Cheers: Abnormal Psychology, Rum and Coca Cola

Okay, I know it's goofy and passe ... but I always enjoyed the show.

I was in The Caribbean, specifically the Cayman Islands, when the last CHEERS show was broadcast. I and my then-Amore' watched the final show. Then we left our bungalow, walked hand and hand barefoot along the white sands of the Grand Cayman shores, found a good bar and got snookered on Rum and Coca Cola.




Part I



Part II



Part III

Fishing; not skill, but finding the 'right spot'

Fishing at it's best. @ ExplorOz Forum

Fishing is NOT about skill; it's about finding the right spot, at the right time.


(H/T: G-man)

STI under "New Ownership"

As announced at the 2011 SHOT Show ....
Dave Skinner has retired as CEO and President of STI. The company is now "Employee Owned".

New CEO/President Tim Dillon says he is going to move the company away from the "Competition" market toward the "Self Defense" market.

This would certainly support STI's International "Police and Military" market, and I'm just hoping that the support for Competition pistols will not be undermined by STI's New Vision.

See the video for more details.



PERTINENT LINKS:
On the Brian Enos Forum
Letter from Tim Dillon on STI Website
You can also (as of March 29, 2011) see the Video on the STI Website

Finally, Dave Skinners December 2010 "Skinnergram" also announces (among other items) Tim Dillon's new assumption of leadership .... the Skinnergrams are directed to their dealerships, but are also an excellent (early) source of information about new programs and directions for STI.

IPSC Loads - Loads for USPSA/IPSC Practical Shooting Competitions

I was drooling over guns on the STI Guns website today and I noted that some of the competition-type pistols listed the link to "Jeff Maass' IPSC Resources Page" on the specifications.

So I followed the link, and instead of Jeff Maass, I found:

IPSC Loads - Loads for USPSA/IPSC Practical Shooting Competitions


Background:
This use to be the "Jeff Maass' IPSC Resources Page", but Jeff eventually got out of the business of trying to keep up all of the 'new' loads that were being reported to him (and I suspect he was beginning to worry about liability issues), so he quit updating the website. After a couple of years, he took the website down.

I was disappointed at the time, because this was one of the best reloading data resources available on the internet. His published loads were real-life loads designed specifically for IPSC competition. The premise is, these are loads which will (within defined parameters) "probably" be "pretty close" to something you can run in your gun and make major power. If that's an issue for you ... especially if you're shooting Open with a compensated pistol in .38 super or 9mm Major ... then this was probably the only available central clearing house of useful information.

Now I see that the data has been made available again, but published by (one of the guys who use to regularly post on the Unofficial IPSC Mailing List), whom I met once at the 2005 "Shirley Skinner Annual Make-A-Wish Charity Match" at Waco, Texas. I won't mention his name, because if he wanted his name associated directly on the website he would have entered it himself. I will say, though, that he and his wife have run shooting-training classes for several years and as far as I know, they still do.

Anyway, I'm going to return the link to my sidebar under REFERENCE SOURCES and the name Jeff Maass' IPSC Loads List. (Here's the link again.) If you are trying to work up a new load, this is one place you might check to get at least a 'reasonable starting place'.

(NB: When working up a new load, ALWAYS start with a powder charge at least 10% lower than cited, and be sure to pay CAREFUL attention to (a) the Over-All Length of the loaded cartridge and (b) check the NOTES column on any individual load to ensure that your firearm has a configuration similar to the cited gun ... that is to say, if it's a compensated gun, don't use this load in a Limited gun!)

In other words, take the cited loads with a grain of salt and ONE TWO grains less powder!!

And as you develop your loads, fire each round over a chronograph to insure that you know when the velocity of the bullet falls within the acceptable range for the power factor which you require. And always keep an eye out for signs of excessive pressure. These signs are, among others:

• Flattened primers
• Firing-pin indentations have a 'rimmed crater'
• Smearing of the primer material across the base of the case
• The base of the case is so flattened that you can't read the caliber
• The firing pin is jolted loose
• Your gun goes KaBOOM! when you pull the trigger, and you experience a searing pain in the palms of your hands when the exploding cartridge flashes hot gas through the magazine and the trigger-slot of the frame.

(Hopefully you will not wait until the gun self-destructs, although that IS always a sure sign of an overload, or a bullet seated too deep.)

Obviously, since I had no part in either developing the original loads or publishing the data, I cannot be responsible for the safety of any load. For example, in the entire list of .38 Super loads, there is not one which uses the bullet-weight and powder combination I have developed for my own use.

OTHER GOOD THINGS FOUND THERE:
The original page includes many useful links. Among these are:

• Competition Reloading Videos
• "Burn rate" chars for various powders
  
• Reloading Component Manufacturers Links
• Reloading Equipment Links
• Reloading Component Dealers
  

This Will Make You Lose Your Lunch

This Will Make You Lose Your Lunch

Neutrition Comic (no, I am NOT making this up!) demonstrates just ONE way that the American Busybodies have been working diligently to ensure that the American Nanny-State emulates the oh-so-helpful BRIT Nanny-state.

Some years ago, my fellow comedian Tim Slagle and I produced short comedy bits for a libertarian talk show. In one bit, the health-care police arrested a man for sneaking coconut oil into a movie theater to put on his popcorn. (I’ve embedded it at the end of the post.)

The trouble with using comic exaggeration to make fun of nanny-state busybodies is that reality keeps catching up. What starts as parody ends up sounding like a straight news report some years later.

Just look at what the nanny-staters have been up to lately. First, a councilman in New York City proposes banning toys from Happy Meals that don’t meet his definition of “healthy.” Some commenters on the blog suggested I find a picture of that councilman. So I did:

No, I'm going to let you go to the link and catch the punch-line.

All I can say is ... 'Ya'all oughta be freakin' ashamed of yourselves!

Lead Issue Heating Back Up | Shooting Wire

Lead Issue Heating Back Up | Shooting Wire:

Jim Shepherd of the Shooting Wire notes that the effect of lead ammunition on animal toxicity has been revised by Animal-Right organizations (and wildlife conservators):

"Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition from the American Bird Conservancy and a group of animal-rights based organizations asking that the EPA broaden its mandate to outlaw lead as a component of ammunition. It is not in the EPA's purview to regulate ammunition, but the petition had suggested the EPA use its authority to ban lead as a component in both ammunition and fishing tackle.

In the end, the EPA denied both components of the petition, citing several reasons, including a lack of comprehensive evidence to support the petition.

On Friday, the American Bird Conservancy issued a press release outlining a new survey announced at the Society of Toxicology's annual meeting in Washington. That survey, the ABC contends, points to lead ammunition 'as a primary factor limiting the survival and recovery of one of the country's most imperiled birds, the California Condor.' (Editor's Note: You can read the ABC release here)."

Reading the whole article, and the original release, might lead one to ask questions about the validity of the claims, and the over-all effect on society whether or not the clams are indeed valid.

For example, a study comparing the lead toxicity of "Free-Flying" California Condors vs those which were reared in captivity apparently shows that those birds which were not raised in a protected environment were found to have significantly greater amounts of lead in blood samples. Since Condors are both predators and scavengers, the assumption is that they they they acquired their food supply from animals which had been shot, but not removed.

No way of proving that assumption, of course, but it seems intuitively acceptable as a talking point.

Also, venison (Deer, Elk, and other game animals) donated to Food Banks were often found to have lead fragments in their meat. Several tons of donated venison were rejected due to tests on the meat.

