Arizona Immigration Law

Arizona Immigration Law Draws Ire of Sharpton, N.Y. Politicians -- Daily Intel

A number of high-profile detractors spoke out this weekend regarding Arizona’s controversial new immigration law - which would make being an undocumented immigrant in the state a crime, and allow police officers to ask anyone “suspected of being an illegal immigrant” for documentation. Rev. Al Sharpton and New York-area Hispanic leaders are planning a protest involving "civil disobedience" when the bill - which President Obama has referred to as “misguided” - goes into effect in late July or August.

"Uncle Al" is big on rhetoric when his name is not in the headline; in fact, he's especially outraged when his name is NOT in the headline.

Al has enough skeletons in his closet that a reasonable person would expect him to have clammed up years ago. But Al has come out of the closet, in the sense that the whole world already knows about his continuing story of misadventures (hint: even the leftist SLATE.COM has commented on the 1987 Tawana Brawley story, undermining Sharptons repeated assertions that "Juries are proven wrong every day".

Now Al is upset because a single state (Arizona) has passed a law stating that "Illegal Aliens are ... illegal".

What's wrong with that?

According to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, the law will " ... [require] police to question people about their immigration status — including asking for identification — if they suspect someone is in the country illegally."

For Sharpton, this will lead to "profiling". Essentially, this means that police will focus on people who look ... Hispanic.

Al has a point here. There are 'other than Hispanic' people crossing our borders every day. In order to avoid "profiling", Arizona police should ask every person they see in the streets for identification. They may be Iraqi suicide bombers.

But this is obviously too broad a population sample for local police forces to consider. Yes, an Iraqi suicide bomber is a much greater danger than a man from Oaxaca who just wants a good job picking lettuce in California.

Arizona, though, is facing a crisis. For one thing, there are so any people unlawfully crossing the border to take advantage of American domestic policies ... such as Universal Health Care ... that many hospitals in Arizona have closed their doors; they have more unpaying patients than the paying patients can carry.

A 2003 article from Front Page Magazine says:

Inside the much-celebrated Christmas present to seniors from President Bush and Congress—the $395 billion Medicare package—another stocking stuffer went largely unnoticed, one that gouges the taxpayer yet again to benefit lawbreakers. Hidden within the sweeping reforms to Medicare is a provision that would provide $1 billion in federal funds for illegal immigrant health care. The Medicare bill, which swept through Congress , promises to be a centerpiece in President Bush's re-election plans.

A 2008 article from Western Voices World News describes the plight of many states, similar in content, including Arizona:

Arizona, facing a $1 billion state budget shortfall in FY 2004 Southeast Arizona Medical Center- has filed for bankruptcy. Cochise's Copper Queen Community Hospital spends two-thirds of its operating income on uncompensated care for immigrants, a factor administrators say played a role in the hospital's decision to close its long-term care unit. University Medical Center in Tucson loses over $7 million a year caring for immigrants The five largest health care providers in Maricopa County loses over 400 million every year in uncompensated care.

U.S. Immigration Support.ORG reports that between 1990 and 2000:

[The] immigrant influx increased the total number of foreign-born residents in the state to over 650,000. According to the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare association, providing care to illegal immigrants costs Arizona hospitals approximately $150 million annually. At least one hospital in Arizona has filed for bankruptcy and is in danger of closing due to uncompensated care for undocumented immigrants. As a solution to the millions of dollars these facilities are uncompensated for hospital administrators of the University Medical Center in Tucson Arizona, are reporting uninsured immigrants who do not pay their medical bills to immigration officials. In one four-month period in 2003, UMC incurred $3.3 million in immigrants’ unpaid bills. At least three Arizona hospitals are sending bill collectors into Mexico to try to obtain payments.

The Washington Independent provided another counter-argument to the bill; this is the familiar cry "if Hispanics are victims of crimes, they will be reluctant to report to the police for fear they will be deported".

Specifically:

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, who voted against the bill, said it does nothing to target criminal and violent immigrants, instead jeopardizing the safety of Arizona communities. She brought up an interesting point: If an undocumented immigrant who is being assaulted or mistreated (think domestic violence, mistreatment of working immigrants) were to call the police to report an incident, that immigrant would be forced into custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and would be deported for merely reporting abuse. In fact, the abuser could sue a law enforcement office for failing to check the legal status of the victim. Sinema said this creates fear among immigrant communities and limits the ability of officers to catch real criminals.

It would be insensitive to suggest that those who are in this country without the benefit of Federal permission are "criminals", merely because they broke the law during their undocumented entry into this country. On the other hand, newspapers have reported a deluge of criminal acts (often violent) by "undocumented aliens".

How is it possible for law-enforcement personnel to determine the difference between those who unlawfully enter this country, and those who unlawfully enter this country and later commit criminal, even violently criminal acts?

If one is willing to break the law merely to be in America, doesn't that suggest a willingness to commit any other crime?

The dictionary defines the noun 'criminal' as:

"A person guilty or convicted of a crime"

The dictionary definition of the word "crime" includes:

1. an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.
   
2. criminal activity and those engaged in it
3. any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin

By this measure, entering this country without official sanction or permission is a crime. Anyone "guilty or convicted" of having done so is by definition ... a criminal.

And if you are reluctant to apply the word "guilty" without the supportive conviction ... then this law is designed specifically to find the "guilty" and allow the legal process to "convict" the guilty.

Yes, the law implies that a large number of people will be stopped and required to prove, by virtue of presenting documentation, that they have performed no unlawful act by simply being present here.

Yes, this law brings to mind the scenarios of Nazi Germany where the Gestappo stops a citizen on the streets and mildly asks: "Gif me dein papers, pliz?"

And yes, the concept of being stopped and being asked to present documents is personally repugnant to me. I deplore the necessity, and I sincerely hope that someone will suggest a less intrusive and accusatory method of winnowing the "undocumented immigrants" from lawful citizens.

Please.

Delete here a long exposition about the need for people who will "... do the jobs that Americans won't do".

Note that the unemployment rate in America today is only a fraction of the number of "undocumented immigrants", and think it through. I've been unemployed. I've looked for work ... any legal work, including harvest work (which I have done).

... Including production-line work (which I have done).

... Including minimum-wage work (which I have done).

... Including busing tables at a restaurant (which I have applied for, and was very disappointed because someone else was willing to do the job for less pay.)

