Microstamping Ammunition: Todd Lizotte Interview

Three weeks ago Todd Lizotte, "the inventor of Microstamping" technology, responded in my Comments section to some statements I had made.

I invited him to consider some concerns which I felt were common to American gun-owners, and he was kind enough to respond.

It has taken a while for him to work through the list on questions, and we're grateful for his dedication.

Today he sent an email with my questions and his responses. I present it here, unedited. It's very long, so I'll save comments for a later post:

__________________________________________

Hello Jerry,

Apologize for the delay.

I attempted to keep it condensed. I might expand on a few of my comments if you get feedback or would like further clarification or dig deeper into the technology or implementation strategy.

Hello Mr. *******,

[Todd E Lizotte] No worries, the microstamping technology is straightforward. Firearms have been microstamping cartridges for over 100 hundred years and it is these “unintentional” markings that are used and form the basis of current firearm and tool mark identification in the forensic community.

Microstamping just builds on the current process, by adding several new “intentional” marking features which can be linked to the serial number. This will allow a firearm to be identified if the firearm is not recovered from the crime scene.

If I correctly understand your position (compared with mine), you take exception to two issues which I mentioned:

1) you object to my assertion that Microstamping is confused with "cartridge/bullet serialization";

[Todd E Lizotte] I only object to the two technologies being associated, because they are two different approaches with far greater differences than complementary attributes. Bullet Serialization is not Microstamping; it is true serialization or product registration.

Clarifications:

Microstamping is a passive device that marks the cartridge upon discharge of the firearm. (This is what the firearm currently does, except the marks the firearm produces today are random marks that are used for firearms identification by forensic professionals.) All microstamping does is add a few more marking structures to the existing firearm surfaces that currently produce the random markings. This new code is linked to the serial number at final assembly, when the firearms serial number is loaded into the internal accounting system at the firearm manufacturing facility. That is where the code is activated or associated to the serial number of the firearm.

What this means is that the BATF have to use the existing trace system to gain access to the serial number, no change in the status quo.

Microstamping is a one time cost to the firearm. If you figure a cost of $6.00 per firearm, than you are talking the price of two cups of coffee at Starbucks, divide that over a year and your talking about $.50 a month in the first year to cover the cost. If you figure that it costs about $15 for a box of .40 cal ammo, it means sacrificing half a box of ammo one time to provide law enforcement with an opportunity to track and target people who traffic firearms to criminals.

On the other hand:

Bullet/cartridge Serialization (Not Microstamping) is a product coding system and back door registration system which requires a complete upheaval of the existing manufacturing process of ammunition, as well as the distribution chain for ammunition. Furthermore, it requires that each state and the federal level maintain its own database for tracking storage and distribution of ammunition, the certification and licensing of every distributor within the ammunition manufacturers distribution chain, allowing the distributor the ability to sell or distribute the ammunition. In a nutshell, this is a multi-billion dollar infrastructure overhaul that would need to be funded by each state and the federal level to put in place just the tracking system, let alone the network system maintenance that would have to be supported to keep it operational and up to date.

Pitfalls of Bullet/Cartridge Serialization:

· Requires a national database system to track the domestic and international manufacture (both military / civilian markets), importation, transport and distribution of ammunition by the state and federal government. (An integrated system that someone needs to develop and fund) Figure it has taken approximately $1 Billion to create the NIBIN platform and the BATF still does not have the system integrated across state boundaries effectively. Nor does NIBIN involve tracking billions of cartridges. In ten years only ~1.2 million cartridges have been entered. Even the most integrated and well maintained databases in the financial sector are prone to fraud to the level of millions of customers having their information hacked into by criminals.

· Bullet/Cartridge serialization requires a new licensing system so that ammunition can not be purchased using fake ID or ID Theft issues, such as driver’s licenses, which might be given to illegal aliens or criminals.

· Bullet/Cartridge serialization process requires the ammunition industry to either change its production method, since they would have to mark two separate pieces and ensure that they are mated together in the final assembly.

· Bullet/Cartridge serialization requires a similar coding and tracking system that can tie an individual assembled cartridge to a group of cartridges within a box; a series of boxes that form a case; the case to the shipping documents; and linked to the distribution chain at each step of the way until it reaches the shelf for sale.

So, if you want to know, I do not support Bullet/Cartridge serialization. Bullet/Cartridge serialization is a bureaucracy based technology that costs more money on an annual basis, to maintain the infrastructure – in fact the cost of maintaining the database will outstrip the actually cost of putting codes on the cartridge / bullet.

2) Microstamping technology is mis-perceived as 'requiring a national database" to be effective, which I have mis-characterized in my article.

[Todd Lizotte] That is correct; Microstamping the firearm requires no new database. All the data is part of the existing internal accounting system used by the firearms company/industry in order to conform to the BATF requirements. The codes placed onto the two surfaces are linked to the specific serial number of the handgun at final assembly, when the serial number is entered into the ERP/MRP accounting system. Simply put, it is an added field in the software – simple.

For my part, there are many other issues pursuant to the development of 'microstamping' as a legal requirement in firearms manufacture. But first:

1) I think I understand the difference between "Microstamping Ammunition" and "Encoded Ammunition" technology. (If I have given the impression that I think the two are identical, I apologize and will correct such misapprehensions as they are identified.)

Note that terms are often braced by quotes; this is not an attempt to establish a 'so-called' and derogatory (or dismissive) bias. Rather, it is to establish the quoted terms as a precise and legal definition.

[Todd Lizotte] (No worries I am good with your bracketing and I do not take offense to your wording or opinions)

Feel free to correct my mistakes.

"Microstamping" refers to the formation of structures on internal parts of a firearm, which currently mark unintentional tooling marks. The code structure is on the micro sized. These new structures will in turned be embossed/stamped onto some part of the cartridge case or primer upon the firing of ammunition (a 'cartridge') in that firearm. This code is unique to that firearm, and is only transferred to the ammunition component when the cartridge is fired. (Note: we have found that it actually marks misfired cartridges as well.)

[Todd E Lizotte] Correct, however, this is not a new process, all firearms currently microstamp cartridges. The current microstamps are surface features, such as tooling marks, left over from the production processes that are used to form the components of the firearm.

The tooling marks on the internal surfaces come in contact with the cartridges and transfer “unintentional” markings. These unintentional markings have been used for over >70 years by forensic investigators for firearm identification. However these marks are only used when the firearm is recovered from the crime scene.

“Microstamping” technique is just the addition of two new features that are “Intentional”, there is no change to the process. The markings are formed the same way. Many people are trying to say this is a new process, it isn’t. Instead of using only the “unintentional” tooling marks, we are proposing the addition and use of two “intentional” micro codes. Furthermore the new codes are optimized to the dynamic action of the firearm; specifically we perform “cycle of fire analysis” and determine the characteristics of each model of firing mechanism and then use a series of markings to test optimum feature geometries to establish the best configuration for the firearm. It is a very simple approach using existing methodologies for analysis developed by the forensic firearms investigators.

"Encoded Ammunition" is an entirely different process, in which a code is embossed or engraved upon one or more parts of the ammunition (specifically, the bullet, and/or the cartridge case). That code is unique to that cartridge or bullet (or other component?) and is embossed or engraved during the manufacturing process. The code is unique to that piece of ammunition, or to a batch of ammunition which is manufactured at the same time and place.[Todd E Lizotte] Correct

In shorter terms:

Microstamping is done on the firearms, which in turns stamps the ammunition when fired;

Encoding is done on the ammunition during manufacture, and bears no direct relation to the firearm. [Todd E Lizotte] Correct

Have I got the crux of the difference? .[Todd E Lizotte] I believe that defines it clearly. I made some slight changes to the microstamping description.

I'm assuming that you agree in principle to these definitions, and further discussion can ignore to the manufacture-process of "encoded ammunition". Please correct me if I am wrong.

(I'm sorry this is so stilted; I'm attempting to establish a common definition and I'm trying to be precise.) Your approach is fine with me.

______________

Given that the above are common terms of understanding, can we advance to a discussion of "Microstamping of Ammunition" as defined?