I can personally attest to developing a distaste for Pheasant, because I kept biting into shotgun pellets at dinner. However, all of the venison I have personally consumed ... must be a ton or more of the critters in more than at half-century of People Eating Tasty Animals slain with a gun ... has failed to support this argument. Very few Deer or Antelope in my experience were heavy enough to even slow down a .30-30, .25-06, 6mm-284, 7mm Remington Magnum or .30-06 bullet on the way to splash against a cliff-face on the far horizon. In Oregon, it's illegal to hunt 'major game animals' with ammunition of less than .25 caliber. Could this be the answer to at least part of the problem.

As for the Condor Problem, perhaps this is largely due to having small game (including rodents and varmints) hunted by sub-caliber ammunition, most likely .22 rimfire, or shotguns. Both of these firearm types are typically more likely to not completely pass through the bodies of the critters.

EFFECTS OF RESTRICTIONS ARE ACCEPTED:

I note that lead shot is forbidden in many states in bird hunting, both upland and especially waterfowl. Instead, steel shot is the best obvious replacement since tungsten is too expensive for shooting birds on the wing. There is a "down side" on this, as the lighter steel shot is not as effective as lead shot beyond a relatively short distance. This results in more wounded birds; but at least when they eventually die and are eaten by scavengers, there is zero chance that lead is re-introduced into the environment from which it came (although, in nature, not ordinarily introduced into the bodies of carrion).

The attempt by these 'conservancy' types to eliminate the use of lead bullets, though, seems to be "Industry wide", and here is where my resistance starts.

That would not necessarily restricted to ammunition used to take game, or kill varmints.

it would apply to ANY ammunition, even those calibers used for non-hunting purposes.

Self defense ammunition would necessarily be less powerful: not previous comments on lowered lethality on game birds.

Target shooting ammunition would necessarily be less accurate at other than very short range.

And it's as likely that whatever metal used as a substitute for lead would be more expensive.

Further, in the context of IPSC-type competition, using bullets with a steel core would put the entire concept of engaging steel targets (e.g. plates, pepper-poppers, US poppers, etc.) would be impossible. Steel-core ammunition destroys steel targets for the purpose of competition with as few as one single shot either dishing or penetrating the target ... rendering it useless for competition.

Example:
"Hey, I hit the plate"
"(No, you didn't; it would have gone down or left a mark.)"
"Sure I did, I guess the bullet went through the bullet hole!"

Economic and Competition Consequences:
Based on the millions of rounds fired annually just in the USPSA competition matches every year, the cost of competition would rise exponentially; especially when one considers the cost of retooling for bullet manufacturer which will be passed on to the consumer.

Actually, although there may be a legitimate point in this effort to eliminate lead in bullets which are fired at game, in fact it is an exercise which will make shooting so expensive that the people who shoot the most rounds (competition) will bear the greatest burden, and will be most negatively affected.

Meat Hunters will be affected marginally, in economic terms. Sure, they will lose some meat due to reduced effectiveness and accuracy at distance, but their usage of bullets will be numbered in the hundreds.

Competition shooters, who do NOT demonstrable contribute the the cited problem, often fire tens of thousands of rounds per year. There is no documentation, in the literature alluding to this "Free Lead" movement, which suggests that there may be a waiver in the case of ammunition which is used in competition.

Skeet? Trap? Bulls-eye? IPSC? Speed Steel? Cowboy Shooting (SAS)? Gallery Rifle? Bench-rest? Wimbledon Cup and other Long-Range Shooting?

ALL of these competition firearms activities would be negatively impacted by a ban on Lead Bullets. Between the economic impact and the affect on stability/accuracy on long ranges of the less dense material, all of these forms of shooting competition would be either so expensive or so disheartening in the resulting accuracy degradation that the Shooting Sports would effectively disappear.

The effort is perhaps well meant, and it may even (if enacted reasonable) be acceptable ... if meat-hunters and varmint shooters are willing to accept that their kill ration will decrease significantly. That is to say, if they're willing to let wounded animals live, although tortured by not-quite-fatal wounds.

No hunters, and no varmint shooters that I know are happy about leaving a wounded animal to be lost, to die in pain after an experienced period of time.

And no competition shooter I know is willing to spend an exorbitant amount of money for ammunition which may or may not reliably be expected to consistently hit The Elusive "Perfect Double".

20 life lessons they don’t tell you about | View From The Cop

20 life lessons they don’t tell you about | View From The Cop:

March 31, 2011, was Lt. Steve Rose's last post on "View from The Cop" Steve is a member of the Atlanta, Georgia, Police Department. I guess he's got other things going (go to the link and check out his "other blog offerings" from the AJC .. maybe he's not there).

I just discovered Steve's almost-daily blog last year, and while I haven't been the most faithful of daily readers, I'm glad I found him before he found it no longer viable to continue the blog.

As a farewell Gift, Steve wrote about 20 life lessons. Here are just a few of them.

Wise man, our Wild Irish Rose. I shall miss him.

11. If you have a gun, clean it and go practice with it. If you can’t do that, sell it to someone who will.

12. Don’t give crooks credit they don’t deserve. They’re morons and have no honor. They steal from you, me, their own families and anyone who leaves the opportunity for them to commit crimes.

13. You will NOT make millions from a land baron in a small foreign country. Banks will not request you send personal info on your email to keep your account from suddenly being frozen. Read up on scams.

14. Be politely skeptical. Don’t be afraid of asking questions, but do buy the Girl Scout cookies — no questions asked.

15. Call the police when you see something suspicious. Most arrests are a result of a suspicious resident making a 911 call.

Gun Talk TV

Tonite I subscribed to Gun Talk TV.

This site bills itself as "The #1 Online Resource for Gun Training". When I first became aware of it, I went to the website and noticed that they had a LOT of short (under 5 minutes) videos which discussed shooting-related issues. The first one I watched, for example, explored the question "Why attend a Gun Fighting school?"



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I thought that was a good start, and I was impressed by what Cory Trapp of Gunsite had to say ... essentially, that the root word in "Gun Fight" is not "Gun", but "Fight". There is a difference between "pure marksmanship" (going to the range and shooting the center out of the bullseye every time), and "fighting with guns". The "Combat Triad is Marksmanship, Gun-handling, and Mindset ... and the last part is Marksmanship."


Incidentally, there was an amusing event in this 2:49-minute video where Trapp is demonstrating that the gun-handling response to a malfunction of your rifle is to immediately go to your pistol. He simulated a malfunction of his rifle, drew his pistol, and engaged the target: the pistol went *CLICK*! He recovered by racking the slide, thus chambering the first round and allowing him to effectively ... but slowly ... engage the next target. Then he went along with his lesson plan, safing and holstering the pistol, and continuing to discuss the priorities of Gun Fight Training.

I thought this obviously inadvertent error added a degree of verisimilitude to his training point, even though it didn't speak well for his supposed tendency to ALWAYS be prepared when going into a Gun Fight. Or a Training Example, but we know that these things happen during training. Still, he wasn't rattled and his recovery was immediate and appropriate; and that's part of what he was trying to train, although I doubt he would have chosen this particular method; it was what I choose to call a "Teaching Moment".

But I digress.

I thought that the ability to access interesting videos was an important part of the Basic membership, which was my initial option. After I spend some time on the website, I will decide whether it is worth splurging my pension money on a $5.95/month "Premium Membership". And if I upgrade, I will let you know when, and why.

For now I was delighted to learn that this resource was available online. I understand that these sequences are part of a regular television show ... but they are not available to me because I don't have a Cable TV subscription. The only way I can access these resources are via my cable internet connection, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to at least evaluate it at an "entry level" to decide whether it will provide useful information, if only potentially.

My first impression is that the internet link will give me a greater body of reference for my own attempts at firearms training. The "Introduction to USPSA" class is a monthly 3 hour opportunity to teach the elementary parts of, not only competition, but gunhandling (and yes, safety). Here, as on GunTalkTV, "marksmanship" is a tertiary emphasis; it's up to the student to develop his or her marksmanship skills.