In fact, the whole concept of "industry needs workers who will accept jobs for less than minimum pay" is bogus. I don't need to define the details, including students who need summer jobs (growing season) and people who have been laid off in a weak economy (O darn!)

You know as well as I do that the emergency rooms in hospitals are the first source of medical care, even something as minor as a cut or a cold, for people who don't have insurance. If they aren't able to pay ... the hospital jacks up the bill of people who CAN pay. That's you, and me, pal.

Last week I paid over $500 for emergency room charges when I had a kidney stone. That's after my "Cadillac Insurance" took care of 90% of the charges. It shouldn't cost me $2000 for an MRI ... but it does.

Sorry, I'm even disappointing myself here, but I am tired of paying for someone else's abuse of the medical system.

And I have no confidence that American National Health System will either make medical treatment more readily available to me ... even though I can pay for it ... or make it more affordable.

The effort to weed out the illegals who are a nonpaying burden on the health system has to stop somewhere.

The influence on medical care is just the most obvious effect of "undocumented migration".

But it's the influence which hits us all directly on the economy, and especially on those states which are closest to our Southern border.

If those border states find it necessary to enact draconian measures, I don't think that Al Sharpton is the most legitimate critic.

I don't much care for the opinion of an east-coast liberal swindler who has made a career out of playing the race card.

"The Second Amendment is a Doomsday Provision"

The Smallest Minority

Catching up with Kevin's immaculate philosophy, I note this screed with extended quotes by eminent jurors discussing constitutional 'interpretations' by the courts, cabbages, and kings.

Long article, worth taking the time to read it.

I highly recommend it, if only for this passage:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

But of course, there's more, much more. Including extended comments by Justice Scalia.

I know. It makes you just lick your lips in anticipation, doesn't it?

Go ahead, read the whole thing. You know you wanna.

Seven States Now Challenge Federal Gun Laws

"States exempting guns from rules now number 7"

On April 8, 2010, media sources reported that Idaho joined the list of states proposing which have enacted laws to the effect that firearms made, sold and kept within the boundaries of their state are and should be exempt from federal regulations. (Idaho House bill 589, as amended in the Senate)

(The other six states include Montana, Tennessee, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah and Arizona.)

This is a "States' Rights" challenge to Federal authority which the federal government can not ignore much longer.

Here's a map showing the status of states which have, or have not, addressed the issue within their legislatures:



You will note that Oregon is [sigh] one of the minority states which has, so far, not even voiced an intention to introduce this kind of state law.

I am so sick of the liberal twist to my state's political thought. Please note that this liberal mind-set is driven by the 4 major population centers of the state. Most rural counties are decidedly more conservative and independent where liberal universities and welfare-state plebes don't drive "majority rule" agendas. See a recent projection of Oregon political demographics here. (Note that the colors may be misleading, so please read the text carefully to promote full understanding of each of the representative areas.)
___________________________________
UPDATE:

via The Smallest Minority, Arizona has joined the small (3) list of states which now allow "Vermont Carry".

Note to "Progressives": This is REAL Progress!

Campus Carry

Weapons grade: Students fight to pack heat

Unfortunately I was not aware of this before last Friday, but last week was Empty Holster week on college campuses all over America. (Not here in Oregon; instead, students simulated celebrating the event by spending their spare time in a "T.A.G." simulation called "Humans VS Zombies" (HVZ).

That must be a step in the right direction.

The only thing I got out of the event was this poster:



I posted this on the interior wall of my cell cubicle at the office. I wanted to make a statement, but I didn't want to offend anyone.

I guess that I just made a statement about myself, didn't I?


Anyway, I managed to miss the opportunity to wear an empty holster on campus, just as I did in 2007 and 2008.

(I didn't even mention it in 2009, or at least I can't find a reference to the event in my archives from last year. If it means anything, at least I noticed it this year ... even though I didn't get around to writing about it until it was over. Hmmmmm ... Emmerson said that "consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds". This article is becoming even more revealing than I had ever expected. Perhaps I should move on to a safer topic?)

But before I do, I note that according to the Denver Post, on April 15, 2010, a Colorado court revived a suit seeking to allow guns on Colorado University campus.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday in favor of a group seeking to allow students with concealed gun permits to carry their weapons on campus.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus had argued that a 1994 University of Colorado policy banning concealed weapons violated state gun laws, particularly the Concealed Carry Act of 2003.

The ruling revives a lawsuit that a judge dismissed last year and could affect other Colorado campuses. Colorado State University approved a campus weapons ban similar to CU's in February.

CU is considering an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, university spokesman Ken McConnellogue said.

CSU spokeswoman Michele McKinney said the university is reviewing the court decision, too.

SCCC and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners filed a complaint Wednesday against CSU in Larimer County District Court, saying the ruling clears the way to overturn weapons bans.

Dudley Brown, executive director of RMGO, said in statement Thursday, "CSU's ban only had one legitimate leg to stand on, and now even that's gone."

The article also mentioned that:

Many college campuses nationwide ban concealed weapons, but gun-rights advocates say gun-free campuses make students vulnerable to attack. Currently, 26 states ban concealed weapons on any school property. Twenty-three states, including Colorado, allow individual campuses to decide.

Which takes us right back to the poster, so prominently displayed above.

(If you want your own copy of the poster, which prints so nicely on an 8-1/2" x 11" sheet of paper, see the original WND article here.)

ARPC in April, 2010

The April match at the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club (ARPC) was typified by unseasonable WONDERFUL weather in the Pacific NorthWet!

It has taken me a week and more to sift through the videos that I filmed there, and I apologize for the delay. But for me, it was worth the wait.

(The scores from the match may be found here.)

For this match, I chose to illustrate the videos with the "Rock Opera" music of Andrew Lloyd Wright, and thus it is only fitting that Stage 1 of the match be represented by Mark "The Rock" shooting the stage named "Don't Be A Rookie", with "Music Of The Night" (from Phantom Of The Opera) in the background.


Stage 2 "Peeping Mike": is little bit controversial.

First, the stage featured 2 plates -- one on each side of the starting position -- which were demonstrably 10 yards from the closest legal shooting position. But due to the arrangement of the bay, were less than 10 yards from the closest viewpoint of the observers. The consequence of which is that bounce-back bullets sometimes hit observers. I was hit twice: once on the ring-finger of my right hand, when I was working as the Score-Keeper and I inadvertently was standing to the right of the Range Officer. I was hit and again later, when I was watching from a position slightly behind and to the right of the then-officiating score-keeper. Someone started stacking up bullets which had been bounced from the right-hand plate. The last time I noticed, there were eight bullets lined up on the stage counter. I can't say that all of them had ricocheted from the right-hand plate during the time when our squad was shooting.