For the sake of discussion, all firearms will be defined as having a single firing pin and a single breech mechanism. The options are to provide either the firing pin or the breech part with engraved (defined as "you make indentations or bas-relieve protuberance") marks which will be stamped on a part of the cartridge when the gun is fired".

[Todd Lizotte] The markings we create are designed to maintain the surface integrity (i.e. maintain the spherical datum of the pin or surface as well as the surface of the breach. We create what we call “recessed protected indicia” which in simple terms means we do not change the dynamics of the interaction of the firing pin to the primer, but design for a coining of the surface metal of the primer. As for the breach, we developed a means to analyze the “cycle of fire” of the firearm and place our recessed protected indicia at locations that provide the best marking capability.

All firearms currently microstamp and these unintentional markings form the basis of firearms identification that is used by law enforcement. All we have done is add optimized / intentional marking elements that can ID the firearm, using the existing trace system and without the need for any new infrastructure. The best part is the firearms industry controls the information.

We have four affected parts:

Of the firearm: the firing pin, or the breech. [Todd E Lizotte] Yes, however we specifically had the California policy people leave it less defined to allow each firearm producer the opportunity to use other surfaces within the firearm, such as the ejector and extractor or custom designed elements.

Of the cartridge: the primer, or the base of the case. .

Speaking of the firing pin:

You may agree to any or none of the following statements:

. The firing pin of the firearm is a small part which is not necessarily intrinsic to the manufacture of the basic firearm. The firing pin is a two-dollar 'consumable' part (like pencils in an office) which is expected to wear or deform, requiring occasional replacement.

[Todd E Lizotte] Correct. It is a consumable, not sure I have ever paid $2.00. In fact the ex-head of Ruger (Sanetti) stated in his testimony in Connecticut, that the firing pin is the highest mortality part of Ruger firearms (I think this might be a Ruger issue though – my S&W .40 has a pin that has nearly 6000 rounds fired without failure.)

Based on the forensic community (CA-DOJ), a majority of new model firearms recovered from crime scenes have been fired less than 500 rounds and in many circumstances retain the original lubricant from the factory. Microstamping targets these new models, to track firearms that make it into the market via thefts and straw purchases.

. Replacement of a firing pin may or may not be governmentally controlled; if it is controlled, the cost to the retail customer of the replacement may involve more than the manufacturing costs plus overhead, and may involve considerable delay because the part cannot be stockpiled by the manufacture (more overhead to the manufacture is involved in this.)

[Todd E Lizotte] The California law is specifically written to allow this freedom allowing for owners to switch pins for competition or sport shooting activities. The targeting of straw purchasers is the key. My belief is that you should be able to purchase firing pins. California law should be the model legislation, since it is a simple approach, but maintains the status quo for law abiding citizens.

. Because the bills requiring "Microstamping of ammunition" by a firing pin is based on state law, it is possible to replace a "Microstamping" firing pin by one which is readily acquired out-of-state, or out-of-country, thus obviating the state law. (Note that current California state law only required "Microstamping technology" on "new" firearms, and could take decades to become enforceable.)

. The firing pin is a part which is one of the most wear-susceptible of the entire firearm, not including the barrel and the breech face. As such, the micro-encoding of the cartridge (in this case, the primer) is most likely to be blurred with usage.

[Todd E Lizotte] All of your statements are correct. We figure the firing pin code, should outlive the life of the firing pin. Once again we are not talking about firearms purchased by law abiding citizens.

We have demonstrated >5,000 using live fire testing.

Speaking of the breech:

. "Microstamping" on the breech will only impinge upon the base of the cartridge. This portion of the cartridge is typically pre-embossed with the manufacturer's name, caliber, and any special markings. The embossing is typically deep and prominent. [Todd E Lizotte] Correct

. Given that the "microstamping" of the base of the cartridge may often be obscured by the headstamp, and that headstamp may cause "microstamping" to be imperfectly transferred to the base of the cartridge, what is your estimation of the failure (number or percentage) of "microstamped" codes to be unreadable?

[Todd E Lizotte] The key is redundancy, using standard cartridges there is an ability to get the entire code out of three partial codes. (The sum of the parts scenario) We have designed a method of placing separate codes at angles that guarantee at least one full code and two partials, with the two partials being aligned so one is the front half and the other the back half of the code.

We always test the extreme, a point that is not discussed in the literature done by others you tested circa 1999 technology. We have always tested 8 characters; however our technology will start at six characters for the first 20+ years. Many of the testing using non-optimized firearms, i.e. Krivosta and UC Davis (Which we partially funded) had eight digit codes for a reason. Eight digits represent the largest area on the tip of the pin. We always design and test for added capacity, to give us higher transfer rates. This is shown when people attend our live fire testing. It is not a laboratory setting.

We have other surfaces on the breach face that do not even come near the head stamp locations. Because we work on a micro level there is plenty of real-estate to work with. However, we also balance the size to the dynamics and wear characteristics of the mechanical process of a firearm, which in itself is multivariate.

. Given that ammunition is endemic in the shooting community, it is reasonable to assume that a 'found' cartridge case may have been previously "microstamped" by two or more firearms. What are the chances that such a cartridge case, found at the scene of a crime, will be either unreadable (see above), or legally defensible as "not definitively, reliably, or objectively provable" to have LAST been fired by the firearm in question?

.[Todd E Lizotte] We have run reloads, typical tumbling processes of brass cartridges eradicates the previous markings. However, this is one of those “what if” questions that the Forensic professionals laugh at. Forensic investigators know how to determine fresh from old cartridges. They also understand that, even if there are two markings the newest one will have minimal oxidation as compared to the new markings. The science of microscopy is very well developed and it is commonplace to use scanning electron microscopy to identify and verify gun shot residue.

Another point to be made is that “WHAT IF” arguments are scenarios that the forensic community has had to deal with currently. Planting cartridges is not as easy as you might think. I was given an overview of how a crime scene is analyzed. Firearm ejection patterns, projectile trajectory, gun shot residue analysis and general crime scene data, such as foot prints are analyzed.

If someone scattered or planted cartridges; they would conflict with the cartridges that were fired and ejected. The planted cartridges would need to be the same make and model ammo, same gun powder and would have to be placed in reasonable proximity to the ejected cartridges. On top of that, the forensic professional’s comment that planted cartridges open doors for further leads, since the cartridges will be shown to be plants, since there will be no projectiles to match them. A planted cartridge offers a potential for fingerprints, DNA and possibly the location where the criminal acquired them, which could lead to a security camera where the cartridges were taken. All in all, the planting theory seems to be not an issue to law enforcement. That is what they say.

The introduction of new forensic technology has never created a paradigm shift in the intelligence of the common criminal.

In either case:

. Given that cartridge cases are often left on the surface of shooting ranges around the country, and that they may be picked up and retained (and reloaded) by any casual bystander, and;

. given that these cartridge cases may be reloaded by anyone in possession of an (unregulated) reloading press, and;

. given that reloading ammunition is a decidedly unregulated process, and;

. given that the majority of firearms will for the foreseeable future (decades, at least) NOT be subject to these "new guns" laws, what are the chances that a pre-microstamped cartridge case will be used in a capital crime to draw police attention to a shooter whose only crime is failing to recover ALL of his expended cases at a public firing range? .

[Todd E Lizotte] Next to zero – consider that we are talking about opportunistic straw purchasers, who trade in firearms to criminal networks. These are not the type of people to go to the local gun range to test their newly acquired stolen or illegally acquired firearm. I am not sure about where you shoot, but the facility I use has security cameras and requires that you give your license and fill out a form every time you go there, even as a member.

Take for instance a gang drive by shooting, the criminal rolls down a window, points the firearm and rapidly unloads into someone … at the same time they have to reach into their pocket and throw out cartridges. They are too juiced to think straight, let alone plant cartridges.

I do agree with you that the "Encoded Ammunition" laws now being proposed should not be confused with "Microstamping Ammunition" laws based upon your technology.

"Encoded Ammunition" laws (bills) are ipso facto an infringement upon the Second Amendment, in that the cost of conforming to such regulation includes manufacturing controls which are so prohibitively costly that ammunition manufacturers cannot provide affordable ammunition to 99+% of the consuming public.