That is to say, we don't really care whether the student hits the target, as long as no safety rules are violated ( "gun-handling") and the student understands what is expected ("mindset").

I've already learned something from this first exploratory step, and I'm sure there is much more to learn.

We'll keep you posted. Maybe.

Boo Bloomberg

Shooting Wire

SAF Files Lawsuit Against Bloomberg

In New York State, you can a Handgun License for no more than $10. That's the law.

Except in New York City. There, the fee for a Handgun License is $340.

According to this April 6, 2011, Shooting Wire story (subscription information available on the linked site):

The Second Amendment Foundation [link added] has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that alleges New York City's $340 fee for a permit to keep a handgun in the home is "excessive and impermissibly burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

(View the SAF News Release here)

Many RKBA supporters view the entire concept of firearm licensing to be the next thing to Firearm Registration ... a dubious concept which has historically led to Firearm Confiscation.

Still, many citizens find themselves in the unhappy situation of being forced to pay licensing fees in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights, even though we're pretty sure that this isn't what the Founding Fathers had in mind. How many other Constitutional Rights were regulated by a fee structure? Answer: no RECENT impositions come immediately to mind; but do you remember the kerfuffle which occurred when some states imposed a Poll Tax which restricted the rights of legal citizens to vote if they could not afford to pay that odious fee? That practice began in the 1880's and endured until in 1964 the 24th Amendment to the Constitution ended this now-unconstitutional practice.


In the meantime, there are areas where "Poll Tax" type fees take the exercise to extremes; NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's $340 licensing fee does not build confidence of citizens to trust their local government to protect them, and constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for people who simply cannot afford to pay the fee.

From the SAF news release:

In its lawsuit, SAF notes that the $340 fee is not used to defray administrative costs, so there appears to be no purpose for it other than to discourage people from applying for a permit. The excessive fee, according to Gottlieb, puts the exercise of a constitutional right solely within the financial reach of the wealthy class, essentially turning a civil right into a privilege for the rich and well-connected.

“New York is one of only two states that require a permit just to keep a handgun in one’s own home,” Gottlieb said. “Citizens in the other 48 states would consider that an outrage. The city’s ‘residence premises’ handgun license amounts to a charge of more than $100 annually to keep a handgun in one’s home, which is ridiculous. Mayor Bloomberg is essentially taxing the fundamental right to defend one’s self in his or her own home. We cannot think of anything more egregious than perpetuating a fee structure that puts a financial obstacle in the way of citizens who want to protect their homes and families.

It's difficult to understand why this lawsuit had to come from SAF; it seems logical that New York City citizens would lead the protest, instead of an organization centered in Bellevue, Washington. Still, it's good that somebody is willing to stand up to bureaucratic atrocities on the 'body politic'.

No, this is not a good time to discuss Chicago (regardless of the McDonald decision) or D.C. (regardless of the Heller decision). It is, however, a good time to consider whether the fight against firearms licensing fees should be the next step to establishing the Second Amendment as equivalent to the 24th Amendment, in terms of acknowledging that of our Constitutional Rights should be equally free of local infringement.

'Vampire Woman' With Horn & Fang Implants Is Terrifying! (VIDEO) | The Stir

'Vampire Woman' With Horn & Fang Implants Is Terrifying! (VIDEO) | The Stir: "The horns I have are a symbol of strength and were implanted without anaesthetic. I had the fangs done because I loved vampires as a little girl and I changed the colour of my eyes so they were how I really wanted them to be. Tattooing is my way of being immortal, of really being a vampire and not dying -- leaving my work on other people's skin."

(See the video here)
I have no idea why anyone would subject themselves to this deliberate disfigurement.

This looks very much like the woman about whom, at closing time at the tavern, I once thought "Hey, when you look at her just right, she's not that bad!"

Birther ... me?

I turned 66 in February. I applied for Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, and formally announced my retirement (effective ... not soon enough!). This is old news.

What I haven't mentioned is that my drivers license expired, so I had to go to the DMV and apply for a renewal.

The last time that happened, it was a hassle because they had this vision test, which took about 10 minutes ... and there was a long line of people waiting to fulfill this requirement, so it was a huge bottleneck in the process.

This time, they had changed the vision test something which looks very much like what my optometrist gave me. It also included a glance to check peripheral vision.

It still took me a month to get my permanent license, because I had to produce my birth certificate to prove that I was a natural born citizen.

Before I had to produce it, I would have sworn that it was safely locked in my home filing cabinet, along with my car titles and other important documents. Big surprise ... I looked for it there for days, and could not find it. Ultimately, I had to apply for a "Registered Copy" from my state .... something-or-other office. I was required to provide all my my birth information, parents' names, etc., and also send them copies of documents which provide that my SSN was assigned to me, and that the home address I gave them was my true current address. It took me some time to gather all of the materials. (I could have just sent them a copy of my current drivers license but they would not accept an expired drivers license; by that time, the license was expired.)

The process took several days, and what with fees for processing, and shipping my new hard-copy birth certificate, cost me about $60 "out of pocket".

There's a warning here for anyone else getting ready to retire, or to renew his/her drivers license; start early, and KNOW what documentation you need.

And there's a thought here, too: I wonder what's going to happen when President Obama has to renew his driver's license?

Professional Shooters: Part III

Continuing the dialogue from Professional Shooters, Part II (comments from Hobo Brasser and Whitefish ... primarily a response to Whitefish):

Whitefish ... My original thought (not a completely contemplated proposal, I admit) was that while IPSC/USPSA was originally evolved as an "Amateur" competition, it has lately evolved to one in which "Professional Shooters" have dominated all Major competition.

A "Professional Shooter", for the purpose of argument, is one who has not only had all competitive expenses compensated by a (commercial) third party, but sufficient or a major part of his/her income derives from competition-related ... or expertise-related (eg: training classes), or professional (eg: branch of the U.S. Military which has assigned him/her to, for example, the U.S. Marksmanship Unit) ... day-to-day work to the point where we can honesly assert that their livelihood IS supported directly or indirectly by their Competitive prowness. And this support is to a greater degree incumbent upon their continuing ability to 'win' at the shooting competition defined by USPSA.

"Sufficient or Major part of his/her income" is defined as the amount which, if removed from his/her income, would require the shooter to either find another supporting source of income, or to dramatically reduce his/her life-style because residual funding is not sufficient in comparison.

Please let me know if any part of this definition does not seem reasonable to you. I'm not talking about mere "sponsorship";
_______________________________________

Whitefish, your comment was:

While it may have merit, it takes us to a whole different level of bureaucracy, which we already have plenty of. Witness our burgeoning rulebook and those infamous interpretations thereof by JA. At what point does someone become a professional? Does someone (say a company or gunsmith) giving you a gun to use constitute enough to be called a professional? How about ammo to shoot at matches and practice with or a shirt with a sponsors name on it for advertising? If you will recall a certain arrangment with STI and the open gun you have used for several years, that may constitute "being a professional". I think that is great, but it also falls in the category of be careful what you ask for!!!

_______________________________________
Point(s) well taken, and worth talking about.

First, I cannot address ANY suggestion that "J.A." may 'rule' against any change to the Classification system such as my comments may have been considered to suppose. Mr. J.A. pretty much defines the world in his own vision, and I have no idea which way he may jump on any given comment.

But let's just consider what would happen if he did NOT present himself as an active opponent to the idea, okay? Better to think about how it may come to be, rather than think about the opposition. This is still a conceptual proposition; there's room to play with it.

Here are your points of concern:

• ... it takes us to a whole different level of bureaucracy ...
• At what point does someone become a professional?
• Does someone (say a company or gunsmith) giving you a gun to use constitute enough to be called a professional?
• How about ammo to shoot at matches and practice with or a shirt with a sponsors name on it for advertising?
• If you will recall a certain arrangement with STI and the open gun you have used for several years, that may constitute "being a professional". I think that is great, but it also falls in the category of be careful what you ask for!!!