This is a cautionary note: steel targets must not only be placed at least 10 yards from the shooter, but also at least ten yards from the nearest position where the observers (other squad-members) might position themselves.

The second controversy is that The Hobo Brasser (the second shooter in this video) scored two misses on the farthest-downrange, farthest-right target. In the video, this is the last target he engages. Note that the targets were placed immediately adjacent to two stacked plastic barrels, which typically "eat bullets". The shooter claimed that "the gun didn't move between shots", and the video seems to confirm his assertion. I offer no further comment on this point.

This stage is scored by the music "Tell Me On A Sunday", by Andrew Lloyd Webber.





Stage 3: "Outpost"
This was a wonderful 'field course' with only a few options for when and where you would engage individual targets, but with two moving targets (both initiated by knocking down Pepper Poppers) there was plenty of room for individuality.

Note that there were some problems, at least in our squad, because the awkward angles between the Pepper Poppers and the moving targets (bobbers) which they initiated were sometimes compromised. We didn't always set them up correctly when resetting the stage between competitors, so there were a few reshoots.

Still, it was a well designed stage and it allowed the better -- or more experienced -- shooters to choose the best place to engage moving targets, according to their individual strengths. Because one bobber was inconveniently sited behind plastic barrels, some of the newer shooters succumbed to the temptation to engage the first bobber from the "guard shack". Well, they will learn better eventually.

The choreography is "Take That Look Off Your Face" (From "Tell me On Sunday").






Stage 4: "Take Your Choice"

This was the Classifier stage. Sorry, I don't have the nomenclature immediately available.

The shooter is "Gerry-With-A-G", and if nothing else the video serves to demonstrate how often the shooter is overwhelmed by the number of 'interested parties' who swarm about the shooting position.






Stage 5: "Speedy Six"
Moving to the East Range, this stage featured the IPSC "Classic target" (aka "Stop Sign Targets"). Some of the competitors found this particularly challenging, because they were not accustomed to engaging this target design and were therefore very vocal about not knowing where the A-zone was.

In fact, this stage emphasized the dichotomy between IPSC and USPSA competition. IPSC rules assume the "Classic" target will be used, and therefore there is a rule which forbids the target from being tilted or canted beyond a specified point (ninety degrees) because it is not obvious from the outline of the target "which end is up". One target here ( on the right-hand side of the bay, the closest target) was tilted ninety degrees, and we decided to reposition the target so that it was intuitively obvious which end is up. This is important because the A-zone is not symmetrical; it tends to favor the "up" end of the target. Consequently, we delayed the match to reposition the target so that the "up" end of the target was "up" from our point of view.

True, by USPSA rules this was not mandatory. We just did it to make it more 'obvious' to the shooter where the A-zone could be found.

The video features The Hobo Brasser, because there was some confusion in the heat of competition exactly what happened.

And the video is accompanied by the Andrew Lloyd Webber song "Mr. Mestopheles" from "Cats", because ... well, it was one of the few 'lively' tunes left in the selection available to me by virtue of having downloaded a single ALW "the best of" album. Still, I think it works out well.

(Sorry if this doesn't view correctly. Technical problem, I'm working on it.)
(UPDATE: Technical problem fixed, thanks to the magic of "waiting for the video to actually finish loading to the website".)





Stage 6: "What's the Deal"

... and something of a Memory Course. It was possible, and advisable, to engage all targets from two positions. The juxtaposition of targets and shooting ports, with vision barriers and no-shoots abounding. (I hit a no-shoot on one of the far targets).

The music is the overture from "Jesus Christ SuperStar", one of my favorite ALW songs.

The stage ... is something of a Memory Course. It was possible, and advisable, to engage all targets from two positions. The juxtaposition of targets and shooting ports, with vision barriers and no-shoots abounding. That may not be the 'smartest' or 'best' technique for this stage, but for even the shooters limited to 10 shots it worked out very well.



We had fun at this match, both because of the wider variety of course designs provided by Match Director Mike McCarter, but also because the stages took advantage of the HUGE variety of stage/bay dimensions available at Albany Rifle and Pistol Club.

Thanks, Mac, for a very good match.

(NOTE: It took 3 hours to process the videos and compose this article.)

Memory Lane - November, 2007 at ARPC

It's Saturday Night, and I'm suppose to be resetting my Dillon XL650 to load .38 Super ammunition. Instead, I'm looking at old videos from IPSC matches past.

I haven't had the pleasure of watching SWMBO shoot for a long time, even longer than I've been shooting in Open Division. Tonite, I'm going to do both. Virtually speaking, of course.

This first video shows SWMBO and John M, when they were both in better health. There is no question that both John and SWMBO are having a good time. Do you realize how difficult it is to shoot well when you're laughing like a crazy woman?

And how often do you see a competitor who is having so much down-home FUN that she grins while she's shooting?

Not very often, and not lately.



The Second Video shows two different approaches to Stage 2 ... the last stage in the match for this squad. It's a very well designed stage, free-form and "shoot 'em as you see 'em". There are as many ways to shoot it as there are people to run the stage.


This third and final video shows SWMBO as she shoots Stage 2. She's doing a great job, but loses track of her ammunition management priorities and ... well, just watch.

Okay, so she made just one tiny mistake. But she sure had fun shooting it! And was she daunted by adding another few seconds to her stage time?

You tell me.

Sometimes, when we're competing at an IPSC match, we become so goal-oriented that we forget what we're there for.

SWMBO never forgets ... she's there to be with her friends and to have a good time. Sure, we're trying to practice our skills and to train for the hypothetical "Big Matches", which are much more demanding. But how many of us expect to compete in -- and win -- a Major Match?

I think SWMBO has the right idea. She always loves the people and the play of competitive shooting.

I've never seen a Grand Master enjoy a day at the range more than SWMBO. Who is to say she's wrong?

Not me!

Keith Tyler Class Offered

Class Announcement, June 6th

Performance through

Fundamentals

Albany Rifle and Pistol Club will be hosting a 1 day IPSC/USPSA class at their range taught by Grand Master, Keith Tyler.

Date: June 6^th

Time: 8:00am till at least 4:00pm

Cost: $100 limited to 12 students

Bring 800 round to make sure you don’t run out.