[Todd E Lizotte] I agree, I am against encoded ammo, it is a new government controlled bureaucracy and default purchaser registration.

However, I hope that you will perceive that "Microstamping Ammunition" bills, while they initially seem to be 'low impact' on the consumer (in terms of purchase price of the original firearm) can reasonably be expected to not only promulgate unlimited expense in terms of maintenance, but are also (in the viewpoint of my fellow firearms owners) rife with future restrictions on the second amendment ... to say nothing of the possibility of unreasonable criminal charges being levied upon honest citizens.

[Todd E Lizotte] Sorry, I do not agree. I see Microstamping “handguns” as a firearm industry controlled technology and a law enforcement tool for targeting those <1%>nd amendment right they are given. Furthermore, the firearms industry was provided with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005), the purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. I think adding microstamping is a quid pro quo to law enforcement to assist them in targeting the trafficking of firearms. The industry should self police itself, but it should also look for simple ideas to improve the quality of investigative leads, i.e. evidence for incidents where firearms are used to commit a crime.

As for unlimited expense, that is not the case. With most law enforcement tools that have been implemented, the costs is continuous – such as CoBIS in NY and RBID in MD or even the ballistic imaging technology by the ATF called NIBIN. Microstamping is an initial per gun price once or in the worse case if you replace a firing pin.

We pay ~$15.00 / box of ammo; we pay upwards of ~$27.00 / firing pin for one that is made with high precision, exotic materials/replacement springs and balanced weight.

If you go to Dunkin Donuts you pay ~$2.00 for a cup of coffee and if you are a Starbucks drinker, you pay ~$4.00, and then we pay almost $4.00 for a gallon of gas.

With that said, when looking at a technology that could allow the industry to assist law enforcement and hold off seriously bad legislation, like bullet serialization and RFID tags in the future, the cost is insignificant.

Instead the firearm industry representatives tell us they will be able to defend our rights. The ole camel nose under the tent they tell us, well it is time to hike out into the desert and shoot the camel before it even gets to the tent. A microstamping strategy would allow the firearms industry to work with law enforcement; target trafficking using an industry controlled technology; hold of legislation like RFID tagging and ammo serialization; hold off imaging of newly purchased firearms using new 3D high resolution technology (being tested by the ATF as we speak) read the NAS report; all with a simple passive code added to the firearm.

I attached a multi-hit cartridge that was deemed illegible (unsatisfactory) by one of our opponents. As you can see it is easily readable by using scanning electron microscopy. Much of the data gathered by people who have evaluated the technology used low end microscopy without metallurgical lighting. I added another image showing how using appropriate microscopy improves the readability.

I included a reference about pattern crimes. Just like hunting terrorists, good “fresh” INTEL – Data is what is needed to combat trafficking.

Microstamping is a forensic tool.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Best regards,
Todd Lizotte

NOTE:
Attachments may be viewed here.

April Blogmeat

In a frantic effort to add meaningful content to this website during the month of April, 2008, Cogito Ergo Geek proudly presents ... APRIL BLOGMEAT!

Mazda, faced with a surfeit of automobiles which may or may not have been subject to hidden damage as a result of an auto-transporter ship which did its very best to turn turtle, has boldly faced the question of "How to Destroy Brand New Cars"!


The Wall Street Journal shows us exactly how low-couture we are by describing a $300,000 watch which doesn't tell time. (Hint: "It sold out in 48 hours". Question: how do they know ... did they have a Timex to tell them when 48 hours had passed?)

The Independence Institute acknowledges the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre with this article about "Good Citizens and Guns" (sorry, I'm slow picking up on this one.)

Wednesday marked one year since the massacre at Virginia Tech by mentally-disturbed student Seung-Hui Cho. Last week the university offered anguished parents a settlement of $100,000 per murdered child.

There are three things wrong with this: First, even in financial terms, it is hopelessly inadequate to redress the deaths of these talented young people.

Second, it does nothing to correct the useless, symbolic policy which facilitated their deaths.

Third, if you don’t think that the policy is wrong,Virginia Tech has no liability for the deaths it facilitated.

That policy is the “gun-free zone.” Even if the victims had possessed permits to carry a gun, Virginia Tech forbade them to have that means of self-defense while on campus. This ensured that only the killer (who, of course, violated the “gun-free zone” policy just as he violated the laws against murder) and uniformed police would have guns. Obviously the university could not afford to station officers in every lecture hall.

Yet nothing less would substitute for the victims themselves having had the power to stop the massacre.

Israel has a better alternative. Decades ago, Palestinian terrorism was being directed at schools. Yasser Arafat calculated that small children can’t shoot back, and that killing them was the best way to terrify parents into fleeing Israel.

Israel’s response?

They armed schoolteachers and school bus drivers. Now, even suicide terrorists don’t attack schools -- lest they be shot down before they can reach their helpless victims.

"Why We Want to Kill You"
Breitbart TV provides a video of the $10,000 'speech' at the University of Colorado earlier this week by two self-professed reformed "terrorists". We don't know whether this is reality or theater, but these two dudes seem civilized and are definitely showmen.

Want more? Here's the "Muslims Against Terrorism" website, and the University of Colorado "Daily Camera" write-up is here. Don't blame me if it's sophomoric; its' ... ah ... the product of sophomores; M'kay? (I hate the slang, I only use it to abuse it.)

"Roadkill: if a car hits it, is it still a trophy?"
This Twin Cities dot Com article channels deceased road-fritters in a transparent attempt to lend verisimilitude to critters whose main claim to fame is that, majestic as they may have been in Real Life, they were Killed by Chryslers instead of having been Massacred by Magnums. Yeah, they're not eligible for Boone & Crockett, so instead of sinking into ignominy (and rotting by the side of the road) they can be Interned in the Internet.

I haven't spent a lot of time surfing the website ... but you can. Write if you find a real job. And don't blame me if the bright yellow of the background blinds you.

FREEP offers another warning: if you take your kid to the ball game, don't buy him the lemonade. Dude, it's not your father's lemonade, do you hear what I'm saying?

And if you ask Christopher Ratte and his wife how they lost custody of their 7-year-old son, the short version is that nobody in the Ratte family watches much television.

The way police and child protection workers figure it, Ratte should have known that what a Comerica Park vendor handed over when Ratte ordered a lemonade for his boy three Saturdays ago contained alcohol, and Ratte's ignorance justified placing young Leo in foster care until his dad got up to speed on the commercial beverage industry.

Meanwhile ...

Mayor Richard Daley said Saturday Chicago police officers will he armed with high-powered assault rifles when they're on the streets fighting gangs and other criminals.

"Many times they're outgunned, to be very frank," Daley said at an event in the Englewood neighborhood. "When they come to a scene, someone has a semi fully-automatic weapon and you have a little pistol, uh, good luck."

The city's police officers carry pistols, and Daley suggested they will start carrying "M4 rifles."

Police spokeswoman Monique Bond said the department still is working out details about the M4 carbines.

Essentially, he's arming each and every Chicago Cop with an M4 ... and response from the pro-gun advocates in America is outrage.

Not that they (we) don't think that it's a good idea; not that they (we) don't think that 'everybody should own one'. It's just the that the hypocrisy of of Gun-Grabber Daley is just too frustrating to bear.

Kim Du Toit would (and by the time you read this, probably did) consider it a "RCOB" ("Red Curtain of Blood") moment.

Finally, and ultimately, Aromatherapy Makes You Feel Sexy. Or nauseous ... whatever.

I once associated with a Licensed Massage Therapist who was into Aromatherapy, Reiki, Chakra, Crystal Therapy, Pyramid Therapy, Copper Therapy, Non-Manipulative Chiropractic ("Kinesiology") and almost any other bizarre believe system you could imagine ... and some you could not conceive.

The "Kinesiology" link deserves some explanation.

In 1993 I was rear-ended while sitting at a stop light. The EMT took me to the hospital, where they subjected me to the interesting experience of an MRI. (This is a diagnostic procedure, not a treatment.) This determined that I had been subject to extensive soft-tissue damage, along with some possible cervical misalignment.

So I went to a Chiropractor, who was not dis-recommended by my 'friend'.

