Okay, but don't you dare shoot anybody.

(8) Think that, just because you're a Brit you have privacy rights? F'gettaboutit! They can put a chip in your brain which will provide all of your personal information to anyone who has the equipment to read it, and there's not a thing you can do about it.

(9) Think you can walk down the street without causing an uproar? Now way, somebody is going to yell at you!

Finally, and perhaps most egregious of these measures ....

(10) Wanna Be a Hero? Think your country will love you for "Doing The Right Thing"? Forget about that, too. No matter your motives or your personal sacrifice, Great Britain won't give you public recognition because ... guess what.

That's right, it might offend a Muslim.

The sun has set upon the British Empire.

Don't let it happen here.

L.A. 'Shooting Victims Bill Of Rights'

LA City Council Gives Supports For 'Shooting Victims Bill Of Rights' - News Story - KNBC | Los Angeles

NBC Television in Los Angeles reports (April 4, 2007) that the L.A. City Council " ... went on record Wednesday in support of four state gun-control bills dubbed the "Shooting Victims Bill of Rights."

The four California State Gun Control bills would:

1. "... require all new semiautomatic handguns to be equiped with microstamped technology by 2010".
2. " ... require retailers to have a license to sell ammunition."
   
3. "... require firarms owners to notify a law enforcement agency within five days within five working days of discovering that a gun has been stolen or irretrievably lost."
4. "... allow California's Law Enforcement Agencies to use and compare forensic and ballistic information kept on a national database."

The first law is eerily reminiscent of AB352, which was defeated in the California State Assembly late last year (October, 2006) when the sponsor of the bill failed (deliberately?) to defend his own bill. More later on whether this is actually a New Bill, or someone just hasn't got word that the bill was defeated six months ago. Or, if they know the bill is dead but tacked it onto their own private agenda for the sake of looking good to their constituents. ("Typical Political Trickery".)

Bill #2 has no obvious application to the usual justification of Gun Control bills ... to restrict access of firearms to "legitimate purchasers". It's just a way to put a roadblock in the way of honest citizens and, in doing so, advance their own political career. (AB362) Violation (selling more than 50 rounds of loaded ammunition in a month) is subject to a fine of $500.

Bill #3 also has no obvious reason for being, other than to put the hammer in the hands of The State in the unlikely case of a gun-owner not reporting a stolen firearm. This bill would allow the state to prosecute the victim. (AB334) A fine ($100 or $250) may be imposed for failure to report a lost or stolen handgun.
Simple tyranny, nothing to see here, folks. Move on.

Bill #4 is a cheek-kiss to firearms registration. The Brady Bill requires firearms purchasers to be vetted by The State, in order to prevent firearms sales to people (felons, etc.) who shouldn't be allowed to purchase firarms; but it specifically requires vetting agencies to destroy records in order to avoid the possibility of registration. This bill requires records keeping, specifically "forensic and ballistic information kept on a national database." If the only information was dimension and rifling on a bullet, it might be useful to connect a bullet used in a crime in one state to be connected to a crime committed elsewhere via retrieved bullets found at both crimescenes. However, any bullet retrieved from sources other than a crimescene would presumably include information on the owner of the firearm. This is just another backdoor approach to registration.

When I have found ALL the actual bills and have read them, I will be better able to report on whether suitable limitations on personal information have been included.

Best guess, lacking any other information, is that this last bill fails to include such limitations.

California residents are invited to provide more information on these bills, for the purpose of determining how loosely they are written.

Incidentely, AB854 provides restrictions on the transfer (including loan) of firearms. The bulk of this very long bill is generally devoted to 'exemptions', and I haven't done more than scan it VERY quickly so far so I can't profess to understand it. However, it bears a second, closer look. My summary on a first glance is that it does absolutely nothing. That suggests to me that the purpose of this bill is so buried in obfuscatory verbiage that something significant MUST be goiong on.

This is a good subject for future evaluation.

