E15 may kill your car?

AAA issues warning on E15 gas - News - Tire Business - The Tire Dealer's No. 1 News Source:

Only about 12 million out of the more than 240 million light-duty vehicles on the roads today are approved by manufacturers to use E15 gasoline, based on a survey of auto manufacturers conducted by AAA. The group said its automotive engineering experts "also have reviewed the available research and believe that sustained use of E15 in both newer and older vehicles could result in significant problems, such as accelerated engine wear and failure, fuel-system damage and false 'check engine' lights for any vehicle not approved by its manufacturer to use E15." "It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many motorists may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle," said AAA President & CEO Robert Darbelnet. "Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers."

"E15" (fuel which is 85% gasoline and 15% Ethanol) is dramatically different from "E10" .. gasoline which is 10% Ethanol and 90% gasoline).

The difference is, apparently, not minor.

If I understand this correctly, the main problem is that the 'E15' portion of fuel in your tank separates with time.  Eventually, the ethanol proportion becomes much more predominate, so you are are actually burning a much higher degree of ethanol than gasoline.

This (again, this is my understanding) means that vehicles made before 2012 cannot burn high-percentage Ethanol without damage to your engine.

In news reports (besides those published from the American Automible Association) we see headlines such as (from USA Today): "BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and VW have said their warranties will not cover fuel-related claims caused by E15. Ford, Honda, Kia, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo have said E15 use will void warranties ... citing potential corrosive damage to fuel lines, gaskets and other engine components."

Why are these petroleum products being promulgated upon the American Public?  (Somebody please say "Nice Alliteration, Geek!)?

Because the Federal government strongly supports E15.

Disclaimer?  Ethanol producers strongly disclaims the claims because the claimants are biased.  (Okay, maybe I'm being just a little facetious here .. but just because I'm mean, that doesn't mean I'm Bad.)

Ethanol supporter-reaction to the AAA report warning consumers about E15 was swift, and included automotive expert Bobby Likis. “I’m both surprised and disappointed in the entire premise of the AAA E15 article in USA Today,” the car-talk host said in a statement. “In the 41 years I have been—and still am—hands-on in the diagnosis, service and repair of cars, I find the repeating of an already dispelled myth that E15 ruins engines distasteful and contrary to the results found in extensive EPA and university studies, as well as in my first-hand experience with over 175,000 cars that have rolled through my service shop. In 41 years, we have not diagnosed a single 'ruined' engine due to ethanol."

Here's what Fox Business has to say:


Me?  *_I_* don't know what's right.  I remember several years ago when the decision was made (by people we elected .. remember that?) to require us all to accept E10 (10 percent Ethanol/gasoline fuel) .. we were told ... 'do it for the environment, and because the only way we can get enough gasoline for all of us is to accept some 'natural' fuel elements to expand our fuel availability' ... we were also told that we would probably have to change all of our fuel filters because E10 would stir up the sediment of our fuel tanks.  To a degree.

So we're now all running on E10, and sediment is not a problem?

Is it true that now the problem is not the sediment clogging our fuel problems, but the degradation of mechanical components which may now be a problem if we are trying to burn 15% Ethanol?

Where will it end?

You know, I'm only mildly upset that the Federal Government is telling us that we "must" accept this new fuel standard.  We bitched about Ethanol years ago, and it didn't turn out to be so bad; does that mean that we should accept an 'escalation' of the Ethanol Standard?

Okay, forget that.  I'm old and cranky, and I tire easily .. especially when the effort to single-handedly rage against the predations of the Federal Government makes me look more like a Curmudgeon than the "Social Critic"  which I picture myself to be.

Umm .. no. On second thought, DON'T forget that.  I'm a cranky old man .. .make that "Cranky Old Man"! ... and my opinion may not be 'right' but I'm still entitled to my opinion.

Tell me, where in the Constitution does it say that the Feds get to tell me what kind of fuel I can/may/would/SHOULD poke into my gas tank?

(Nota Bene:  at this point, the discussion gets WAY beyond the original premise;  You Have Been Warned!)

The Left is pretty good about saying that the Constitution may be misinterpreted about the Second Amendment, but they have no objections to interpreting the Commerce Clause in any manner which best suits their political agenda.

Can't we do the same?

(Probably not .. which pisses me off to no end!)

But, other than the Leftist free-based interpretations, the constitution doesn't 'really' tell us what kind of fuel we must pour into our tank.  And it doesn't 'really'  tell us that the EPA can dictate to us.

Second Amendment:
On the other hand, the constitution doesn't apply to the 2nd amendment:  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

According to The Political Left, the Founding Fathers didn't envision "Assault Weapons", so we shouldn't accept Black Guns as being 'legitimate' because that refers to a Future Technology.  The Founding Fathers never envisioned high-capacity magazines as opposed to muskets which must be laboriously (and time/labor dependently) reloaded to facilitate even a second shot, let along 20+ shots as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Well, I think that E15 refers to "a Future Technology", too.   And the Feds don't have any right to mandate what kind of fuel we should/may/must use to fill the tanks of our motorcars .. which technology also did not exist in the 18th Century.