Contact Keith at clantyler@comcast.net or

(360)909-6233 for further

John is BACK!

Last year, John had a stroke.

It was a bad one. For a while nobody was sure when, or whether, John would ever walk again.

Let alone ever compete in a pistol match.

John was a friend of mine. Not a "close personal friend", in the sense that we went to each other's house for dinner and had helped raise each others' kids. We don't go to the same church, we don't chat on the phone. The fact is, I've never seen John outside of the venue of a match or a gun club activity.

That would be ARPC ... the Albany (Oregon) Rifle and Pistol Club, of which John is a past president, and has held other offices as well.

But a year ago, and please understand that this is an approximation, I learned that John had been struck down by a killer medical condition. This is the kind of thing which leaves you with one side of your body just ... cut out of your biological circuit diagram. Stroke victims have to work as hard to regain control of their body as hard as amputees have to work to learn to live without a limb.

Today, I went to the club to teach an Introduction to USPSA class, and as I was walking along the North Range I saw John.

He was at a safety table, threading an ammunition carrier and a holstered revolver onto his belt.

He was leaning against a gaudy candy-apple red 'walker', with wheels, and was so engrossed in what he was doing that at first he didn't notice me.

"John!" I said. "How are you? Good to see you, Man! How are you feeling?"

We chatted for less than a minute, exchanging greetings to each other and to SWMBO (who has been following the story of John's stroke, and has always been eager for the sparse news about his recovery).

I went on to take care of my business, and he continued with his.

A few minutes later, I was in Bay 3 waiting for the ICORE squad to shoot the first of their five stages. When they cleared the stage, I would have use of that bay for the rest of the afternoon for my class. We were just waiting for the Revolver folks to do their stuff. You know, just hanging around.

John was the first shooter on the first stage of the match.

It was a simple lateral stage design. Start in Box A, engage a target with six rounds; move to Box B, six rounds on the target. Move to Box C, repeat.

Because it was a rainy day, Match Director Mike McCarter had designed all of the 5 match stages so you could move under cover between firing positions to shoot the stages. Thus, everybody was walking on the concrete pad. John's walker could help roll him from one shooting position to the next.

It was a slow process, but John didn't seem to be very worried about it. He was here to shoot, and obviously his philosophy was "whatever it takes to get the job done; anything at all".

After he finished the stage and was busy stowing his gear in the carry-compartment of his walker, I asked John how it felt.

"Oh, you know. I shot pretty slow. But it's always like this for the first stage."

Yeah, I know how that is.

John's squad finished the stage, cleared the bay, and I started my class. By the time the class was finished John and the ICORE shooters were gone and I didn't find another opportunity to talk with him again.

But that's okay. John was back shooting in competition. Maybe he didn't win the match. Okay, probably he didn't win the match. I didn't get the impression that winning was most important consideration for John.

What was important was being there.

Theordore Sturgeon, a Science Fiction writer, is famously credited for saying "80% of everything is showing up."

John was there. He showed up. He did what he had to do, so that he could do what he wanted to do.

I've been around the world, and I've "seen the elephant". This was one of the most courageous, most inspiring things I've ever seen.

Okay, it was probably not the flashy Alpha Prime kind of heroism and courage which we tend to attribute, for example, combat.

It was simply the basic courage of a man who is determined to come back from a hugely traumatic event, and take his life back.

John is BACK!

Happy Easter.

"Is it Training, or is it A Game?"

Comment on a recent article (Tactical Action Shooting: Rules and Regulations) from "Rivrdog":

Since conflicts are not settled on open ground with dueling pistols and THEIR rules of use any more, learning to "run and gun" is very important for personal survival in any gunfight we might become involved in.

These rule-makers are trying, for LEGAL reasons, to introduce safety as the first objective of competition. Unfortunately, under the stress of a gunfight, you will perform as you have trained, and if you have trained under rules which are designed to keep the lawsuit wolf away from the gun club's door, your training will NOT serve you well.

If you want to use "run and gun" skills STRICTLY to compete, fine, take the time and effort to become completely at home with the rules.

However, if you wish to acquire/sharpen "run and gun" skills for your own survival, you'd be much better off practicing those skills in an un-regulated environment. The BEST way to do that is with a partner or partners who can critique your moves and how you handle your weapon. These partners will introduce safety as a survival issue, and NOT as an end in itself, as the gun clubs must do to stay in business.

I disagree with the position taken by the organized "tactical" shooting sports which says that THEIR way is the ONLY way to learn these skills. If the truth be known, THEIR way is the very WORST way to learn these valuable survival skills.

In the background of USPSA/IPSC competition, there has always been the question about "what it is".

Is it training for "Practical Pistol" purposes (ie: firearms proficiency for the purpose of personal protection) or is it "A Game"?

Further background: there have been references to an article in a popular American firearms-related magazine to an article with a title something like: "Practical Pistol: It Will Get You Killed!"

As I have explored the boundaries of Practical Pistol (IPSC/USPSA) competition for over five years on this blog, and via copious (and often redundant) dialogue on The Unofficial IPSC List, I've seen this question raised, and addressed, many times.

The Unofficial IPSC List is essentially abandoned by now, and we who were its adherents have found other ways to communicate the essentials of our sport. I hope that this blog is one of the viable alternatives.

Thus I feel obliged to address the question raised by Rivrdog: will IPSC training, indeed get you killed?

Actually, in my mind this is a tripartite question:

1. What is the purpose of IPSC competition ... Training for self defense, or mere competition?
2. Will the skills (and mind-set) learned in IPSC training get you killed in a self-defense situation?
3. What, then, is the value of IPSC competition, and why should we encourage people to participate?

Lets look at each question individual:

What is the purpose of IPSC competition?
It's a GAME, Folks!

We're not trying to train you to defend yourself with a handgun (or, in the case of a 3-gun match, with a shotgun or a rifle.)

The only purpose of IPSC ... and by extension, USPSA competition ... is to learn to shoot competitively, safely, and to measure your skills against others who are similarly equipped and with a similar skill level. Practical competition is only that. We don't want to shoot people, we only want to shoot cardboard and steel targets.

When we shoot a match, we are not fulfilling some anachronistic fantasy about "Killing Bad Guys". All we are trying to do is to shoot better, faster, and with greater discrimination in a complex field of targets which we should shoot, targets which we should not shoot ... and do so safely. And have a whale of a lot of fun in the process.