Translation: I don't know what these scum-sucking, bottem-dwelling low-lifes have plugged in here, but I'm morally certain that there are some unpleasant surprises here for law-abiding citizens.

Buy A Gun Day

Hey, I've got my Income Tax Refund (Grrrr ... don't get me started) and my gunsafe has a big gaping hole where a Defensive Shotgun should be.

And Cowboy Blog as designated April 15 as Buy A Gun Day!

What to do, what to do?

Actually, I'm thinking ... Mossberg 590.

(I'm also hoping that it doesn't come with a bayonette!)

A recent newspaper ad (Big 5) lists the 590 at $319, "Regularly $399". My research indicates that this is probably the regular 590, not the "590 A1". I have a vague understanding that the "A1" is superior, but I"m not sure what the advantage is. (I assume that the 'sale price' is for the older model.)

Also, my limited research shows this as an 8-round capacity shotgun, but the newspaper ad lists it as a 9-round shotgun. I'm guessing it has an 8-round tube, and the 9-round claim includes the chambered round.

Why am I writing about this?

I'm really interested in buying this type of shotgun, and I have the impression that this is a good shotgun in this price range. But my Internet research is not terribly enlightening, leaving me with more questions than understanding.


I'm hoping that there's someone who can read this and give me some answers. What I'm looking for is a lot of response which will tell me either:

1. Why I should buy this shotgun over others in the price range, or
2. Why I should buy another shotgun over others in the price range.

To clarify the question, I already have plenty of guns that seem perfectly workable for Home Defense. What I'm really looking for is a shotgun I can use in the local Practical Shotgun matches which crop up from time to time.

I bought a Mech Tech for Pistol-Caliber Carbine matches, and I have mixed feelings about it (mostly, the sluggish bolt action and the annoying wire-stock vibration.) But, for what I paid for it and considering my low expectations, I'm not disappointed in that purchase. I'm looking for someone who can predict any "Buyer's Remorse" if I get a 590, or alternatively a reason why I might be disappointed if, for example, I buy a Remington 870.

Remember, "Buy A Gun Day" is imminent, and I need information before I plunk the VISA card on the counter ... probably Monday, April 16, 2007.

Help!

______________________________________

Here's some of the information I've found on the Internet. This may demonstrate why I'm dubious about the authority of the presenters:

Home Defense

12 gauge shotgun. It dumps an immense amount of energy into your target at close range. It is less likely to overpenetrate than most other firearms, so you're less likely to accidentally kill a neighbor, while it is still plenty effective at the longest ranges you are likely to encounter inside your home. Other things like pistols and rifles will punch relatively small holes in an attacker, while a 12ga shotgun will blow significant chunks out and almost certainly knock them over. I recommend a pump shotgun for reliability. Some semi-automatic shotguns have difficulty reliably cycling some types of ammunition. A pump shotgun will still work when packed full of mud. You can get ammunition which is specifically designed for home defense that will kick less hard, and penetrate fewer walls, if it is to be used by a smaller person, or overpenetration is more of a concern to you. More magazine capacity is good. Some believe that a smaller magazine capacity and correspondingly shorter barrel length improves a shotgun's maneuverability enough to be worth the loss of magazine capacity. I prefer more magazine capacity.

Mossberg 590, 8 round magazine

I prefer the Mossberg 590, with an 8 round magazine. This is a combat style shotgun with a large magazine capacity

On the difference between the 870 and the 590.

PA. Gun Control Mania

In Pa., it's high noon in battle over gun control | Inquirer | 04/08/2007

Philly dot Com (Sorry ... The Philadelphia Enquirer) has an article about the FIFTEEN Firearms Control Bills backed up in the state legislature.

(We already talked about at least one of them, here.)

You can read the whole thing .............. here:

http://www.philly.com/philly/
hp/news_update/HARRISBURG_
-_Seven_months_after_a_
special_two-day_legislative_
session_on_crime_in_which_
more_than_a_dozen_
gun-control_bills_were_
defeated__anti-crime_
advocates_are_hoping_a_new_
climate_in_Harrisburg_will_
mean_movement_on_
long-stalled_gun-control_
meas.html

I have to admit, that is the longest URL I have ever seen. I'm sure there are some conclusions to be drawn from this, but I am not man enough to accept the challenge.