See .. the thing about the Political Left is that they feel that they are allowed to pick and choose which interpretations of the American Constitution they may use to advance their own political platforms.  So, they think that they can say "not 18th Century technology, does not apply, enough said" when the subject is firearms.  But when it applies to automobiles, they are entirely silent vis-a-vis Constitutional issues/priviliges/issues.

(When you started reading this, you didn't expect that I would turn the discussion from The Commerce Clause to the Second Amendment, did you?  I'm feeling just a little smug, here.)

I'm thinking .. we need to find some kind of  'meeting of the minds' where the Left and the Right agree which issues are applicable to the U.S. Constitution, and which do not.  No, I don't really expect that to happen, but it would be very nice is someone .. say, the Supreme Court ... would chip in here and say WAIT A MINUTE!

That IS covered by the Constitution.  It says what you can do, and ... gee! .. if it doesn't say you can do that, you cannot!

It seems to me that the Commerce Clause (intended to prevent imposition of trade between the states) is being over-worked by the Political Left.  As an example, it has been cited as a means to limit transfer of firearms, and (a failed attempt) to impose liabilities on firearms manufacturers when their product is used to commit crimes .... an onus which, by the way, is not imposed on automobiles which are also used to commit felonious crimes.

By now, you are probably wondering how I'm going to tie this all into a single neat knot.  Commerce clause v. Second Amendment.  E15 v AR15   Liberal v. Conservative interpretation of the Constitution.  Executive Branch v. Judicial Branch v. Legislative Branch of the Federal government.

The sad truth is .. I can't do that.

Oh, I COULD do that, using my own egocentric view of what I think the relative responsibilities should be between the branches of the government.  But in case you haven't  noticed, the Federal Government (and probably every governmental entity from President to Alderman) is composed of  [ptahhhh!] Politicians.  All they want is to be re-elected.  Giving us the finest form of government possible is not only not their primary priority, it doesn't even show up on their electoral horizon.

This E15 issue is really 'small potatoes' for our elected representatives. It only matters to "The Little Man" who just wants to full up his tank without breaking his car.

Suppose you tell me how much faith you have in YOUR elected representative, at any level, really cares whether his administrative fiat breaks your car?

The reasonable answers vary between "Oh, I think my political leaders REALLY care!" to "Fuck All".

Actually, I don't think there's much to be considered in the Mediocre Middle.

PS:
The definition of Curmudgeon is:  "a bad-tempered, difficult, cantankerous person.".  The definition makes no distinction between one who is entitled to be bad-tempered in opposition to the imposition of unrealistic administrative fiat, and one who is consistently and unrealistically oppose to being told what to do  .. even if the "what to do" part is objectively realistic.

I became a curmudgeon the day I first learned that "no gun zones" were typically imposed on public meeting places; a condition which eventually became endemic to mass murders.  The only relationship between "E15" and "Assault Weapons" is that E15, which is patently bad for us, is mandated.

Do the math.

UPDATE: January 7, 2013:
See the comments.  The question is not why the Federal Government needs to introduce :"feel good" legislation in response to every social situation that catches their attention.

The question is why the Federal Government is performing it's constitutionally mandated responsibilities by simply enacting more laws which restrict our rights as citizens.

Go back and read the Constitution.  And think again about the question stated earlier:
" ... we need to find some kind of  'meeting of the minds' where the Left and the Right agree which issues are applicable to the U.S. Constitution, and which do not."

Jack Reacher

Tom Cruise in Jack Reacher


"Funny ... I thought you would be taller."

I've been reading Lee Child books since "The Killing Floor".   I often wonder how the author can keep the 'franchise' going, but I'm never disappointed.  As is the case with Vince Flynn's "Mitch Rapp" series, the author seems always able to maintain the impetus ... somehow.

I think the secret is that each author has defined his iconic character so thoroughly that their readers know what to expect and they are never disappointed.

The late (and sorely missed) author John D. McDonald scored similarly with his "Travis McGee" series, and in 1983 one of his novels was made into a movie starred Sam Elliot (who in 1979 co-starred with Tom Selleck .. see below .. in "The Sacketts") in a thoroughly believable character.   Elliot LOOKED like he could outsmart and out-tough anyone he came across ... maybe that's why he was so believable playing opposite Patrick Swayze in "Roadhouse"?  (Note that as late as 2011, people were still trying to make movies out of Travis McGee novels.)

 Robert B. Parker ("Spenser For Hire", "Jesse Stone") was able to establish characters who were successfully translated to television series not once, but twice.  True, Robert Urich seemed a bit baby-faced for the part of Spenser, but his inimitably playful style translated wonderfully well the late-20th century "neo-Tec" persona of Parker's deranged dreams.  And casting Tom Selleck as Jesse Stone?  (Note that The Jessee Stone" series seems to be losing popularity; Selleck bought rights to the whole series before Parker died, and he's  the one who is not only starring in and producing the series but will finally decide when ... or if .. to pull the plug.)  Frankly, Selleck has always looked a little "lost" to my eye.   Works for me!

But .. Tom CRUISE as the 6'4" Reacher?