Let's start out talking about a "whole different level of bureaucracy...", which I think is the most important issue among your many concerns:

BUREAUCRACY, GROWTH:
In the late 1990's at the National Championship in Las Vegas, Nevada, I was approached by a match official who was also a candidate (failed, as it happens) for the USPSA Presidency. He wanted to know my thoughts about a proposed new Division, prvisionally named "Limited 10". He had a clear vision about why it should be accepted, and although he was not elected USPSA President, the concept was accepted by the USPSA Board of Directors.

At this time, we have Six Divisions:

• Open
• Limited
• Limited 10
• Production
• Single Stack
• Revolver

I bring to your attention that HALF of these divisions (Limited 10, Production, and Single Stack) have been instigated since that match. It's clear to me that USPSA leadership has no problems with initiating new Divisions, as long as it provides new options which are attractive to increased membership.

It occurs to me that the prospect of NOT being compared to "Professional Shooters" may be attractive to the "amateurs" among us.

Perhaps I have not given sufficient attention to the concept of adding a new divisory unit which differentiates PROFESSIONAL shooters from AMATEUR shooters, and I don't know (although I suspect not) that this should become a new Division. Probably, it would have to be hierarchically rated somewhere above DIVISION. (Forgive me for the stilted construct; I am, after all, a Geek!

While we're only talking about it, I don't much car what name you call it. Heirarchicaly, I see it looking like this:

(UNKNOWN CATAGORIZATION) ("Status?"): Amateur (Professional)
...........Division (Open, Limited, Limited 10, Production, Single-stack, Revolver)
....................Class (GM, M, A, B, C, D, unclassified)


The current breakdown:
...........Division (Open, Limited, Limited 10, Production, Single-stack, Revolver)
....................Class (GM, M, A, B, C, D, unclassified)
You can see the hierarchical structure. While Amateur/Open would not compete against Professional/Open, the Match Winner (in a major match) would be the same regardless of ... let's call it "Status"

Wouldn't it be wonderfully kewl to see a match where an Amateur won against a Professional? Wouldn't it be more meaningful?

Okay, so let's use this as a springboard, and take your issues point-by-point:

... it takes us to a whole different level of bureaucracy

I think we have already addressed the issue of "bureaucracy". In the past 13 years, USPSA has demonstrated a readiness to increase the bureaucracy needed to support a dramatic increase in the number of "Divisions". If it were to accept a new separation between PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR, it would require a certain amount of redesign for the computer system to accommodate a new primary hierarchical definition, but the actual bureaucratic impact is yet to be determined.

At what point does someone become a professional?



How about ammo to shoot at matches and practice with or a shirt with a sponsors name on it for advertising?

I think this is one of the following 3 questions can be answered all at the same time.

The new definition of "Professional" vs "Amateur" would be based on remuneration over and above purely competition-related expenses. That is to say, it would provide (in some manner, yet to be determined) for the recipient to be able to compete as a "Professional" without need for a "second job" to provide for more than optional funding. That is to say: you can quit your "day job" and still suffer not significant lowering in your previously-established standard of living.

Does someone (say a company or gunsmith) giving you a gun to use constitute enough to be called a professional?

See above: could you quit your day job?

If you will recall a certain arrangment with STI and the open gun you have used for several years, that may constitute "being a professional". I think that is great, but it also falls in the category of be careful what you ask for!!!

See above: there's no WAY I could quit my day job based upon this personal accommodation! This suggestion may be something less than the precise definition of mere hyperbole, but it is something more than the suggestion that it would constitute the status of a "Professional Shooter.

An allegory would be a sales representative who would be hired to represent a commercial company at a competitive event; the sales representative would have use of the equipment, but there would no expected (nor material) 'other' remuneration regardless of the place of finish; nor would continued 'favor' be based upon the competitive excellence displayed, or not displayed.

I realize that here you are not making an attempt to establish a Quid Pro Quo, but only exploring the boundaries of the discussion. Please be aware that this extension of the discussion is not only not on point, but is also personally objectionable. (This is like flunking your match semi-final; it doesn't determine your final grade for the term, but it bodes ill.)

The Bottom Line:
It's quite likely that I have not provided a good, definitive description of The Professional Shooter. I accept the criticism, and I only suggest that it is a ripe field for further discussion.

We aren't quite certain how to define the Professional Shooter, but in a small way (and forgive me for the comparison) somewhat about the Supreme Court Judge when, asked how to define Pornography, said: "I'm not sure how to define it, but I know it when I see it".

You and I, my friend, have watched Professional Shooters at USPSA (IPSC, before that) for YEARS. They are the ones who get special attention, special favors from ... well, from Range Officers at Major Matches ... for example.

At a 1990+ National Match in Oregon, I watched a World Champion Grandmaster argue a Range Master into declaring that an obvious A-hit/miss into a "Perfect Double". I'm sure this happens, but I'm not convinced that it happened in this case. The point is, the competitor was a definitive Professional Shooter ... and he got preferential treatment which you or I would NEVER have been accorded.

The next year, I saw the same World Champion Grandmaster at a Charity Match (but a major match, none-the-less), where at the Chronograph stage his load was determined to be Minor Power. He had one round left, and his was the choice whether to re-weight the bullet or take a final shot over the chronograph to determine velocity.

He asked "Let me look at my gun", and his request was acquiesced by the match official. The World Champion Grandmaster then OILED THE BARREL of his gun, and returned it for the final chronograph shooting. It showed up marginally above Major Power velocity (for the measured bullet weight), and all of his scores were subsequently scored as Major Power

I do not know if that person's "perfect double" was a double, or an alpha/mike shot.

Nor do I know if his final shot velocity (in the other match) was influenced by the oiled barrel. (Full Disclosure: in fact, I had been careful myself, to clean and oil the barrel of my own pistol; but this was before I went to the Chronograph Stage, as it had been my practice to do so before every stage because I know I was loading with the minimal power charge to make Major.)

However, I found myself resentful that this action was taken outside the normal practices; when you submit your gun and ammunition for chronograph, it is not typical that you are allowed to make changes in either in the middle of Choreographing your ammunition.


I realize the all of the last few paragraphs sound like Sour Grapes, but in fact it is evidence of "his" unofficial protests to the normal match events being accepted where in similar circumstances "my" similar protests, if I was sufficiently bold to make them, would probably be rejected out of hand.

Professional Shooters not only have an advantage in the support the receive in fiduciary matters, but they also may receive preferences in Match Administration matters. Whether this is evidence that Match Officials are intimidated by Professional Shooters ("He is so good, he doesn't NEED to argued that he couldn't possibly have missed the target!") or not, I personally find it unacceptable that I must compete .. if only in my Classifier scores comparison .. with Professional Shooters. They have the skill, they have the experience ... and they arguably have the influence in several ways over me. And over you, probably.

Why should Amateurs compete against Professionals?

Is it because it would be too "difficult" for USPSA to define a separate group: "Professional Shooter"?

I don't think so. USPSA hasn't weighed in on this question, but if they were reluctant, when closely pressed, I would think it would be because of laziness.

This is NOT the impression I have received of USPSA. over the decades they have administered my competition.

I think we should bring the situation to their attention; make them aware that we are serious about this differentiation; and allow them to address it as they see fit.
x

Professional Shooters: Part II

The Hobo Brasser (216.105.75.114)
Skeet shooting went downhill when they divided it up into so many classes that one could not hope to recoup your entry fees even by winning a high overall in a guage. It just got too big and the overhead was too high. A major match like the USPSA Nationals now costs almost $300 dollars to shoot. This is all ready too high IMHO. Lets leave it alone.