I mentioned the complexity of the sport. This not only tests your shooting skills, but also tests your judgment. Can you shoot fast and win, or should you shoot slower and get a higher score to win?

Remember, any violation of the safety rules (which include maintaining control of your firearm at all times without potentially endangering other people) will result in the match administrators forbidding any further competition in the match.

No, we're not willing to allow 'questionable' tactics during a match. If you can't handle a gun safely, you're out of there!

Will IPSC (USPSA) get you killed?
The reason for this question is basically that IPSC competition teaches you to shoot without requiring you to perform 'cover' and other movements which would protect you from an opponent that shoots back at you.

In this context, the charge is probably true. Defensive tactics are best exemplified by IDPA, which requires the competitor to seek cover before engaging targets. If you want to learn to shoot defensibly, you should take up IDPA rather than IPSC style competition.

But we don't much care about that. We're a care-free bunch of folks who only want to shoot at cardboard and steel targets. It's true, we do NOT teach defensive shooting. Rather, we would prefer to stand out in the open (typically) and assume that if we were engaging hostile combatants, we would still persevere by dint of our superior speed and accuracy.

Unrealistic? Sure it is. We don't care. We're out for a day of run & gun in the sun, havingt fun.

You got a problem with that? Then go shoot IDPA. We're in America -- its a Free Country. Do whatever turns you on.

And if want to roll on the ground while shooting, and make tactical magazine changes, that's fine with us. We'll beat your score every day, because all of this rolling on the ground and making tactical magazine changes takes time, and we are all about speed, power and accuracy.

So what is the value of IPSC competition?

Perhaps the greatest value is that we get to go to the range frequently, shoot at passive targets in a safe environment, and at the end of the day we can see how we stack up against our peer.

Another benefit is that it absolutely ingrains safe gun-handling habits.

Yes, we do emphasize safety first, last and always. But in accomplishing these rote skills, we are learning to ALWAYS be safe with firearms, no matter what the circumstances. The ability to safely handle a firearm provides confidence and confirms a minimal standard of SAFETY in a range situation.

No, this does not satisfy RIVRDOG's demand for a Tactical/Defensive posture at tall times and under all circumstances.

But then ... that's not the mission of any competitive shooting sport, is it?

As well require that any bulls-eye type shooting sport, such as NRA Small-Bore Indoor Rifle ("Gallery Rifle") serve a defensive purpose.

It will not happen for Gallery Rifles, and it will not happen for IPSC/USPSA shooting.

Ultimately: to chide IPSC/USPSA for not being a training venue for Defensive shooting is as flawed as chiding Gallery Rifle competition for not being a training venue for Defensive shooting.

It is not the purpose of the sport. While it may once have been, it is not now and will never be.

So I have to tell you, Dog, as much as I respect your LEO experience ... if you choose to denigrate IPSC/USPSA because it doesn't teach and reinforce the proper techniques for close-quarters combat, you're spitting against the wind.

That's not what it's all about, and it hasn't been about that for the past decade.

CQB for civilians is so ... 20th Century!


(PS: Yes, I know if you follow the above link you will be outraged by the accompanying statement. My son is a Navy Master At Arms, and I a entirely satisfied with his training and his mission. It has nothing at ALL to do with pistol competition.)

Shouldn't we maybe all know that Sean Penn is just a little kookie?

Maria Conchita Alonzo's Open Letter to Sean Penn:



The video runs a little long, but perhaps the people who are talking ... feel very strongly about the subject.

_________________________________________
UPDATE: April 2, 2010

The Open Letter to Sean Penn can be read here, at Newsbusters.org

Terrorist Takedown

In my inbox this weekend, a video and story from Walt:

THE...Correct way to arrest a terrorist. I just love the way the police in Spain deals with this guy! If this happened in the USA the cops would all be suspended and fired. The terrorist would get a lawyer, a new motorcycle, $500,000 compensation, an apology from Obama & Holder,and his family would be brought over from Pakistan , and housed on Fifth Avenue .

This incident took place in Spain . Apparently the Spanish police agreed to placate a 'bank hostage' situation by allowing the radical to 'escape' uninhibited. He was allowed to walk out of the bank in the company of 2 hostages. The police provided him with a motorcycle and free access to the motorcycle. Then, leaving the hostages behind, he was permitted to ride away down a clear roadway to make his 'escape.' This whole incident, shown on CBS television, complete with news reporting in English, can be seen on this 55-second video clip.

The concluding few seconds of this video shows the result of the Spanish planning.

Now Watch the video .....

Strange, this is the same Spain which bowed to Al Queda terrorists after March 11, 2004, when a train was bombed in Madrid. This occurred 3 days before the general election and was supposedly in opposition to Spanish involvement in the Iraq War. As a consequence, the incumbent party was voted out and all Spanish involvement was discontinued ... as a sop to the Terrorists who had threatened more bombings.

It would be nice to interpret this as a new Spanish approach to terrorism. But it probably won't become official international policy until Spain replaces its current dhimmi government.

Tactical Action Shooting: Rules and Regulations

"Introduction to USPSA" certification: Why?


I've been teaching the Introduction to USPSA class at Albany Rifle and Pistol club for a while now, and I'm surprised that I have yet to hear a participant ask "why do we need to do this?"

The short answer is: "you need to know the rules before you compete. And frankly, I don't want to be on the range when someone who hasn't been trained is running-and-gunning."

But there's more than my personal timidity involved. There are other action shooting sports (besides IPSC/USPSA) that also require a higher-than-average skill set when competition involves moving around with a loaded gun, engaging targets in a variety of venues, and time is one of the deciding factors.

For some ranges/clubs ... if you have proven that you are qualified to compete in USPSA matches, they will accept your participation in other shooting sports.

Tri County Gun Club is one of these clubs. They have just released their first-in-a-decade update to rules and regulations for "Tactical Action Shooting".

I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion about exactly what Tactical Action Shooting is. For the purpose of this article, it's enough to understand that it's another shooting competition which involves "Running-and-Gunning".

Here's the latest update, in full. The portions which specifically address the opening question are highlighted in italics.