Well, it's probably not significant that Philly's newspaper doesn't know how to generate a short, unique URL, but it probably IS significant that:

1. PA introduced a dozen gun control bills seven months ago ... all of which were defeated.
2. (midday Friday)"... the number of slayings in Philadelphia is edging painfully upward - 105 at last count, the majority of them at the point of a gun."
3. "Gov. Rendell has turned up the volume on his pleas for stronger gun-control measures, and Democrats now control the state House. All this comes at a time when a new poll suggests a majority of Pennsylvanians are willing to accept handgun-sale limits. "
"... the bills face an uphill battle in the General Assembly, which is dominated by lawmakers who support gun rights.

So, if there is such a ground-swell of popular support for gun control in Pennsylvania, why is it so difficult to make new laws?

Answer: Politics. Or, not to put too fine a point on it, the lawmakers are keenly aware that (a) their main priority is to be re-elected; (b) their constituents don't REALLY want the State to take their guns away, and; (c) if they vote for gun control laws, the politicians will NOT be re-elected!

Think I'm making this up? This is a direct quote from the article:

From House Speaker Dennis O'Brien (R., Phila.), who blocked gun-control bills as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to the current leaders of the committees in the House and Senate, there is reluctance to support gun bills for fear they will fail or bring lawmakers defeat in the next election.

Rep. Dan Surra (D., Elk) said that while he sympathized with residents living in high-crime areas, he could not support any gun-restriction bill because in certain quarters of his district, a hunting stronghold in the north-central part of the state, guns are a single-issue item at the polls.

"They will vote you out on this," Surra said.

(Governer) Rendell's mention of gun control in his February budget in the Capitol drew a chorus of hisses from Republicans - and likely some Democrats in the Capitol - underscoring the largely geographical, rather than political, divide on the issue.

This sounds serious. The Public has identified a problem (heightened murder rate in major urban centers); The Politicians have offered a legislative solution (specifically, limit gun purchases to one per month, in an attempt to limit "straw purchases"; The Public has rejected that offer.

The Politicos are wandering around Harrisburg, scratching their pointy-haired heads, asking each other "What's wrong with this picture?"

As far as I can tell from the article, they have decided that voters are a fickle bunch. They not only want a 'solution', they want 'the RIGHT solution'. This is beyond the competence level of the Pennsylvania State Legislature, so their response is to -- what?

That's right, they are determined to JAM Gun Control down the throats of their constituents, as soon as they can figure out an acceptable way to reword the phrase "Take Your Gun Rights Away From You".

Well, good luck to you, PA Pols. (Not really, you slimy scum-sucking bottom-dwelling Lawyers! I hope you try, and I hope you choke on it.)

"Voters are in a different place than some lawmakers," said Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.), the poll's sponsor and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Yeah, you think? That's something new in American Politics, especially when there's a new Democratic Majority in the State Legislature.

But deep philosophical differences separate those in rural areas who treasure their Second Amendment rights, and for whom a Winchester .30-06 is for shooting deer, from those in urban areas who associate gun use with murder.

"The feeling out here is that proposals that deal with firearms in general are inched toward the precipice, and once you start eroding Second Amendment rights, it's a cascading effect," Surra, the legislator from northwestern Pennsylvania said.

"Guns are part of our culture, too. The difference is we don't shoot each other," said Surra, who recalls teaching students to build guns in shop class.

Well, not shooting each other seems an uniquely intuitive step in a situation which has already been defined as "we have too many people shooting each other, what should we do about that?"

Obviously, that's too simplistic and the Pa Pols have ignored what may seem "a common-sense approach" to some of us.

Clearly, a battle looms over one-handgun-a-month in the Capitol

The Gun Owners' Advocate Speaks:

"We're opposed, of course," said Melody Zullinger, executive director of Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen, an umbrella group representing 300 hunting and outdoor organizations.