Yesterday, 3:40:02 PM

– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate

jerrydgeek (24.20.226.106)
We got to this point in IPSC/USPSA in 1998-1999, when we (USPSA members) were torn about whether to add a New Division: Limited 10. I recall being at the Nationals in Las Vegas, and being approached by "a candidate for the USPSA Presidency" (who shall remain nameless) who seemed to thing that this was the "make or break" decision for USPSA.

Subsequent history? We not only added Limited-10, but also Production Divisions. And the consensus seems to be thta we have improved the sport.

I'm not saying that the analogy between USPSA and Skeet Shooting is inapplicable. I'm only saying that USPSA has chosed "The Road Less Travelled", and now Production Division is often more 'higly subscribed' than that division which had earlier been described as The Road to the Future.

New ideas are difficult to accept. I don't much like "change" myself. But Benjamin Franklin, when asked what value could be found in a New Invention, replied: "What use is a new-born baby".

We don't know what adventures, what advantages the road ahead may hold for us. And until we allow it room to grow, we probably never will.

Yesterday, 11:50:30 PM

– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate

Whitefish (75.94.54.221)
While it may have merit, it takes us to a whole different level of bureaucracy, which we already have plenty of. Witness our burgeoning rulebook and those infamous interpretations thereof by JA. At what point does someone become a professional? Does someone (say a company or gunsmith) giving you a gun to use constitute enough to be called a professional? How about ammo to shoot at matches and practice with or a shirt with a sponsors name on it for advertising? If you will recall a certain arrangment with STI and the open gun you have used for several years, that may constitute "being a professional". I think that is great, but it also falls in the category of be careful what you ask for!!!

I've tried 3 times to reply to this: I can't meet the 3000 word limit that the commenting softwary includes as a restriction. I'll make this a separate, now article. Suffice it to say .. there are other issues than "The Grown of Burearucracy" which may be related to this major change in USPSA organization.

Introduction to USPSA: April, 2011

Thursday night (March 31), I realized that I didn't know whether or not there were any students pre-registered in the Intro class for Saturday, so I emailed Mac asking whether I should show up or not.

Friday, I received a response saying that he had received an inquiry from one person:
"Bernie".

Also, my in-basket included a CC from Bernie confirming that he wanted to take the class, and offering both email and phone contact information.

I phoned Bernie "after dinner" (6:45pm in any self-respecting Oregon home, although not in mine) and confirmed that he did intend to take the course. I sent him an email with the basic information .. known as "The Boilerplate". That included an invitation to "... bring your friends, bring your family ...", so when I showed up at the range Saturday afternoon Bernie met me at the gate and said he had brought his friend Tim.

Tim seemed reasonable conversant with basic gun-handling concepts, even though he announced that he had only bought his pistol a short time ago. He mentioned that he had qualified with pistols in the military; that seemed to be "a good start", if not a guaranteed of advanced techniques. I accepted him as a student with few questions.

We moved down to Bay 7, and about the time we were starting to do our classroom segment, David showed up. He said he had been trying to work the class into his schedule for "a long time", but this was the first date he had been able to attend. He informed us that he had been competing in Speed Steel for some time, so I accepted this as verifying his basic gun-handling skills.

We got through the preface, started working through the test that they had (well, Bernie and Tim) downloaded from the Internet, and another student showed up: Juan.

Juan didn't profess to have any specific pertinent experience in gun-handling. Even though he had not been vetted by Mike McCarter, who usually handles and unknown or "marginal" entries to the class, I instinctively liked him because his calm and confident demeanor. I accepted him into the class anyway.

So I had one person with demonstrated skills-sets; one with only a recommendation from Mac; one with no demonstrable background at all; and one who admitted he has a new pistol with which he has not experience.

To my not-so-special surprise, all four of them managed to endure the next few hours of instruction and testing with .. perhaps no errors, but they all demonstrated good judgment even when the Feces hit the Rotary Air Conditioning.

It's a general statement that people who want to take this class usually have more experience and/or better judgment when it comes to gun-handling skills than the average man in the street. This is not universally true, and my experience in the past before Mac assumed the responsibility for vetting prospective students was sometimes unpleasantly surprising; still, 3 out of 4 participants were this week accepted although they had not necessarily demonstrably met the minimal qualifications.

We are, after all, an Equal Opportunity Gun Club. And I don't even have a bullet-proof vest.
But then, being in charge of the class allows me to exert the ultimate control of the class, shooters and stages; I have the authority to refuse further training on anyone who doesn't meet my standards. I've not had to exercise that yet; although the day the lady pointed a pistol at my belly while we were chatting at the safety table did give me a moment of retrospect about my decision to accept the trainer position. BTW, she never appeared at a match. Perhaps she realized independently that she didn't have the proper mindset to do "run-'n-gun" with live ammunition.

Anyway ....

Amazing that 24 hours before I thought I had no students, and now I had four. Even more amazing considering the the temperature at 1pm was 46 degrees and there was a strong wind bring an uncomfortable wind-chill factor into the equation.

These guys were really interested. What with the recap for slightly late-arriving Juan, and considering that at least one of them had neither red the manual or completed the test, the one-hour classroom session took us an extra 30 minutes over the scheduled time.

Then it took another 20 minutes to raid the prop room and set up the basic stave construction for the "Live Fire" exercises. By the time we started working on them, we were 47 minutes behind schedule.

I talked fast, but these guys were sharp and motivated; they asked intelligent questions in class, not all of which they may have need had everyone completed the preparatory material. However, they were all quick-witted and nobody asked a 'dumb question'. (I don't know what that is, except that my impression is that a "dumb question" is the one which is not asked. I was glad that I had already invited them to interrupt my presentation if they had questions; that allows me to respond with information which they really need.)

So, we got into the Live Fire portion a little late, and as a consequence when we got down to the end of the hard-wired syllabus, they were all willing to stay a little late so they could get the "extra credit" stage. Today, that included an impromptu stage teaching advanced topics such as "strings" in a stage, and "Strong-hand/Weak-hand" target engagement.

Everyone voted to stick around for that exercise, and I was impressed at how well they performed. At least one student told me that he had very little experience shooting handguns; no experience in competitions; and in fact he had just bought the handgun he expected to use "a few weeks ago" (a Beretta 92, which he discover was too large-framed for his hands).

But that wasn't the most notable moment of the class.

Teaching Moments:
I try to emphasize to these class attendees that there are some things in Practical Pistol Competition which are not intuitively obvious, and these will lead to moments of confusion or dismay in which they will doing something "not in their best interest". Also, that if there is an "extreme sport" version of competitive shooting, it is in Action Shooting (Practical Pistol, Multigun, 3-gun, etc.) In order to help them understand how actions which they take without thinking may lead to disaster, I describe at least a couple of things they need to think about.

During cold-weather months, almost everyone shows up with jackets, sweatshirts, and long-tailed shirts. I make a point of explaining that when they shoot a stage, they would be best served if they remove their coats/jackets before coming up to The Line. If they have a top which hangs outside their belt they must be absolutely certain that they holster their pistol carefully; if a shirt, jacket or sweater is hanging loosely about their waist, that material may be inadvertently scrunched between their pistol and the belt. In that case, if they (for instance) raise their arms above their head, the material may drag the pistol up out of the holster far enough that the pistol will fall on the ground.

The class, as seems reasonable, pretty much ignored this. All of my classes ignore this, because I give them a lot of advice and it becomes "Information Overload". (Think: "This guy is over-teaching, and it's not gonna happen to me because he's a worry-wort and I KNOW how to shoot .. he has nothing important to tell me.")

You can buy them books, but you can't make them read.