TRI-COUNTY GUN CLUB

TACTICAL ACTION SHOOTING

RULES AND REGULATIONS

November 15, 2000

Updated: March 25, 2010

The Competitor:

Tactical Action Shooting is open to all civilian and certified law enforcement persons interested in the safe and effective use of defensive firearms. While no longer required, it is recommended that civilians obtain a concealed carry permit, so that experience gained during matches can be transferred to the street. All civilians (non-law enforcement personnel) need to be approved for use of the TCGC action range. This can be accomplished in one of three ways:

1. IPSC/USPSA certification at TCGC or other USPSA sanctioned club. Proof of certification may be required of a new shooter unknown to the discipline chair and not a TCGC member.

2. Completion of “Wild Bunch” certification in the use of 1911 type automatic pistols by the TCGC Cowboy Action Shooting group. This certification does not preclude a competitor from using other types of semi-automatic pistols.

3. A person who has tactical shooting experience with another club and is familiar with the range commands in use by IPSC/USPSA. Proof of prior shooting experience may be required.

All certified law enforcement personnel, whether active or retired, who have completed their department’s firearms training program are welcome to participate.

Military personnel that can show firearms training are also welcome with approval from the discipline chair.

The Equipment:

Any legal carbine, revolver or semi-automatic pistol which could be used in a defensive capacity is approved for use with certain restrictions. Only calibers 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP may be used in semi-automatics. Revolvers in .38 Special, .357 Magnum (using .38 Special ammunition), .40 S&W, .44 Special, .44 Magnum (using .44 Special ammunition) and .45 ACP or Colt are also approved. Additional calibers may be approved by the discipline chair. (Currently .30 carbine, FN 5.7 and 7.62x25 have been approved.)

Optical sights are not allowed on handguns or shotguns. Optical sights are allowed on carbines. A laser sighting device that does not alter the concealability or carryability of the handgun may be used. For civilian competitors, all handguns will be concealed from view along with ammunition carriers. Those electing to use law enforcement duty gear may wear their gear openly. Duty gear must be of a type approved by the individual’s own department.

Shotguns may be semi-auto or pump action, with or without extended magazines, in 20 or 12 gauge. Magazines cannot be loaded with more than 8 rounds at any time. No form of optical or laser sighting device is approved for use on the tactical shotgun. Speed loaders or any device that allow the loading of more than one shell at a time into the magazine are not allowed. All spare ammunition for the shotgun and carbine may be carried openly, on the weapon itself, or in any manner deemed appropriate by the discipline chair. As the tactical shotgun and carbine are not normally concealable, spare ammunition need not be either. Ammunition approved for use in the shotgun must be bird shot of number 4 or smaller, standard slugs, and standard power buckshot.

The Course of Fire and Targets:

All courses of fire will specifically emphasize the use of proper firearms tactics in relation to the use of cover, magazine changes and retention, movement between shooting positions, etc. The only time sound tactics may not be required is a particular course of fire that is designed to teach or practice a specific skill such as shooting on the move or shooting from the support side.

Courses of fire should not be designed so the competitor has a risk of failing or committing and error which would require a stage or match DQ. As safety conscious individuals we must all endeavor to compete well, but do so within the limits of our own limits and abilities. If at any time a competitor feels that performing a particular task called for in a match stage is beyond his or her abilities, it is that person’s responsibility to bring their concern to the match director before the course is shot. Appropriate steps may be taken at the discretion of the match director to lessen the requirements of the stage for that person with appropriate time added to their score, so as to negate the possibility of a DQ or other dangerous situation.

All targets will be standard IPSC cardboard. The scoring rings on the IPSC cardboard target will have the following values: A zone - 5 points, C zone -4 points, D zone – 3 points, Upper A/B zone – 8 points. These values apply to handgun and carbine hits only. Eight points are required on each target to be considered neutralized. One shotgun slug within any scoring zone will be considered neutralized (unless designated differently by the stage design.)

Additional paper and steel targets will be designated by the discipline chair. Stationary steel targets which ring when hit will require two hits to be considered neutralized unless designated differently in the stage design. All falling targets must be knocked down to count as neutralized, unless a particular target fails to fall with what is deemed by the range officer to be a fair hit. Steel targets must be shot from a minimum distance of 10 yards.

Stage or Match Disqualification:

Errors that would require a match DQ would be firing a round out of the shooting bay, dropping a loaded firearm, unintentionally firing a weapon, or any other act that puts the competitor or others in danger. All shots will be aimed fire at an appropriate target.

Stage DQ’s can occur if: the 180 degree line is broken horizontally, a firearm is pointed above the shooting bay berms, a competitor proceeds in front of a downed weapon that is not properly cleared or in violation of the stage design, dropping of an unloaded firearm or any other unsafe gun handling that does not put the competitor or others at risk.

There are other scenarios which may occur that would require a stage or match DQ. These will be at the discretion of the discipline chair or match director.

Did 'W' shake hands with a Haitian Refugee & wipe his hand on Bill Clinton?

According to the video available in this article, it sure looks like it.

Or maybe they were just petting.

As they say, Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Please, put down the coffee before you view the video. You'll thank me for this advice.

The Old Jarhead: I'm Tired

(Hat Tip to John 'BigDawg" )

The Old Jarhead: I'm Tired

I received a (slightly changed in a few words) in an email today. It's an editorial on the Robert A. Hall blog from February of 2009. Briefly, Hall is a retired Marine (4 years, Vietnam, Khe Sanh) who served in the Massachusetts State Senate.

It's a commentary from the conservative viewpoint of current U.S. Liberal policies.

It took only 5 minutes to track down the original, so I'm including the link to his exact words for the sake of accuracy, and to give him credit (and the traffic).

Links to this article include The Infidel Blogger's Alliance (March, 2009), Mommy Life (February, 2010), and a short rehash in an extended article ("Political Digest February 23, 2010") by Hall himself.

While I don't exactly agree with everything Hall says, I certainly sympathize with his growing concern for the direction in which the current administration is taking this country.

Actually, not everything he has to say is specifically directed to the administration per se, but rather to the increasingly liberal trend of the people whom we have chosen as America's Leaders. My personal take on the article is that the trend is disturbing; Obama has only served to spark an increasingly sharp upturn from the path of Liberalism to the path of Socialism.

Yesterday's "Yae"vote in the House should, and likely will, be the final nail in the coffin for America's chance to see the two ruling parties work together on future policies. Even if the Senate somehow, miraculously, kill the bill (and I have no more expectation of that happening than I did that the House would kill it), there is now a deep wound in American political thought which won't heal for decades. If then; and at best it will leave an ugly scar on the body politic.