When I finally was admitted for treatment (no examination was performed) I was instructed to lay on a hard leather couch.
The "Chiropractor" then used a (dirty) Popsicle stick to probe various areas of my chest, which he held in his left hand, while with his right hand he squeaked a fore-finger across the surface of a Formica-topped table.

I waited for 10 minutes for him to perform some act which I could credit as either 'diagnostic' or 'therapeutic'. Instead, as my astonishment waned, he finally put away his precious dirty Popsicle stick and announced that I had received grevious injuries which would require an extended period of treatment ... would I please pay the receptionist, and make an appointment for further such treatment?



Without a word, I left his Formica-plated 'treatment room', shelled out some big-bucks cash to the receptionist, and made my escape as expeditiously as possible.

When I got home I described my experience to my Licensed Massage Therapist friend, and waited for her evaluation.

She said: "Well, Kinesiology is not the most common Chiropractic treatment, and it's not just for everyone. But it is acknowledged and taught by the College of Chiropractic."

I never went back to he "Kinesiologist", and the LMT and I soon parted company,

I left a lot of 'good stuff' behind, in my rush to move to another state, but nothing that I couldn't live without.

Well, I do miss the VCR and the .22 Magnum Derringer. But as I said, I can live without 'em.

Not This Guy!

Knowledge Is Power ... feeds my daily theme of "stealing from the people who surf the net, so we don't have to."

(Note: Shortest Geek-Length Post in Recent History.)

A Law Built On A Lie

Xavier Thoughts: Gun Bans in the UK provides a video article which demonstrates the outrage felt by many British Citizens over the confiscation of otherwise-legal firearms. (I won't link directly to the video. Xavier found it, and posted it first. He deserves the traffic. Please go view the video, then come back here for comments.)

This confiscation was intended to make British Citizens safer, they said. The theory was "Less Guns, Less Crime" although I am unable to determine the amount of threat to public peace has been reduced by, for example, making it impossible for Olympic .22 Pistol Shooters to practice for an international sport in their own country.

The result has been that honest citizens have been disarmed, even in the supposed sanctity of their own homes. And the consequences of that is, honest citizens can't fight back when attacked by armed hoodlums.

Extending the illogic to the ultimate absurdity, Brits are seeing that they cannot defend themselves with a shotgun, with a kitchen knife, with a sword, with a club ... even by beating the home invader senseless with bare fists when said home invader is found naked and chasing your screaming nubile daughter around her bedroom in the middle of the night while he is armed with a large knife and a hard-on.

To illustrate the illegality of defending your home with a shotgun:
I have written before about Tony Martin, a British Subject and victim of the unjust laws which deprive Britains of the right to defend themselves and their homes.

Martin, a farmer, had been burglarized several times and was not able to call on timely and effective support from the police. In frustration, he sat up of nights with a (legal) shotgun to guard his home. When another (or the same?) set of burglars broke in, he opened fire, killing one and wounding another (armed) career burglar. (Between the two of them the burglar had more than 50 burglaries to their 'credit', although one of the pair was only 16 years old.)

Martin was charged and convicted of murder, and sentenced to life in prison. This was later reduced to a charge of Manslaughter. Martin has served his reduced (3 years of a 5 year sentence) term and has been released.

However, he remains an iconic symbol of the injustice served upon victims of crime in England.

In the video, Martin is very much a dominant subject; he is known to have been unrepentant, cleaving 'in his bitterness' to the conceit that he was right in defending his home and his person with deadly force.

In America, the "Castle Defense" laws proliferate; in England, the same laws which sentenced this beleaguered man to Life in Prison remain unchanged, and honest citizens continue to be charged and imprisoned for defending their home and their person.

In the video, Brits march in silent protest against the willful efforts of their government to deprive them of their right to self-defense, and the incompetence of police to defend them from armed predators.

When you watch the video, you will see that the protesters are saying all of the things which we on this side of the Atlantic Ocean have been saying for years. Essentially, they realize that they have been lied to by the politicians and, by not standing up for their rights at the very first moment of infringements, they found themselves on the slippery slope which Americans are attempting to avoid today.

And they make their "Mea Maxima Culpa" statement loud and clear.

Their message to America is unequivocal in the sound-bites:

"Our Freedom Isn't Safe."

"Everything is going ... our traditions ... and this is what we're fighting for".

(Narrator: "... [T]hey only have themselves to blame for government policies which threaten their way of life, their security, and the future of democracy in Britain.")

"We've been very apathetic for years, and now it's time to fight for it."

"It's a disgrace, and we've seen these fundamental liberties eroding in the last twenty-odd years in England ... all sorts of legislation which should never have appeared. "

(Narrator: "Sportsmen and shooters, fooled by Politicians ... now realizing, perhaps too little and too late, that their traditions are no more secure than their freedoms.")

"...[T]his about the liberty of the individual to choose for him or herself what they do."

(Narrator: "A future that's in doubt, and the largest peaceful protest in British history to try to choose that has got many asking, 'where were these voices six years ago when there was an outright ban on handguns? When pistol shooters were forced to surrender their handguns, confiscated by their government to be destroyed. ... Gun bans that, as was predicted, have simply backfired.")

"We need to be armed, you know we're not safe any more, everything is changing."

"The authorities have no way of controlling criminals, so they control the honest citizen, because we're an easy target."

[Anonymous Policeman: "It's totally out of control. ... For the first time ever, Bobbies are carrying firearms; but they're still out-gunned by criminals, who can get anything they want. ... Why are British Subjects not be be trusted?"]

And finally, the words we dreaded to hear:

"America: It Can Happen To You."

The question is, are we likely to heed this cautionary tale and avoid the fate of the Brits, or will we also put our trust in perfidious politicians with an agenda?

UPDATE: 01-May-2008
Re-reading this article today "as published", I discovered that a section was inadvertently deleted during 2nd-draft editing. I apologize for the unprofessional and choppy result. I've filled in the blanks a bit, hopefully it's a bit more readable now. I usually read the published version so I can catch this kind of error, but I failed to do so last night. I had a lot more to say about other subjects, which is less a justification than a thin excuse. Yes, it will probably happen again.

I've also made minor additions to the context, and cosmetic changes in the Quotes to improve readability.

Kel-Tec Magazine Alterations

I told you before Buy-A-Gun Day that I had done my new-gun shopping early, and I found a Kel-Tec P3AT with a single standard 6-round magazine. It worked just fine.

But I was vaguely dissatisfied because the pistol is so small that it's difficult to hang onto it when shooting, and I would rather have another round or two loaded in the gun.




I want more ammo, and a better grip on the gun.




I decided that my single six-round magazine didn't meet my needs.

The six-round magazine had two flaws:

1. too few rounds in the magazine;
2. the pistol is so small, it's hard to control (because only two fingers actually gripped the butt of the pistol.

The solutions:



Buy a magazine extension (extended base pad) to increase the magazine capacity, and buy a Grip Extension base-pad to provide a leveraged gripping surface for a third finger.



Of course, because I only owned the one magazine (the one that came with the pistol), I needed to buy at least one more magazine for the extended magazine capacity.

And because I wanted to have one magazine in the original configuration, I bought a second magazine for the Grip Extension base-pad.

So I bought 2 new magazines from Kel-Tec, plus the magazine extension, plus the grip extension.


When I put the magazine extension on, I found I couldn't get the seventh round in the magazine.


And when I put the grip extension in, I found that the six-round magazine capacity was compromised. The top two rounds wouldn't chamber. Instead, the slide would lock back. I had to take two rounds out before the slide could chamber a round, essentially reducing the magazine capacity from six rounds to four rounds.


(I have to admit, though, that the grip extension allowed me to grip the pistol with three fingers, and the pinky finger reseted upon the point of the horn, perhaps providing more support to the grip. I'll have to try it on the range to determine whether this actually improves shooting.)

Here's what I know about magazines:

When I bought my Kimber Custom, I also bought some 10-round magazines (Chip McCormick). I could only load 9 rounds in them. The guy I was shooting with decided that was unacceptable, which it was, and he 'muscled' the 10th round into the magazines.

After that, they worked like true gentlemen and I never had another problem with them.