Five minutes after we had established the range props and targets, I was explaining the first exercise when I hear the clatter of a pistol hitting the concrete pad on the covered bay. Glancing to the side, I see a small Glock on the pad, and a very worried student wondering how the hell he's going to survive this Teaching Moment.

One of the other scenarios we had discussed was --- dropped gun. Drop your gun on the range while you're shooting a stage: definitive DQ. Drop your gun while you're smokin' and jokin' with your buddies in the Squad Area, you're okay as long as you do NOT touch the gun! That's "handling a firearm", and Match DQ."

Definite Teaching Moment. I've told them that their primary concern is the same as the Eddy Eagle Program:

• Stop!
• Don't Touch!
• Call an Adult!

Or in IPSC terms: protect the gun, and call a Range Officer.

I got everyone uprange of the gun (even if I had to push them), looked at the gun in situ, rotated it downrange so it wasn't pointing at anyone. Then I picked up the gun, cleared it (unloaded, of course), called the owner over and handed it to him with the instruction to "unload and show clear; hammer down; holster".

End of lesson, except explaining how it illustrated one warning (don't let your clothing bind your pistol in the holster) and one Safety Rule ( don't touch a downed gun).

I have to say, this was the first time that this particular warning was so graphically illustrated. It was almost as valuable as the time in an earlier class when a Demonstrator I had shanghaied to help me with the class tripped during a Course of Fire ... and was NOT DQ'd because he "did everything right".

Full Disclosure: since I shot my first match in 1983, I have NEVER seen anyone drop his gun on a concrete floor in the Squad Area because when he raised his arm his shirt-tail pull his gun out of his holster. But I've seen less demonstrative incidents related to this phenomena, and I always knew it was just a matter of "when", not "if". And no, it's not that the student was especially negligent. He just did what a lot of people do without thinking. I can guarantee that nobody in THIS class holstered a pistol without checking whether his clothing was trapped between his pistol and his holster; and none of them will ever again holster a pistol without making that check.

LIVE-FIRE:
When we actually started shooting, we discovered that there were two other issues which had not been clear -- or, having been clear, not immediately loaded in the Hind-Brain so it would never happen:

1. Keep your finger off the trigger when you are loading/unloading, clearing a jam, or moving; this is a Safety Issue and may lead to a Match Disqualification (DQ);
2. When you are done with the Course of Fire, and the Range Officer give the command "If clear, hammer down, holster", you should do exactly that ... paying close attention to maintaining control of your firearm and NOT "sweeping" yourself. THEN you can worry about picking up your dropped magazine, your unfired/ejected round, and your brass; and if you didn't perform according to your self-imposed standard you are free to beat your head against the Bianchi Barricade. In the meantime, listen to your RO and do exactly what he tells you to do; nothing more, nothing less.
   

When they violated a safety rule, I stopped them and announced that they had just been DQ'd. Then I let them continue.

One student was "DQ'd" twice during the same stage; once for leaving his finger on the trigger during a reload, and the second for leaving his finger on the trigger during Unload And Show Clear.

Other areas which need work:
Very few areas here, as this was an exceptional class. The single most frequent recurring problem, other than leaving your finger on the trigger during loading/unloading, movement, and clearing a jam was that students sometimes forgot to reload when a mandatory reload was part of the Stage Procedures.

Then, we announced it to everyone in the class. Reinforcing the lesson is embarrassing when you are the subject of The Teaching Moment, but it tends to help you remember The Thing You Did Wrong. Calling attention to a failure to perform a mandatory reload, for example, is part of emphasizing the "per-shot" penalties which are imposed when you forget to reload when the Stage Procedures tell you that you must do so.

Other than that, the relatively minor problems which were demonstrated during the class were no different than any other class. These included: not knowing what to do when you performed a mandatory reload, so you racked the slide "anyway" thereby discarding a round from your gun; at the beginning of the stage, forgetting what the Starting position was and therefore assuming it was the same as a previous stage (e.g. "surrender position"); and at one point during the Live Fire exercise, slowing down to look at the gun to determine what "condition" it was in. *(Is the safety On, or Off; and should the safety be On or Off?)*

IPSC competition is very different from the usual "going to the range with your pals, and handling the guns indifferently at the counter in front of the range". When we shoot with our friends, and we either aren't aware of the Safety Regulations or we assume that they don't apply here, we tend to develop bad habits. Breaking these Bad Habits is one of the un-announced primary purposes of USPSA training.


PENALTIES:
In a way, embarrassing a student because he demonstrates gun-handling habits which are entirely comfortable to him when he's shooting casually with his friends, but In Real Life (i.e. contrary to the rules of safe gun-handling), seems cruel. On the other hand, one of my common practices is to inform the students at the beginning of the class that ... one major reason for the class is to ensure that they are all sufficiently aware of the difference between "safe" and "not safe" handling. Why do I care? Because someday I may squad with them, and I only want to squad with Safe Shooters.

I want them to be safe because I expect to squad with them. And I don't want to get shot.

So I do not allow my natural disinclination to embarrass them prevent me from making a MAJOR POINT OF IT when they violate a safety rule.

My job here is to acquaint and familiarize them with the rules, especially those rules concerning safe gun-handling, and when they perform an unsafe act I intend to do whatever is necessary to reinforce the concept: they just did something "unsafe", and If This Was A Real Match you would be DQ'ed.

And if I say it loud enough, the other members of the class will somehow register it in their minds that this is something that IPSC shooters take very seriously. They should avoid it, if only to avoid personal embarrassment. Sweeping; Finger on the trigger; breaking the 180; dropped gun; and all of the other naughty things that one might do during a USPSA match.

In fact, I have compiled a "Seven Deadly Sins" list of DQ-able offenses, and I have recently started to include that in my regular syllabus. Those "Seven Deadly Sins" include most of the Safety Failures which I teach to my students as UNACCEPTABLE:

1. MUZZLE: don't break the 180 degree demarcation between a "safe" zone where you can point your gun, and where you cannot point your gun safely.
2. FINGER: Keep your finger off the trigger when you are (1: moving except no more than one step, or when you are actively engaging targets), and (2: when you are reloading, unloading, clearing a jam).
3. SWEEPING: Do not allow the muzzle to point toward any part of your body ... sweeping during holstering/drawing/bagging has special circumstances.
4. Dropped Gun: If you drop your gun during a Course of Fire, it is a DQ. Special circumstances if you "ground" your gun while recovering from a prone position, etc. If you drop your gun not during a Course of Fire (e.g., while you are observing or out of the shooting area), it is not a DQ unless you touch your gun except under the direct and specific supervision of a Range Office.
5. D&D: "Drunk and Disorderly": "DRUNK" specifically includes "under the influence" (alcohol or other drugs, even if prescribed by your physician), especially they if they undermine your judgment, ability to perform safely, etc. "Disorderly" specifically refers to Unsportsmanlike conduct such as arguing with the RO in an unseemly or profane manner.
   
6. Over The Hill: specifically refers to "negligent discharges", and other incidents which may be loosely grouped under this sometime-vague umbrella (note: the rules may not be all that vague, but is sometimes a 'judgmental' definition).
7. Cheating: Refers to claiming exceptions to the rules which are defined elsewhere. Example: deliberately dropping "eye or hearing protection", which is required -- and accidental loss requires a mandatory reshoot. ( "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" overlaps with #5: D&D.)

SUMMARY:
As usual, many of these issues and points of interest overlap with comments I have made in previous articles referring to the "Intro to USPSA" classes which I have been privileged to teach. For those comments which are obviously redundant, I apologize; it was not my purpose to bore you with meaningless repetition.

It's just my way.