...

"All [the laws] do is infringe on law-abiding citizens' rights," Zullinger said. "The criminals get illegal guns on the black market. It's not going to curb the crime problem."

The Gun Control Advocate Speaks:

This time around, gun-control groups have a new advocate: Philip R. Goldsmith, Philadelphia's former managing director, who is now president of CeaseFire PA.

"The time is ripe," said Goldsmith, who wants to build a grassroots movement like the one that defeated the controversial pay raise that legislators voted themselves in 2005. "The paradigm is changing on this."

and ...

Pennsylvania "is a priority state for us," said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, which teamed with other gun-control groups to form the coalition Pennsylvanians Against Trafficking Handguns in 2005. "We believe there is enough political ability in the legislature to enact change."

That looks good to the Democrats, I suppose. But here's the Money Quote:

State Sen. Stewart Greenleaf (R., Bucks), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he supported one-handgun-a-month but would not bring up a bill for a vote in his committee that is doomed to failure.

"I run what I think I can get through, and this didn't come close to passing," said Greenleaf. "Still, we have to do something that will have an impact. It's a war."

Yes, it's a war. The conflict is between Citizens who want to reduce the murder rate in their (gun-control intrusive) urban areas, and politicians who can see no other solution than to take firearms out of the hands of honest citizens.

As my old friend Bumstead is fond of saying: "When all you have is a hammer, all of your problems look like a nail."

.. and as another friend, Earthworm, would say:

"What a bunch of Maroons!"

Letters, I get Letters ...

... From Paul, The Soccer Coach:

I know you'll say I'm hurting myself but I had a thought and think I'm onto something here. As we get older they have all sorts of drugs for memory loss, eyesight and sex problems. Why isn't there a drug for poor shooting.....

Paul

I too think you're on to something here, Paul.

And whatever it is, it's not working for you.

My suggestion: change your prescription.

jB)

Ruger

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. Reports Sale of Non-Manufacturing Real Estate
March 8, 2007

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE-RGR) announced that it sold 42 parcels of non-manufacturing real property located in New Hampshire for $7.2 million today. The purchaser of the property was William B. Ruger, Jr., the Company's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board.

The Company expects to realize a gain of approximately $5.1 million from this sale in the first quarter of 2007. In December 2006, the Company announced its intention of selling non-manufacturing real property assets and artwork. This sale included substantially all of the Company's non-manufacturing real property assets in New Hampshire.
________________________________________
About Sturm Ruger
Sturm, Ruger was founded in 1949. The Company's business segments are engaged in the manufacture of the world famous RUGER® brand of sporting and law enforcement firearms and steel investment castings for a variety of customers and end uses. Plants are located in Newport, New Hampshire and Prescott, Arizona. Corporate headquarters is located in Southport, Connecticut.

The Company may, from time to time, make forward-looking statements and projections concerning future expectations. Such statements are based on current expectations and are subject to certain qualifying risks and uncertainties, such as market demand, sales levels of firearms, anticipated castings sales and earnings, the need for external financing for operations or capital expenditures, the results of pending litigation against the Company including lawsuits filed by mayors, attorneys general and other governmental entities and membership organizations, the impact of future firearms control and environmental legislation, and accounting estimates, any one or more of which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. The Company undertakes no obligation to publish revised forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date such forward-looking statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of subsequent unanticipated events.

Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. Arms Makers for Responsible Citizens

(From the Ruger "Corporate News" website.)




Comments on my original article about the sale of Remington have caused me to do a little more research on Ruger.

Ruger's "Corporate Directory" website again lists facilities in Southport, CT, Newport, NH and Prescot, AZ. I see no listing of a 'foreign' factory.

And I note in passing that I'm please to learn that Bill Ruger, Jr. has purchased the "non-manufacturing real property" in Connecticut. I'm not sure why he did that, but it suggests a continuing interest in his familial endeavor and, as noted in the news release, the transaction added significant depth to Ruger's financial health.