Two of the three branches of government -- the Executive and the Legislative -- have been bullied and bought to serve the ambitions of Obama and Pelossi. What you really want, and what I really want, don't mean as much as a bucket of warm spit.

That's what you get sometimes, with a Republic. And it's our fault for letting it happen. French Philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, who marvelled at America's "great experiment" (democracy), said two things about us.

• America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
• In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

And Alexander Fraser Tyler said, speaking in 1770 of the Cycle of Democracy:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses.

Are we now in that deadly downward spiral?

I hope not. And I'm too old -- I hope -- to be around when it hits bottom. But as Hall said:

" I'm just sorry for my granddaughter."

Walt's Glock 20

I received a helpful email from Walt (see: "Glock Talk ... HERE?" from Sunday, March 07, 2010).

Jerry, just saw your blog about my visit and the Guncrafters 50 cal. Very nicely done.

Here are a few pictures of the GLOCK 20 (10 mm) which I have 22., 40, 10 mm, and the 50 barrels for. Walt

Less talk, more pictures.


Stack 'em up.

Three Calibers

.50 caliber 230 grain bmp

Mental Floss

Ever have one of those nights when you just want to do mindless mind-games on your computer?

No? Is it just me?

Well, I guess that says something about me, doesn't it.

On the other hand, if you're one of those people who are similarly afflicted with Internet Escapism-itis -- nobody else need ever know.

Here's one site I tripped over while I was surfing the net tonite: Mental Floss.

Mostly comprised of trivia, factoids and quizzes, it's one of those all-purpose online utilities which attract a certain class of bored geeks. We call them ....

"TIMEWASTERS"

Under the tagline "Where Knowledge Junkies Get Their Fix", Mental Floss provides information about things you never knew you wanted to know.

For example:

• Cheetos Lip Balm & More Bizarre Brand Extensions
• 13 Nostalgia-Heavy Commercials To Make You Pine for 1987
• 10 Stories Behind Doctor Seuss Stories
• From Zippo Cars to The PeepMobile: 7 Bizarre Marketing Vehicles
• What's a Ponzi Scheme? (And Who Is This Ponzi Character?)
• Money For (Practically) Nothing: 4 Very Big Paychecks For Very Little Work

And, there are QUIZZES! Do you like to take tests? Do you secretly complete dating quizzes in Cosmopolitan magazine, just to find out if you a "A Good Lover"? Well, perhaps not that, but still ...

Mental Floss includes "Name All The Presidents In 8 Minutes". Well, no, I didn't take that one. I couldn't name all the presidents in eight years. But that page includes links to a lot of OTHER tests which I found more interesting. That means, I thought I knew something about the topic. Like, name the state by the license plate, and guess the state motto, and ... um ... some other stuff that I didn't do so well at.

(I am NOT going to take the "Troy McClure Film or Actual Terrible Movie" quiz, in part because I don't think I know anybody named Troy McClure -- or "the filmography of Springfield’s favorite screen icon" -- and if I do, I don't want to find out about it. I think it's a character from "The Simpsons", and that's already more than I care to know. Or guess. Especially Question 1, which asks about "The Erotic Adventures of Hercules". Eeeyewwww! )

If you have read this far and NOT clicked on one of the Mental Floss links ... okay, go ahead and stand on your pride. I'm gonna put the link on the sidebar, too, under "Hot Link(s) of the Week". That way you can secretly click on the link in those wee small hours of the night.

Nobody needs to know. I sure won't tell.

Oh, and did I mention that Mental Floss is a magazine? And you can subscribe to it? Heck, you can even subscribe to a Digital version of the magazine for only $29.97, and get a free t-shirt, too.

Just don't show up at the next match wearing the t-shirt. I'd be so embarrassed for you.

Dundee: Not Dead Yet!

Comment to my recent post re: Range Closure: Dundee, Oregon -

Jerry, We WILL have a March match at Dundee. It's going to take a little shuffling, and a quick re-configure on a couple of stages in the middle of the match, but we will have six stages, 100-110 rounds, and do it all in three bays. That's the plan anyway.
Bill

Bill, this is exceptional good news. Thank you for updating the news, and so quickly.

I'm so glad to learn that Dundee is able to respond so promptly to adversity, and especially because the stages at that range are so consistantly ... inconsistent. That is to say, challenging and innovative.

It may seem petty to assert that Evil Bill's influence on stage design and construction add spice to what might otherwise be a bland reincarnation of stages which we've all seen before, but the fact is that originality is the keyword at Dundee. Evil Bill (and Paul and Marty) see to be without peer in designing stages which are unlike any we've seen in club matches within the section.

Yet even Section and Area (Level III?) matches fall short of the stages which we have learned to expect from Dundee matches.

Not that I feel comfortable with Dundee stages; but I always feel challenged. Even when I don't perform to my own expectations, Dundee matches give me pause to reflect on the competitive talents which I have NOT developed fully.

Besides that, they are fun to shoot!

So I'm looking forward to the match next weekend. It may be dramatically constrained by the available range-space, but I know I will crash and burn on at least one or two of the stages.

That's A Good Thing, right?

Range Closure: Dundee, Oregon

Email from Evil Bill:

Just got a call from Jonathan U. Knudsen vineyards is logging to the property line behind the pistol bays. Evidently it has created a possibly unsafe condition, and effective immediately the pistol bays at Dundee are CLOSED.

Doesn't sound like there is going to be an easy or quick fix to the problem, so for now I guess USPSA matches at Dundee are uncertain. We couldput on a 3 or maybe 4 stage match down in the hole, but that's about it until things get resolved up on top. Is it worth the effort to even do a shortmatch? I'll find out more at the members meeting on Saturday.

Hopefully this will not be a permanent problem.

For now, it sees clear that the March match at Dundee is not a happening thing.

That is, of course, subject to change; Bill's suggestion that they could put in a few small stages "down in the hole" means (I assume) in the huge Rifle Range and in the small 'pit' near the bench rests overlooking the Rifle Range.

The 'berm' there is over 50 feet high, and it might be relatively safe if people are not actively working in the immediate vicinity.

I wonder if the logging operation is expected to continue over the weekends, and how long the process will continue.

This is extremely short notice, and I'm personally disappointed; I was looking forward to shooting my first match there since last summer.

For more information on the Dundee "Crocodile Dundee" range, see their website at the "Team Croc" website.