However, in EVERY class I learn something new. Sometimes it's something ... some incident or occurrence which may be a new version, or reinforces something I have observed before and am astonished to see that it remains no matter how I change the course syllabus to emphasize recurring issues. Sometimes it's something that has been mentioned before, but is reinforced by an actual re-enactment of what had previously been nothing more than a precautionary note. (Case in point: clothing jammed between holster and pistol results in a "dropped gun:"; or, how the competitor should respond to the situation, and how they may expect the RO to deal with the situation.)

If you aren't interested in an ongoing litany of "How Things Can Go Wrong", it's easy to avoid any future re-visitation to this kind of article. Just ignore any post labeled "Intro to USPSA".

On the other hand, I think it's interesting to note the kind of situation which many of us who are more experienced just -- take for granted. Yet new shooters provide a prolific field of errors and misunderstandings which may help the rest of us to re-visit our gun-handling practices.

If it saves just one child Range Officer ....

Japanese Schoolgirls - NSFW

Nipponese Swing - Freaking Wild!

Another H/T to G-Man.

And NSFW doesn't mean "Not Safe For Work" here; instead, it means "Nipponese Swing ... Freaking Wild!"

"SING SING SING", that great Benny Goodman hit was ... Too hot to trot! (The Swing Girls don't even have a Clarinetist.) I've already watched it 3 times, and I'm not including the link for your benefit, but for mine; I wanna go back and watch it again and again. Wonderful performance of Le Jazz Hot. (Here's how Benny Goodman did it.)

The link takes you to some really "I feel The Need ... The Need To Speed" video. There are lots more where that came from; search YouTube for " . Unfortunately, they(whomever published the "Swing Girls" videos on YouTube) requested that embedding be disabled for this video. What a great loss for Jazz Lovers.


One of the videos which was NOT "disabled" was their treatment of Glenn Miller's "In The Mood", which was not one of their best. Their performance was desultory, not showing the energy which the 'disabled' videos allowed. They did all the technical things, but it didn't demonstrate the enthusiasm which they demonstrate in their best performances.`

I saw music from Glenn Miller, the Dorsey Brothers, and Duke Ellington played much better. It's a disservice to people who want to see more that they didn't allow their "best" to be embedded. (Incidentally, the RAF Band did "In The Mood" in the same way that The Glenn Miller Band did ... more upbeat. Even if the British musicians in their performance looked like aging sourpusses (which the Swing Girls apparently considered the be the audience of the Glenn Miller classic to be the same kind of aging sourpusses.) It may be that the conductor slowed down the tempo because of perceived limitations of the performers, but the Swing Girls may have shown as much enthusiasm if he had allowed them to play it at Full Speed.

They did "Take the A-Train" well, for example (with a guest First Sax, and "embedding disabled" -- sorry), but they seemed to be walking through it. (Also, the first trumpet player hit a couple of flat notes. It happens.) If it's not Rock and Roll tempo, it's just another day at work. Well done, of course, but ... when they get the stuff they like to do, they show The Flash what should happen when he says "FLAME ON!"


Their performance of "Moonlight Serenade" was well done, although the arrangement they were given may not have been hot enough for them.


If you want to see more of them, search YouTube for "First & Last Concert2004".

All of these numbers were apparently in a movie titled "The Swing Girls". My guess is that the flat notes and pedestrian numbers reflect their original bad attitude: IMDB description of the show:

A tale of delinquent and lazy school girls. In their efforts to cut remedial summer math class, they end up poisoning and replacing the schools brass ban

Well, that will sour the performance.

Bob Hope Christmases with the troops

Bob Hope Christmases with the troops

I served my time, but I was never privileged to see a Bob Hope show. (We generally got Philippine Rock Bands, and we were glad to see them ... except for the Female Impersonators, but that's another story).

Thanks to Gary the G-man, we have the link to this short video.

Nobody who has ever been in this situation will ever deny that Bob Hope was A Great Man.

(Ten Minutes of Nostalgia. Worth the watch, if only for the chicks. And thank you again, Gary.)

Professional Shooters

Shooting Wire:

"Titusville, FL - Professional shooter Jessie Abbate won the Women's Open and Limited titles at the Steel Nationals held in Titusville, Florida this past weekend. Abbate also won the Steel Master title - a title awarded to the aggregate champion. With this victory, Abbate defended her 2010 Steel Master title. This marks Abbate's first major title of the 2011 shooting season." [Emphasis added by editor]

"Professional Shooter".

I think this is the first time I have seen the title "Professional Shooter" applied to Speed Steel (or USPSA) in a public release of match results, although of course we all know that they exist in those competitive sports.

They also exist in IPSC. But we don't really know for sure what that nomenclature means.

AMATEUR VS PROFESSIONAL:
Most IPSC shooters are amateurs. That means, we provide most of the match fees for any match. We volunteer to work the match: administration (Match Director, Range Master, Statisticians, stage construction, Range Officers, etc. The only "professionals" who do any of this ... the functionaries who make USPSA matches works, are those few individuals who are hired by Match Directors to help with setup and tear-down. And they work for pennies, considering that they are doing manual labor at a very low hourly rate of pay.

IPSC Professionals pay to shoot the match, and they go home with most of the wins. To them the glory, the honor, and another bullet-point in their professional resumes. They do not typically "work" the match; they're not playing, as we are. They're working, and must necessarily not be distracted by extraneous activities. [Note: GMs and Professional Shooters almost always do their fair share during matches by taping and resetting targets; they are not ignorant of their obligation to do their share, nor are they usually reluctant to contribute.]

And we, the amateurs, facilitate their careers. Also, we compete against them. (Don't be fooled by "you only compete against people in your own division and class". Remember, their classifier scores are the yardstick against which your performance is measured. More on this later.)

Is that fair? You decide. If you choose not to read the whole article skip to the bottom to see the THESIS.


BACKGROUND:

In USPSA, we are accustomed to competitors who regularly benefit financially from "prize tables" and other rewards. And we have recognized them as "Sponsored Shooters". At one time, it was recognized that their sponsors either helped the shooter with the expenses attendant upon competition: practice, travel, equipment, etc.

In fact, "sponsored" shooters are now regularly members of Shooting Teams: Army Marksmanship Unit, Team S&W, Team Glock, etc. This arrangement makes it possible for the better shooters to compete at little or no personal expense, and it enables Firearms Manufacturers to advertise their wins (suggesting, not too subtly, that it is the superiority of their firearm which provided the 'edge' for that competitor ... an excellent and time-tested marketing ploy).

Sponsorship aids winning; winning allows the competitor to not only enter more matches, but to practice more with less or no personal expense. And the cycle is self-reinforcing, providing even more of a competitive advantage as time goes by.

These competitors are those who not only have the drive to win, but also have the talent. All they need is to be able to afford all of those expenses ... material, travel and match expenses, etc ... and still be able to make a living to support themselves and their families.

Over the years, the sport of Practical Shooting has grown and benefited by the performance of "Sponsored" competitors. We see a Jerry Barnhart or Todd Jarrett, et al, and we connect with them. We see what the very best shooters can do, and it encourages us to strive to emulate them as best we can. And of course, through the USPSA Classification System, it allows us to be classified against "The Best, of The Best, of The Best" (see: Men In Black).


Obviously, it takes someone especially talented to compete in such august company. A paltry few of us can enter the ranks of Grand Masters; for the rest of us, B-class is "The Graveyard of Mediochre Shooters".
(Full Disclosure: yes, I'm a B-class shooter in some of the few Divisions in which I am classified; C-class in the rest, the ones in which I don't often compete. After 25+ years, it's obvious that I'm "not that good". I shoot for fun and the company, and I don't expect to win very often ... if at all.)

Still, it doesn't seem to matter; no matter in which division I compete, the top scores will have been matched against the "Professional Shooters". Grossly defined, these are people who not only have competition-related expenses, but also living expenses, provided by "someone else".