My hope is that the magazines just need a period of breaking in, and after that they'll work as advertised.

I note in passing that the magazines feel like they have burrs all over them. When I load them, there's the sensation that they are gritty. I'm sure there aren't burrs on the springs, and I cannot now account for this feeling.

I'll work them in the gun (as I have done a few times so far) until the magazines smooth out.

One more thing:

When I loaded the standard and the "Extended Capacity" magazines into the pistol, they seated close to the base of the grip.

But when I seated the "Extended Grip" into the pistol, three was a significantly greater gap between the top of the magazine base and the bottom of the grip.

Again, this may matter. We'll know more when I've shot the gun for a while.

If you're buying a Kel-Tec P3AT, you may want to delay buying 'special purpose' magazines until we know that the problems I've described may be resolved.

UPDATE: 01-MAY-2008
When Reader Don asked where I got the grip extension, I realized that I had failed to provide the links to the page on the Kel-Tec website where they can be found. The grip extension is a P-32 & P-3AT accessory, while the rest are strictly P-3AT accessories.

Don, thanks for the reminder. I just hadn't been doing my job.

FIrst Ever Afghanistan 3 gun match

From the Texican Tattler blogspot comes the Texican Tattler: 3 gun video.

This movie shows the construction of multiple COF (Courses of Fire) to create an actual match in the barren sands of Afghanistan.

(I'm taking a lot of this on faith, and assuming even more ... such as, while this is obviously serving U.S. Military I assume they're Army personnel.)

As a CRO I see a lot of potential problems with the stage designs, such as shoot-throughs on a no-shoot/shoot target array, but that's just my petty anal retentive self.

As an American, I'm as proud as I can be to see IPSC/USPSA competition techniques, stages and materials being used by our serving military.

The production of the video is excellent; good photography, excellent editing. I rate this video an enthusiastic Four Geeks Up! ****

(The original is available at YouTube.)

Note: you may recall the Texican Tattler as the original source for the "84 Snakes in a Tub" video (Snakes in a Drain) which I posted in March of 2008. This tears it ... they're going on my sidebar.

USPSA Range Officers

Reader/friend/blogger Rivrdog continues to tease us with thought-provoking challenges of statements which we make here. We tend to take for granted that we are writing for IPSC/USPSA Practical Shooting Competitors, and the result is that we occasionally cause confusion in the readers who are interesting in shooting, perhaps competitive shooting, but who have no personal experience in this fascinating niche sport.

(I'm not using the Royal"we" or the Editorial or Patronizing "we" here. Rather, I'm using the Inclusive "we"; the fine folks who contribute their comments to published articles are as much a part of this website as am I. Of course, I do retain editorial control and responsibility ... as does Rivrdog at this own website, which is eponymously named "Rivrdog".)

In response to a recent article which refers to the role of the Range Officer at an IPSC/USPSA match, both the original text and a "Comment" from a reader refer to the Range Officer (RO) whose presumptive duty was to ensure that safe practices were observed, even under the most extreme conditions ... such as are extant when a competitor is running with a loaded gun, safety off, and trips.

(If that doesn't sound scary to you, please let me assure you that it was scary to me and I was only watching it from a safe location! Also, this is not as rare as you might suppose. What other shooting sports accept running and falling as an exciting, but not unique part of competition?

Rivrdog's comment:

Say, Hobo, aren't you and Jerry a bit cornfused [sic] over the titles here?

I'm an NRA-Certified RANGE SAFETY OFFICER. On a range, during organized competition or not, I am concerned SOLELY with safe gun handling, range practices and shooting.

A RANGE OFFICER is the official in charge of the match aspects of the match being conducted, and he ALSO notes safety and communicates with the RANGE SAFETY OFFICER if he observes unsafe practices, but yes, he WOULD also be involved with paperwork and referee decisions.

BTW, you do have Certified Range Safety Officers at your Practical shoots, don't you?

I am recently certified, and the differences were pointed out several times in the classes leading to the exam and certification.

This is a good question, and speaks to the unique organization of Practical Shooting competition.

I replied in the Comments section of that article, but here is the expanded version of my comment.

The first responsibility of a USPSA "Range Officer" (RO)is Safety. That is, the RO is responsible for both Safety and Administrative [competitive] issues.

Other responsibilities include enforcing the rules of competition, scoring targets, and helping competitors.

Yes, the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) has an extensive (and expensive) Range Officer Training and Certification program, supported at the national level (by the National Range Officers Institute, or NROI.)

I've been a Certified Range Officer (RO) since 1993, and a Chief Range Officer (CRO) since 1997. I recently took a 'refresher course' because USPSA implemented a dramatically modified (and improved) rule book on January 1, 2008.

The Hobo Brasser is also a Certified Range Officer, although I do not know the date of his certification. The same with Walt.

In fact, Range Officers have so many responsibilities that it is perhaps an over-simplification to suggest that his only responsibility is to "keep your eye on the gun", although that is certainly the central and over-riding priority.

The Range Officer is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens on the stage while he is performing his office. This is no different from any other shooting competition.

Range Officers are always working to increase and improve their skills, understanding of the rules, situational awareness and peripheral vision.

Because Practical Shooting includes element of movement with a loaded gun, changes of position and stance, reloading (changing magazines) while moving, non-standard and often confusing stage designs, I think it is fair to say that a USPSA trained, certified and experienced Range Officer can be considered among the most accomplished and competent Range Officers of any shooting sport in the world.

If I had confined my response to the Comments section, that would have been an over-simplification of the duties of the RO. It would also have been lost in the venue of the original post. I think this subject is too important to be lost in Comments, so I decided to use it as the basis for an extended post on the responsibilities of the USPSA Range Officer.

The NROI has much to say about that, in the Range Officer's Creed.


The NROI establishes and maintains a staff of highly trained, experienced instructors who have all achieved the highest level of certification: Range Master (RM). All Certified Range Officers are volunteers. They are not compensated for their service.

Range Masters:
RMs are the penultimate arbiters of decisions concerning safety issues and penalized violations of the rules of competition at Major Matches. These are tournaments at a state level or above.

Their only competition is that their travel, food and lodging expenses may be reimbursed on a per diem basis by the host club.

Their training is expensive, in terms of time, effort and money. RMs come from the members of USPSA who have already been certified at the Chief Range Officer (CRO) level. The RM program requires approximately one year to complete. The final test of a fledgling RM is to work a Major Match as a RM, which is allocated by USPSA only after the RM has completed a course of training (beyond CRO level), testing, and an Oral Exam conducted by a board of experienced RMs.

Most travel, lodging and food expenses incurred during this process are paid for by the RM candidate. There are no NROI costs for RM training ... all of the trainers are, themselves volunteers.

I have not attempted this level of training, so the following comments may be mistaken, misleading, or incomplete. Perhaps active Range Masters can provide corrections.

The duties for which a Range Master is trained (beyond CRO level), somewhat overlap Match Director (MD) duties ... which are purely the administrative responsibilities for hosting a match and will not be detailed here:

• Designing a Major Match in the selection and 'tuning' of unique, challenging yet legal stages;
• Balancing the various 'types' of stages so that no single stage is so time-consuming or difficult that it constitutes a bottleneck in the passage of a squad of competitors from one stage to the next;
• Identifying problematic stages (eg: stages which physical construction is subject to mechanical failure, requiring excessive repairs during conduct of a match);
• Identifying problematic stages (eg: stages which may be engaged in a manner not consistent with the rules of competition);
• Identifying problematic stages (eg: stages which may be controversial, subject to misinterpretation as to the prescribed manner of target engagement, failure to define appropriate shooting stance/position/location;
• Correcting or replacing problematic stages as mentioned above, or replacing them with 'better' stage designs which will not slow down the timely progress of competitor squads from one stage to the next in approximately the same period of time;
• Generally understanding how to to channel 400 competitors through 12 stages in 12 hours shooting time (in other words, how to allow a 2 pound chicken to lay a 3 pound egg without protest or discomfort);
• Working with a Match Director whose expectations may exceed the resources of the host club (stages require more special targets than are available, etc.)