Future of a Presidency

As Health Vote Awaits, Future of a Presidency Waits, Too - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, had a little political advice last week for President Obama and the Democrats: Don’t pass the president’s health care legislation because you would risk losing in the midterm elections.

Mr. Obama laughed about it afterward. “I generally wouldn’t take advice about what’s good for Democrats” from Mr. McConnell, he told an audience in Pennsylvania. But he conceded that “that’s what members of Congress are hearing right now on the cable shows and in sort of the gossip columns in Washington.” He went on to argue that the issue should be what’s right, not the politics.

But this is Washington and politics are never far from the surface, especially at a decisive moment like this. If the schedule being mapped last week holds – and Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, said on Sunday that it would — the fate of the president’s health care plan should be decided within the week. “I believe we will have” the votes, Mr. Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week,” though Republicans and even some Democrats have questioned whether the votes are there now.

But the plan’s fate could depend on how a couple dozen Democratic congressmen answer the questions Mr. McConnell and Mr. Obama raised: Would passing health care devastate Democratic chances in the fall? Would rejecting it devastate a Democratic presidency?

Mister Obama ... Tear Down This Wall!

Hate!

Oh yes, we've progressed as a civilization. We now have laws which forbid us to hate each other.

More specifically ... we haven't quite got to the "Thought Crimes" as described in Orwellian literature.

Or have we?

Case In Point
England, March 10, 2010: a five year old child (or here a ten-year-old boy, depending on the source and the incident) may/will be "reported", and an entry is made in his semi-permanent academic record because he called a school-mate a "gay boy" in the schoolyard.

The scale of the effort to stop children using homophobic or racist language was revealed after the parents of a ten-year-old primary school pupil in Somerset, Peter Drury, were told that his name would be put on a register and his behaviour monitored while he remained at school.

The boy was reported after he called a friend 'gay boy'. His parents fear the record of homophobic bullying will count against him throughout his school career and even into adulthood.

Case in Point:
New York, USA. March 11, 2010: a man who ...

... blogged at turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com that the three judges of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals should be “killed” for upholding a Chicago handgun ban in June.

“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions,” the 47-year-old blogger wrote.

He also posted addresses, photos, maps and other identifying information about Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer.

Case In Point:

USA, March 8, 2010 -- "Islamic Jurists Decree Giving Food to Soldiers Not Permissible":

American Muslims are banned from helping U.S. soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and other "Muslim lands," according to a shocking fatwa, or religious decree, recently issued by American-based Islamic jurists.

One of the most respected Islamic law authorities in America has decreed it is "not permissible" for even Muslims who are citizens of America to send food or other aid to American troops serving in those Muslim countries.

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, or AMJA, ruled it is a "sin" to help the U.S. military in its multi-front war on terror.

These are only three examples of "Hate Crimes" in the world today.

A child -- even those hardly past toddler stage, and placed in school supposedly to help him learn social skills -- uses a socially unacceptable epithet in reference to a schoolmate, and must live with the consequences of that momentary laps for the rest of his academic life.

A blogger not only excoriates members of the American Judiciary System for their legal decisions; not only encourages others to kill them; but even includes their photo, address, and personal information.

And an "Islamic Jurist" (speaking under the umbrella of a national society of Islamic Jurists) states that ANY support of American Troops fighting overseas -- even to include " the sending of food ..." -- is a sin.

Which of these three incidents are legitimately "Hate Crimes"?

In America, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects public expression of personal opinion, no matter how hateful or how heinous, no matter how distasteful or how outrageous. The principle is that those expressions which are most unpopular (or even those which are most 'politically incorrect') are specifically protected.

But if a little boy uses an epithet in England, is he protected? Apparently not.

And if an American Blogger encourages others to kill judges, is he protected? Perhaps not.

And if an American Muslim Jurist declares it a sin to support American troops overseas, is he protected?

Damn right!

What can we conclude from these examples?

I don't know the answer.. The main stream media, and our governments, swing so rapidly from left to right that I have no idea how to interpret the information provided.

Am I the only one who can't keep up with the difference between Right and Wrong?

1000 Round Torture Test

Two years ago I posted an article entitled Hot Gun! WOOOOOO-EEEeeeeeeee! Hot Gun!

The subject was a demonstration at Blackwater where Todd Jarrett fired 1000 rounds as fast as he could through a brand new Para .45acp (using hardball ammo, mixed 8-round and ten-round magazines reloaded by his assistants).

The upshot (sorry) of the exercise was that (a) the gun endured shooting an entire case of ammunition without a malfunction, and (b) ten minutes later, when it concluded, the pistol was literally too hot to handle.

['Official' time was 10 minutes, 44 seconds. Lots of delay when the people reloading the magazines couldn't keep up with the demand.]

I've just discovered that the whole thing is available on You Tube, so it seems appropriate to provide the videos here.

Note that toward the end, because the pistol was so overheated (and perhaps the shooter was overheated' as well) "normal mode of shooting" was victim of the exercise. Jarrett completed the test only by using his 'strong hand' to hold the pistol, and used the trigger-finger of his left hand the 'fan' the trigger.

From DownRange USA ...

Here's Part I:

And
Here's Part II:


Part III ... The Summary:


If it needs to be said, this is NOT something that we want to do. Only the consumate professionalism of this World Champion shooter kept the test on-track without violating any safety rules.

Note for you at home: even the most experienced shooter can, in time, become so distracted by extraneous circumstances that he forgets to pay attention to the business of shooting. Under normal circumstances, when we 'mere mortals' allow ourselves to be distracted by the perceived need to carry on a conversation, the result can be that gun control is rendered secondary to the distraction.

This is NOT A Good Thing.

You may want to write that down.

In the immortal words of Colonel Jeff Cooper: "Thus Endeth The Lesson".

Here's a good example of what NOT to do!

YouTube - IPSC / USPSA Shoot-What Not to Do

Let me make this perfectly clear, if it isn't already:

When I teach new Practical Pistol shooters, I make it a point that a stage starting the shooter "Facing Up-range" means: Turn, then draw.

That's a common error, and an entirely unsafe situation, in Practical Shooting. I have seen Grand Masters violate this elementary safety rule, even after decades of experience.

Here, we see a shooter who turns to move out of the second shooting position, and his body faces uprange. He is (as is proper) "Match Disqualified".

Even though his pistol is pointed up in the air at the time.

Rule of thumb: if your pistol is out of the holster, and you face up-range, you WILL be DQ'd.

Don't do this at home, and for sure don't do this at a match.