The "Professional Shooter" is someone who does so for a living. That is, they are not dependent upon paying for their day-to-day, normal cost-of-living expenses being paid for by a "real job". (A job which is not dependent upon their competitive ability.)

Many of these excellent competitors earn extra money teaching elements of competitive shooters; in company with a dozen or two other would-be competitors, I once paid Travis Tomasie $130 for a one-day course on the fine points of IPSC competition. I felt at the time (and I still feel) that I got my money's worth. He was 30 years younger than me, and he knew more about pistol competition than I had every figured out by my own experience. And I have bought tapes (Ron Avery) and books (Brian Enos) from other winning shooters, learning from them all.

Rob Leatham, "The Great One", has 'always' been described as a "driver for a livery company" (United Parcel Services?) As such, even though he is the perrenial winner in almost every match in which he competes, by this definition he should not be classified as a "Professional Shooter": but at his website he is named as "Rob Leatham Professional Shooter, 24-time USPSA National Champion, 5-time IPSC World Champion, action pistol shooter and practical shooting website".

I'm guessing that his day-to-day livelihood is not dependent upon delivering parcels to your doorstep anymore.

TALKING POINT:

Even the most talented (eg: "naturally gifted") shooter has small hopes of competing successfully against a Professional Shooter. The best they can hope for ... and this has been the traditional career route ... is that someone will decide that they appear to have a sufficient talent that it's worth the financial obligation to sponsor them at least as far as providing ammunition for practice; the next step is match fees and travel fees; the third step is providing an 'honorarium' for linking their name to the product name.

That doesn't always provide enough money for the shooter to quit his or her "day job", but it may provide sufficient money for them to make their living expenses by offering Training Classes to wanna-be shooters.

At this point, I don't hold much hope of competing successfully against the person who trained me for a day, a weekend, or for a week. I can improve my own capabilities, but I have not the advantages in practice time and expenses to me competitive.

THESIS:
USPSA should make an effort to identify "Professional Shooters", and remove their Classifier scores from those against which the non-professional shooter must be measured. It should become a part of USPSA's functions to require professionals to self-identify, and put them in a special ... Category? Class? Division? for the purpose of Classifier Scores.

Amateurs should compete against other Amateurs; they should not compete against the Professional Shooters. This should be true also in Major Matches, which suggests that there should be a separate Category, at least, identifying which Professional Shooters actually WIN a match, a stage or a division.

Classifier Scores should also be maintained in a Separate classification matrix, so that Amateur Shooters are not classified in comparison to Professional Shooters.

Emergency Gear

When I was living with SWMBO, I was getting up at 6am so I could get to work early ... and therefore get back early enough to relieve her relatives who were "sister-sitting" her while I was at work.

Even after taking a shower and shaving, I wasn't really all that wide awake. So SHE and I developed a "Status Check" to make sure I had everything I really needed.

Most of my stuff was in my briefcase, which I carry with me everywhere. I didn't need to worry about incidentals like my check book. But I did need to keep track of the things I carried on my person.

I only needed to make sure I had five things:

1. Eye glasses
2. Phone
3. Watch
4. Car Keys
5. Money Clip (including identification, like Driver's License)

It amazed me that I so often discovered I had forgotten to have one or more of those essential items.

(To be sure, I didn't really need the watch. I don't like wrist watches, and besides I had a watch on my cell phone, my key chain, and my money-clip. But SWMBO had given me the watch for Christmas and I was always conspicuously wearing it. The day she died, I put my wrist watch on the shelf and have not worn it since; I never wanted her to know that her gift was something that I didn't appreciate.)

Now my list is down to only four items, and it's a lot easier to keep track of. The funny thing is, my phone never rings and a few months ago I LOST my eyeglasses ... had to buy a new pair. But I hadn't forgotten to put it on when I left home, I just don't know what happened to it. Fortunately, I bought three pairs of cheap "drug-store" eyeglasses which only magnify, which is all I need for reading. I'm far-sighted, so I can drive just fine without glasses.

And I keep an extra set of keys in the car, which is double-locked with a keypad, so even if I forget my keys I can drive my car and get back in my house. There's $20 in cash hidden there, too, so I can buy lunch or some gasoline even though I may have forgot to bring my money-clip (although, of course, I cannot legally drive.)

I think it's a good idea to duplicate some "resources" so that even if I run out of the house naked (not my usual practice, but think "your house is on fire and all you need to do is to escape alive"), I'm not at the mercy of the elements nor dependent upon the charity of strangers. And yes, I also have a bag packed with spare clothes there, too. They have been stored in my car after the 2003 USPSA match at Tri-County Gun Club when it rained so hard that even my rain-gear didn't keep me from getting uncomfortably soaked. It would have been good to have dry clothes to change into then; now that I have a change of clothes available, I've never shot a match under such inclement conditions. But if I find myself in that situation again, I can expect to ride home warm and dry and comfortable. It's worth the investment of two square feet of space in the back of the car.

I also keep several bottles of water, some munchies (usually granola bars), boots, a blanket, extra batteries and extra ammunition for my carry pistol back there. Also, a few other handy items (hand warmers, blanket, batteries, matches, knife, a CB Radio, etc.) in the car. It all fits into the plastic bin .. another 4 square feet of the cargo area which usually serves no usual purpose.

The briefcase also carries munchies, a small amount of water, address book, pens and paper, etc.

In my pockets I also carry a flashlight, cigarette lighter, money, phone, ID and credit cards.

That gives me three levels of Emergency preparedness:

Immediate: in my pocket.
Short term: in my briefcase.
Longer term: in my car.

No, these few items don't constitute a SHTF preparedness. If I need more than this, I'm probably going to be SOL.

But for the next day or so, I'm able to be dry, warm, fed, watered and comfortable.

Of course, in the long run and in any civil emergency, I'm no more of a "survivor" than 99% of other people. That's why I have emergency stuff (stove, fuel, water, food, lanterns & fuel, etc.) in my pantry and garage. But still ... if it all goes in the pot ... I'm just one more person who doesn't believe in making my day-to-day life a fearful experience. I expect the world to continue turning as it always has. And if it doesn't? What the heck, I probably don't want to live in that world, anyway.

Life's too short to live it in fear.

BMI (Body Mass Index)

Want to know whether you're "Normal" weight, "Overweight", or "Obese"?

You can load your height and weight here (http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/) and find out.

Quick self-test is also an alternative: If you're not sure, you're probably overweight. If you're really worried ... you're probably obese.

This is very unforgiving, folks, so don't go there if you don't really want to know.

I only know this because I was curious, having developed a Budda Belly. Yes, I am overweight.

Which is curious, because when I was in the army I weighted 141 pounds when I was drafted, and weighed 126 pounds when I came home.

According to the BMI calculator, I was "normal" at 141 pounds, and "underweight" at 126 pounds.

Funny, because everyone always considered me to be "skinny", even when I was drafted. When I came home at 126 pounds, I looked like a non-survivor at a Nazi Concentration Camp. But I felt fine, and was in the best physical shape of my life. In fact, I looked almost the same at 141 pounds. (Except at 141 pounds, when I got in fights, I sometimes won; the only way I could win fights at 126 pounds was by shooting people who were shooting at me, and hitting them first. This is not recommended for civilians, BTW, unless someone really is shooting at you.)

I was over 30 before I gained enough weight that I could no longer see my pelvis bones; now I can't even see my toes!

Five years after I got out of the army, I weighed 170 pounds. That's suppose to be "normal", but I remember popping a button off my shirt. Seems my weight all went to my belly.

Bummer.

I guess it's time for me to start thinking about less fried foods, and more vegetables and grains. Rye Whiskey is made from Grain, and that's suppose to be a healthy food group, isn't it? How can I go wrong?