Other comments found on the website include an observation that

And the Archived News site provides a history of Municipal and State "liability" civil suits (based on mis-use of firarms which had been sold according to current restrictions and laws) which were rejected. In a sense, this is a mini-history of the events which lead to the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms" act (S.397 - August, 2005).

You may find a tour of the Ruger website interesting.

Remington Sale - Part 3

Update, Day 3: April 5, 2007
(Posted: a few days later)

Michael Bane's website offers More Content in respect to not only the Remington Corporate Garage Sale, but also in respect to the fall-out.

Specifically, The Word is that discredited outdoors writer Jim Zumbo may be the 'spokesman' for what Bane describes as "Big Green" (apparently a reference to the predominant color of ammunition packaging and marketing efforts of Remington ... both Arms and Ammunition.)

I don't know about you, but I consider this an astounding about-face for Zumbo who not only infamously poo-pooed Black Rifles as a legitimate sporting arms only a few weeks ago, but has since offered A Sincere Public Apology for his provincial 2nd Amendment attitude AND written to congress a defense of Black Rifles.

Excuse me. I mean, a defense of firearms which seem to have No Legitimate Sporting Purpose.

Now, there may be a tiny window of opportunity for Mr. Zumbo to creep back into the arms of NSSF inasmuch as he could be positioned to voice support of not only Remington, but also Bushmaster.

(I won't bother searching for the links; they're all over the gun-osphere.)

Amazingly, he may be proven to have survived the demise of his Flux Capacitor!

This isn't about Zumbo, his career or his mercurial attitudes toward the 2nd Amendment. It's about the future of Remington, and how the marketing of a failing firearms market may lead to some surprising changes of attitude (changes of latitude) for the designate spokesmen of said firearms market.

Nobody is paying me to write about the Firearms Industry, so please understand that I may be guilty of having not Got The Word. But if this rumor should be proven true, it will serve to prove my own ignorance. It will be a very interesting world for the next few months as we watch the tap-dancing exhibition.


I don't know how to take Zumbo's miraculous conversion. I never read his stuff before he became infamous, so I have no take on whether the conversion is/could be sincere or disingenuous. All I know is that he had an attitude, he got stomped into the mud and the blood and the beer from people who arguably should have known that it was ignorance talking rather than disenchantment with ugly semi-automatic rifles, and now the trend seems to be that he was just didn't make the connection because HEY! How many times do you see AR-15 knockoffs in an Elk Camp?

If you find yourself confused by recent events, please don't feel alone.

I just wish someone was paying me to know what to think about all of this.

I wouldn't be any less confused, but at least I wouldn't care any more.

NOTE:
Here is the official announcement from Remington, courtesy of The Bane Blog.

Bigger NOTE:

Here are some comments from the "official announcement" which may be of interest. Interpret these comments as you will:

This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements give the Company’s current expectations or forecasts of future events. These forward looking statements include expectations regarding (i) the proposed sale, (ii) the anticipated benefits of the sale and (iii) the timing of the proposed sale. The Company cautions that these statements are qualified by important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include the demand for the Company’s products, the Company’s growth opportunities, and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company’s reports filed with the SEC, including its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.

The Company assumes no obligation to update publicly such forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Immigration Gumballs

Immigration is a 'hot button' in America today.

The Administration wishes to keep an Open Borders policy, even though a majority of Americans are concerned about free passage of Terrorists.

Some people even think that immigration is putting an unbearable burden on our nation's infrastructure, because we are unable to provide services and support for a rapidly growing population. These people are just racist scare-mongers who are unwilling to share the bounty of this prosperous nation with the less fortune. They don't realize that, by accepting the poor of the world into this country, we can help alleviate the poverty and suffering of the Third World.

They're just mean, and selfish.

Or are they?

Here's a presentation which may cast some doubt on that perception of the "mean, selfish racist" America.

YouTube, 9-1/2 minutes long, worth the viewing.


H/T: The Hobo Brasser