Generally speaking, the RM comes to a match where the MD has sold as many 'slots' to as many potential competitors as possible; the available time for an individual competitor to complete the match is razor thin and exceedingly optimistic; the resources available are perhaps not as prolific as expected, there are fewer ROs available than are needed to run the match; etc.

And the RM will have been trained, and so experienced, that the match runs smoothly and all competitors are convinced that they have participated in the best match of their life.

The trained, experienced RM can make this happen; or, he can fail miserably and the host club never achieves 100% participation again.

No pressure. Just business as usual for the Range Master.

There are fewer than 100 Range Masters in USPSA/NROI. There are approximately 15,000 competitors in USPSA. There is no question why more competitors do not volunteer for RM training and certification.

Instructors:
A very few of the limited number of Range Masters are, by virtue of their training and experience accepted by the NROI as "instructors". These highly trained, certified and experienced individuals spend several weekends a year teaching classes at the RO and the CRO level. Their expenses are not out-of-pocket; instead, they are paid by the host club which must fix the variable cost to students low enough to attract the people who need the training (CRO or RO), yet high enough to pay the instructor costs of travel, lodging, and food. If a host club is not able to balance this equation, the class will be canceled at great disadvantage to the students, the host club, the NROI instructor and USPSA in general.

Every canceled class discourages the students and the host clubs, and the sport has fewer people qualified to officiate at local and major matches.

Chief Range Officer:
The Chief Range Officer candidate pays for his own training. This course of instruction requires two consecutive days over a weekend, and the cost of training (as mentioned above) depends on the cost of bringing a trainer (RM) to the training location, rental of the facilities, and training materials.

The CRO candidate learns the current rules, and also learns how to design a stage ("Course of Fire", or COF). If the submitted COF does not follow current rules of competition, the candidate will be required to submit a 'better' COF design. The candidate is not permitted to 'pass' the course until a legal, viable COF design has been presented and accepted.

Course expenses include whatever training materials provided by the Instructor, from NROI.

In the class I attended this year, this included a "Course Design template" CD, which was the result of a certain software development effort.

I note that while I took the CRO course this year to learn the new rule book, I have not yet submitted the required COF design. Instructor Carl Schmidt was generous in that he did not threaten to rescind my previously established (1997) CRO certification if I did not submit an acceptable COF. Thanks, Carl.

Certified Range Officer:
The course emphasis is on understanding, and demonstrating an ability to apply and enforce, the current Rules of Competition. This course is unique in that it includes a 'range time' component, in which the candidate will act as RO while a fellow candidate shoots a 'difficult' COF.

The successful candidate will have submitted a legal COF design.

He/she will also complete a written test demonstrating his understanding of the current Rules of Competition.

Annual:
Range Officers at the RO and CRO level (at least) will successfully complete an annual written test provided by USPSA, to demonstrate that they do understand the nuances of the current rules. Pass level is 85%, which means you can 'miss' no more than 3 of the 20 questions presented. This is an "open book" test.

Failing this test requires successful participation in an RO (or CRO) course, including all course-design requirements.

Only currently certified Range Officers are permitted to officiate at Major Matches.

Range Masters are required to meet annual standards of participation in Major Matches --- at least officiating as Range Master in one Major Match a year. *(The standards may be higher than described here.)* Their expenses are not necessarily always under-written by the host club, but this is the expectation.

SUMMARY:

Range Officers serve as volunteers, their most frequent justification is "to give back to the sport". They personally bear the cost of most of their training, and much of their manatory yearly re-certification. Serving as Range Officers most frequently interferes with their original goal of participating as a competitor. Range officers typically (even at the local level) spend more time working as Range Officers than they do as Competitors.

Supplementary:
The Range Officer voluntarily places himself in the unenviable position of acting as the "Range Cop" to his friends and colleagues usually, with penalizing a friend by kicking him/her out of the match for a safety violation, he (she?) may experience the angst of '"do the right thing" vs "he's my friend, and I don't want to cause him the embarrassment of a Match Disqualification".

But we do it anyway, because if the safety rules are not strictly enforced, this sport would no longer be one in which WE are comfortable in participating.

Running with guns, safety applied, drawing from the holster, reloading on the move, shooting on the move ... there are so many actions involved in IPSC/USPSA competition which are contrary to intuitive standards of safety. Yet, we are trained to do these things, and we know that every step of the way there is a Range Officer looking over our shoulder to make sure that if we err, we will usually be stopped before our error nears the unacceptable limits of endangering our fellow shooters.

you, the reader, may not be a frequent practitioner of the "Run&Gun" shooting sport. You may not understand why we accept the risks, and trust ourselves to the carefully crafted rules and regulations to keep us safe from our friends and to keep our friends safe from us.


But the safety rules have survived 20 years if empirical testing, and they work. I have witnessed thousands of competitors at IPSC/USPSA matches, and literally millions of rounds fired downrange. I have seen ONE competitor who drew blood due to a gunshot wound ... and the bullet fired did not actually strike him (it was a 'near miss", hitting the carkeys in his pocket.)

That competitor was back on the range before the end of the day, and is now one of the safest and most accomplished competitors I know.

To respond to the questions posed by Rivrdog:

Yes, we do train and certify our Range Officers (which are the same as other shooting sports refer to as "Safety Officers".)

In fact, we hold our Range/Safety offers to the highest possible standards.

In USPSA competition, we absolutely require the highest level of safe gun-handling. Penalties are as extreme as we can realistically impose for a violation of safe gun-handling; if you screw up, we don't let you shoot with us any more today.

And we actively solicit new shooters. We do require that you demonstrate a standard of gun-handling proficiency (we don't care if you can hit the target), and if you don't meet these minimal requirements you will not be permitted to compete.

How many other Shooting Sports meet this standard?

Rivrdog, when is the last time your local club denied competition privileges to a new shooter?


In USPSA, we do it on a monthly basis.

Scary Safety Videos

I can't believe that I'm surfing YouTube tonight for "Scary Safety Videos", but here we are.

First up: Scary 19702 British Public Information Films

The scariest part is the ugly narrators with the bouffant hair styles!

Next: Apaches -Horrific UK Public Information Film - Part 1

Geek length ... which means it's too long, and not enough content to make it worth your time unless you're really bored. Part II of the "Kick the Can" episode available here, if you're interested. It ends with a child drowning in a bog. Then a little girl drinks poison. That takes about 5 minutes. Both episodes are about 9 minutes long. ("Too quiet, I don't like it.")
There's a whole series, as the six children are killed off by various unsafe behavior. It's something like th e Agatha Christie book "And Then There Were None", except not as well written.

Finally, Public Information Film - Venereal Disease

I won't even bother to embed the video ... it's just that stupid. If you want to go watch it, be it on your head. Note: NSFW, NSFY, NSFE (Not Safe For Work, Not Safe For Eyeballs, Not Safe For Ears.)

At least there is some British humor here (note: British Humor is to Humor as Military Music is to Music.)

Oh faugh. The only redeeming value in this entire post is to prove that the Brits can mess up absolutely ANYTHING!

(With respectful apologies to Our British Cousins.)

Falling like a cat twisting in the air to land on its feet

Wow, Poko. Great recovery!

I usually take a lot of pictures, mostly videos, of the matches I attend.

At this weekend's club match at Dundee, I decided not to even carry my camera with me. It was an unseasonably warm and sunny Spring day (68 degrees, no wind, no rain, no winter's cold ...) and SWMBO is home with Walking Pneumonia. I've missed more matches than I have competed in for the past six months, and I just wanted to relax and enjoy the folks and the match.

On the second stage of the day (Stage 1), I reconsidered my decision. The great thing about taking a LOT of videos is that often I serendipitously capture a defining moment which nobody could have predicted. It has happened before, and I was astonished in the event at having caught a competitor performing an amazing act of shooting legerdemain ... or, alternatively, crashing and burning in the most spectacularly manner imaginable. I decided not to go to the camera because, frankly, I was having too much fun and enjoying the company of a bunch of amiable old-pharts which whom I was squadded.

Not ten minutes after having decided not to start filming, an incident occurred which I wished to heaven I had photographed.

S. Pokropowicz, a Paraguayan national (I swear, per prior agreement, that he is not of Polish descent) got tangled up in a rope which was part of a stage prop and took a particularly nasty spill.

At that moment, I regretted most sincerely that I was not running the camera.

Fortunately, another squad member WAS filming with a VHS-style camera, and they have assured me that they will send the video to me for inclusion here, as soon as possible.

Here's what happened:

Stage 2 was an all-steel stage, the central target array of which was a Texas Star. The competitor was required to open the door, which pulled an attached rope to a weighted arm of the Star and initiated rotary action on the target array. Essentially, open the door and the Star starts moving.

In the actual event, the Paraguayan National "Poko" (I swear he is not Polish) "shouldered" the door to prevent a rebound action which might have interfered with his shooting. It worked for him, the door was not part of the shooting problem for him.

Unfortunately "the rope" was a problem.

When he muscled the door out of his way, he added another vector to the stage props, which caused the rope to form a bight. That is to say, it dragged slack from the rope into the area in which Poko intended to stand; he stepped into the loop.

When he moved quickly toward the next shooting position, the rope caught on his boot, then on his ankle.

When Poko reached the end of the rope, it tightened on his ankle and tripped him as assuredly as an 19th century (or 21st Century "man trap".
Poko tried to balance on his free leg, but he had built up to much forward momentum; he went down. Hard.

The rope tried hard to twist him in the air, but he somehow managed to counter-twist.

When he hit the ground (and at all moments up to this point), the muzzle of the gun was pointed down-range in a safe manner.

Poko ... was not. He was all over the place, but he retained sufficient presence of mind to ensure that the (loaded, cocked-and-locked, safety definitely OFF and finger definitely OFF THE TRIGGER) pistol never for a moment pointed in an unsafe direction.

Range Officer "Walt the Revolver Shooter" handled almost everything right. Correction: his every action with regards to safety issues was flawless.

First, Walt observed that by the time the body parts stopped bouncing the gun had (a) never pointed in an unsafe direction; (b) the competitor's finger was off the trigger; (c) the gun had been safely deposited on the ground; and (d) although Poko had realistically assumed the "Dying Cockroach" position, he was still in effective control of the gun,

Walt then hovered over the gun until Poko was back on his feet, then WALT (the RO, not the Shooter) retrieved the gun and determined that it was in a 'safe' condition (unloaded, hammer down) before safely returning the gun to Poko.

Poko received the safe gun and returned it safely to his holster, being at that time having recovered to a standing position.

At that time, Walt scored the appropriate miss / FTE (Failure To Engage) penalties on the final eight targets, and the rest was all administrative trivia.

After Action Report:

1. Walt had effectively stopped the competitor from any other action, and assumed control of the stage ... also of the competitor and the gun.
   
2. Walt scored the targets, and Poko was distracted by Geek attempts to convince him that he really NEEDED to (a) clean the serious 2nd degree abrasion on his right knee, (b)a pply a topical antibiotic cream (Neosoprin), and (c) apply a large bandage over the wound, so that his denim trouser would not further abrade the wound during the final three stages.
3. While RO Walt correctly (and prudently) insured that the range was 'safe' in all respects, he did overlook one small administrative requirement: Rather than to offer the competitor the option to stop the stage at that point, or to continue shooting, the RO arbitrarily stopped the stage and assigned all applicable FTE and MISS penalties for the eight-target array which had not been engaged. This essentially imposed a Zero score for the state, and while we were happy that nobody was threatened by an out-of-control gun, the choice to either stop or continue (accepting a monumentlal time disadvantage proerly should be the choice of the Competitor, not of the RO.

In the actual event, the Competitor was severely discomforted, both physically and competitively. Given that it took him a full minute to recover, I'm certain that he would have elected to stop the stage at the moment of interruption, rather to continue.

Still, that is a choice best left to the Competitor, adnd for the future benefit of Range Officers, it warrants comment.

The fine folks who were actually filming at the time the "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof" incident occurred have assured me that they would forward the film to me for inclusion here. I have not yet received the film (hence its non-inclusion here) but I will receive it in good time. I remain confident that you will accept the video as an object lesson which will benefit us all, and not as a reflection on the gun-handling skills of the competitor.
__________________________________________
Perhaps contrary to the expectations of a few readers, this incident does not reflect negatively on:

• The stage designer, who could not have anticipated the bizarre effects of "shouldering the door", but who will doubtless consider this in future matches;
• The Range Officer, who is admittedly relatively new to the concept of being the final arbiter of Competitor Performance. He focused on the safety aspects of a disturbing and difficult situation. He correctly focused on safety issues; all else is just 'paperwork'.
• The competitor, who had no way of appreciating that the rope would snag him during movement, and who instinctively recognized that his highest priority during the fall was to keep the muzzle of the un facing in a safe direction.

I'm not saying that any of the participants/contributors of this sate are without fault. I'm just saying that every actor participated in the sense of "good faith"
__________________________________

After the match I talked to Evil Bill, who was the Match Director of this match.

He stated that he not only was a witness to Poko's Downfall, but that he watched the next dozen competitors and NONE OF THEM demonstrated a proclivity to being tangled up in the satge activator props.

It's just one of those things. Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.

________________________
UPDATE: 03-MAY-2008
the video, which does not include 'The Rope', is available here.

Steyn: Guns and God? Hell, yes

I have to admit to an Unnatural Tendency: I love Mark Steyn.

No no, it's not physical relationship (although in a parallel universe wherein I was a woman I might consider wanting to bear his children if only to proliferate his political genius unto the next generation.)

It's only that I consider Steyn to be one of the most prolific, entertaining, brilliant and accurate writer in the western world today. I rank him right up there with Peggy Noonan, with many of the headline writers from National Review Online (can you say, for example, Jonah Goldberg?) following behind.

On this website I've quoted, cited and invariably encouraged you to Read Steyn fairly often. In fact, an informal survey (in which I just now asked myself "who do you quote most"?), I find that Steyn shares the Honor Spot with Rudyard Kipling.

So it was with gratifying surprise that I received an email from Honorary Geek Scott F., directing my attention to a recent article by Mr. Steyn titled ... well you can see the article title.


In "Guns and God: Hell, Yes", Steyn Responds to Barack Obama's recent statement that (small town conservatives) are (bitter because they are frustrated about their economic situation) and have (cleaved to their guns and their God ... as if this were A Bad Thing.)

Here's the full text of the comment:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

... and in a grab from the MSM:

But that's not the news we're talking about here.

Let's go back to the Steyn article, in some depth.

... I note a global survey on optimism: 61 percent of Americans were optimistic about the future, 29 percent of the French, 15 percent of Germans. Take it from a foreigner: In my experience, Americans are the least "bitter" people in the developed world. Secular, gun-free big-government Europe doesn't seem to have done anything for people's happiness. Consider by way of example the words of Keith Reade. He's not an Obama speechwriter, he's a writer for the London Daily Mirror. And the day after the 2004 presidential election he expressed his frustration in an alarmingly Obamaesque way:

"Were I a Kerry voter, though, I'd feel deep anger, not only at them returning Bush to power, but for allowing the outside world to lump us all into the same category of moronic muppets. The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', nonpassport ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest d*** in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong.'"

Well, that's certainly why I supported Bush, but I'm not sure it entirely accounts for the other 62,039,073 incontinent rednecks.

... and ...

Obama and far too many Democrats have bought into this delusion, most thoroughly distilled in Thomas Frank's book "What's The Matter With Kansas?", whose argument is that heartland voters are too dumb (i.e., "moronic muppets") to vote for their own best interests.

... and ...

A while back, I was struck by the words of Oscar van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay humanist (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool). Reflecting on the Continent's accelerating Islamification, he concluded that the jig was up for the Europe he loved, but what could he do? "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you don't understand that there are times when you'll have to fight for it, you won't enjoy it for long. That's what a lot of Reade's laundry list – "gun-totin'," "military-lovin'" – boils down to. As for "gay-loathin'," it's Oscar van den Boogaard's famously tolerant Amsterdam where gay-bashing is resurgent: The editor of the American gay paper the Washington Blade got beaten up in the streets on his last visit to the Netherlands.

God and guns. Maybe one day a viable society will find a magic cure-all that can do without both, but Big Government isn't it. And even complacent liberal Democrats ought to be able to look across the ocean and see that. But, then, Obama did give the speech in San Francisco, a city demographically declining at a rate that qualifies it for EU membership. When it comes to parochial simpletons, you don't need to go to Kansas.

The arrogance of the man, to quote the America-haters and turn their words back on them.

The genius of the man, to make obvious the obtuse character of the America-haters, and to hold the light of truth so that their shady character is revealed.

But if you really want to review the opinion of Main Stream America (as opposed to the Main Stream Media, as represented by the failing New York Times), you may consider the Comments section of this article to be an interesting resource. There you will find Americans cheerfully

Just as a 'for-example', some Americans live in 'economically disadvantaged' areas not because they are unable to leave, but because they blatantly like the place where they live. They're not shy in speaking out in favor of their choice, and often they manage to hide their 'embitterment' behind a brave facade of cheerful exuberance:

jlbaker wrote:

One of the most exasperating things to us 'hay seeds' is that we have not asked for help. The formula is simple. If you like your environment, stay. If you must make 100 grand a year, leave for the city. We may be slow, but we figured out that one without Mr. Obama's help. For the political elites to even offer to 'save' us runs so brazenly against simple economics that I want to laugh...but they are being serious. If something works, it survives. If it does not work, it dies (I give you Detroit. Hardly a country bumpkin town. How well has it been doing lately?) Small town America may shrink, but enough people prefer it that I don't worry about it disappearing (unlike say, Jane Smiley, who is crying big liberal tears as we small towns seal our own doom by supporting religion, Republicans, and the 2nd Amendment). Besides, shouldn't the liberals be thrilled that small town America, apparently the haven of such anti-social behavior as being pro gun rights, 'cuts its own throat'?

(Note that Jane Smiley is a Pulitzer Prize writer, but she is famous chiefly for writing a 'bitter' polemic in response to George W. Bush's win against John Kerry (who was a decorated hero of the Vietnam War and will soon release his military records for public review, as he has promised to do since 2006 -- real soon now, watch this space) immediately after the results of the 2004 presidential election ... which required a month to "move on" from the Democratic legal challenges because the Dems couldn't believe that their candidate was even more lame than the Conservative candidate ... were confirmed. Ha ha ha, I laugh at your political discomfort, Jane Smiley. Does this make me a "Moronic Muppet"? Please say yes, I am honored by your disrespect.)
...

It's obvious (or should be, I think) why I so admire this Canadian/New Hampshire writer who has such a clear insight of the basic anger evinced by the European Culture which rages in frustration about the 'cowboy community' of America, and at the same time admit to their own effete voluntary disempowerment: "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Doesn't this single short sentence perfectly encapsulate the true Euro-Arrogance?

...

Today, at the USPSA match in Dundee, The Hobo Brasser interrupted the pre-match competitors' meeting with an announcement:

"Everyone who is bitter about their economic situation, and cleave to their guns and their God, please raise your hands."

I raised my hand. So did every one of the 51 competitors at the match.


Then we all laughed, and got down to the serious business of organizing ourselves for the serious business as Red State (actually, Oregon is a Blue State) Conservatives of punching holes in cardboard, and knocking down steel plates, in a day "... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Students for Conealed Carry: College Commentary

We've talked before about the difficult question of whether to allow concealed carry of firearms on college campus.

Some people say:

Yup, this group wants to legalize the carrying of concealed handguns on campus. My campus. This is a very, very bad idea.

Most of the kids I know forget more than occasionally to do their readings for class. How can these same kids be trusted to remember to engage the safeties on their handgun? I don’t want to bump into the guy next to me in class and get shot in the foot.

Most of the kids I know don’t lock their room every time they step out to get their laundry, nor do they lock up their valuables. What’s to stop the curious neighbor from toying playfully with their friend’s handgun?

And during the late night weekend hours when thousands of drunk 18 to 20-somethings stumble about State Street, who is going to stay home and guard the firearms? Designate that.

...

And don’t tell me that only responsible people with clean records will get a hold of these guns, because the Virginia Tech shooter purchased his Glock legally. Consider yourselves trumped, SCCC. Euchre!

I don’t deny that there is a place for guns in our society, but that place is not the college campus. If campus law enforcement’s ability to control alcohol and marijuana is any indication, college campuses are not safe places for lethal weapons.

I don't blame this college student for being concerned about firearms carry by students who may be 'away from home for the first time'. That's a lot of responsibility for post-adolescents who haven't yet learned to control their own hormones, and who think that a keg party is the height of social interaction.

The folks who commented on this article are even more outspoken, but they are decidedly on-subject. For example, Brian says:

Guns are bad. Guns kill. Whenever there are guns, even if the intent is to protect oneself, statistics show that bad stuff happens waaay more often when there are guns than when there are no guns.

Uh ... excuse me?

Brian doesn't seem to be aware of the nuances (I'm told that a "nuanced position" is very important to the Progressive Community) of Concealed Carry.

It's easy to dismiss the concerns voiced by such people as Brian. But that would be wrong.

Brian may be misinformed, but that doesn't mean that his concerns are without merit.

What? Are the people who would be allowed to carry firearms typical of the beer-swilling, pot-smoking 'average student' which are presumed to be candidates for legal carry of a concealed weapon?

Well, no.

The Oregon State Barometer today published an editorial which actually recognizes that such an important question deserves more than a hip-shot objection to Concealed Carry on Campus. You should read the whole article, but the conclusion reads like this:

Those who go through the process of applying for a concealed carry permit have earned the right to conceal a weapon on their person, according to our laws.

Socially, we may not want those around us to carry a weapon, but in terms of constitutional freedoms, the rights granted by our law should not be shrugged off at the schoolhouse gate, to quote a famous court ruling.

While we hope that a gun never needs to be used on our campus against any person, we believe our rights and freedoms should never be taken lightly.

I encourage you to read the article, because the editor who wrote it must have learned something in his (her?) sojourn at an institutional of higher learning. He (she?) actually looks at 'the other side' of the question and recognizes that the process of qualifying for a "Carry Concealed Handgun" license in Oregon (at least in Benton County) involves/ includes a much more stringent 'vetting' process than is presumed by Brian.

We cannot ignore the concern that irresponsible students, under the influence of alcohol, drugs or just the stress of academic life may be unable to handle the added responsibility of carrying a firearme on campus. After all, this is the concern voiced by their fellow students.

But we must also factor into this, the fact that (in a state which legally allows CCH persons to carry a weapon on campus, and the only restriction is the the University provides such penalties as loss of scholarship or registration for students, and loss of employment for faculty and staff) concealed carry may be legal according to the State but it is administratively denied by the Institution.

There are persons on these campuses, not subject to the vagaries of influences evinced by youth, inexperience and hormones which are so frequently presented by detractors of the CCH option.

Staff and Faculty are often more mature, more experienced, and better trained than the callous youth who are most often cited as a reason why CCH should not be permitted.

University Administrative Regulations do not typically factor these people into their decision making process.

And that's a mistake which will, inevitably, lead to the "Universities Tried, Students Died" scenario which is best demonstrated by the Virginia Tech Massacre ... a tragedy which could have been avoided.

As could the next such tragedy.
x

DNA

This courtesy of Kim du Toit:

The referenced article (and the link to the applicable DOJ "Proposed Rule") refer to the announced intention of the Department of Justice to require DNA swab/samples to be taken from all arrested American citizens.

This isn't restricted to convicted criminals, it would allow police to:

... collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States. Unless otherwise directed by the Attorney General, the collection of DNA samples may be limited to individuals from whom an agency collects fingerprints.

If you are "detained" (scenario: a natural disaster occurs in your area, the National Guard arrives at your home and announces the [illegal] intention to confiscate your firearms and forcibly, if necessary, relocate you; you resist, and you are therefore "detained"), you are subject to DNA sampling.

If you object, you may be forceably restrained and a DNA sample taken regardless of your protest/objection/resistance/declaration of Civil Rights under the 1st and the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Du Tuit's blog includes contact information where you can object to the appropriate (?) agency.