From a movie review:

When it was announced that Cruise had been cast to play Reacher - who is described as being 6’5” - many fans of the books voiced their displeasure as how could an actor who is almost a foot shorter  pull off the role, including us. But we were pleasantly surprised by Cruise’s portrayal. While he did miss the mark on a number of Reacher’s mannerisms, he still offers a decent enough performance once you get past the slight ego that creeps in every now and then.

Okay, I may actually go see the movie, just to get a better perspective on the finished product.  I admit to being at least dubious about it.  I was able to accept Mark Wahlberg as Bob Lee Swagger in a bowdlerized version of "Point of Impact" in "The Shooter" (I even bought the DVD), so I guess I can manage to watch "Jack Reacher" as long as I am careful to avoid attending the movie too soon after I have eaten a full meal.  I don't promise not to hurl, but I'll try.
 ...

Actually, whenever I find an author who has the guts and the stamina to produce a viable series of novels, I inevitably begin to wonder how it would play in a movie.  That's probably the reason why I am more accepting than I (in my curmudgeonly mood) am dismissive when I hear that one of 'my' authors has allowed his work to be filmed.  I am certain that the movie or television series will not be true to the originals, and I am prepared to be disappointed.   A teen-age girl may accept a blind date from a guy she expects to be a total nerd; she's still thrilled to be asked out.  In that way,  I'm so pleased that someone has agreed with me that the stories are worthy of an interpretation, I don't mind all that much that their vision may turn out to be entirely different from mine.

In passing, I may note that the "Spenser For Hire" television-movie series was written so closely to the original novels that I'm determined to believe it's not impossible to do a workable movie directly from a book.

I just try hard not to expect it.

Okay?  Have I eaten enough crow?

So, let's talk about how Hollywood is going to screw up the entire Mitch Rapp series!

"American Assassin"   as a book, and as a movie.

Who's going to play Mitch Rapp?

 Thor?

As of November 9, 2012, that's not going to happen.   Cris Hemsworth turned down the role.  This project is so tentative that they can't even find anyone to play him.  When I read the series, I'm thinking 24 hours star  Kiefer Southerland.  The trouble is,  although this book came out in 2010, it was a 'flashback' of Rapp's entry into the Assassination Biz, which means that the character must be played by an actor who is believably being recruited out of college.  That means that the actor must be young; which in turn suggests this is the reason why this particular Mitch Rapp story was chosen --- to appeal to a younger audience.

I can't wait to see how Bruce Willis fits into the story; I'm not familiar with his character (well, he's the guy who trains Mitch and is shown up and put down in the process), so I guess my next thing is to re-read the book, THEN go see the movie.  Although, it might be better if I see the movie first;  I may be less disappointed if I'm not fixated on how "it ought to look".

The plan for now is to wait until I know more about the lead, so I can feel more comfortable expounding on the many reasons why he is entirely unsuitable for the role.    [Yes, that is a joke.  It's not easy being me.]

So many books, so many movies, so little time.
It's probably a good thing that I'm retired.

PS:
If you aren't familiar with either Lee Child or Vince Flynn (or John D. McDonald or Robert B. Parker .. .both of whom will be writing no more books), here's my recommendation in a two-step sobriety format:

1. Watch the movie first
2. Then buy, and read, the books.  Don't cheat; don't borrow them from the library. Feed the author, buy the books if only to encourage them to write more of 'em.

Unless you just cannot afford it, always buy the books; they're cheap  enough in paperback or from used-book stores (or yechy Kindal) and eventually you may find that you .... as I do .. will be pre-ordering the hardbounds before they're actually published.  There's something immensely satisfying about holding a brand new just-published book and knowing that all of your friends, family and co-workers are counting on you to read it quickly so you can loan it to them.

Then .. make them buy their own damn books.  

Feed the author!

PPS:  why buy books?  So you can re-read them any time you want to.

PPPS:  if it's a new book, put in a request to your local library for the book.  That way, they'll buy more books and feed the author even more ... and encourage more people to read and eventually buy the books --- and feed the author.

"Man, you guys are STRICT!

How the Corvallis police charged $952 for a loud party:

On Wednesday, Aug. 8, the Corvallis Police Department received a loud party complaint for an apartment on Southwest Leonard Street.

The police report noted that the department had experienced previous problems at that address. The officer parked one block away and heard the sound of loud music and thumping bass. Voices could be heard above the sound of the music. The officer was 300 feet away.

It was 11:24 p.m. Officers would remain at that site for nearly four hours, interviewing witnesses and neighbors and arresting four people in the apartment.

At the end of the night, the party had racked up a bill from the police for $952.65.

I live in a college town.  I sleep with my window open.  Almost all of the residences in my neighborhood are rentals.  And on New Year's Eve the parties were in full swing by 8pm, running until almost 5am.

Since I didn't expect to sleep well, I turned on the fan in my window to help blot out at least some of the noise. 

Really boring, except that I had noticed this article in the local paper ten days ago and I've been hanging onto it today so I could drag it out as background for the expected story about how my neighbors kept me awake all night.

Guess what?  By 3am, it was quiet in my neighborhood!  I don't know whether my neighborhood Student Princes read the story and were scared off, or if they're just more mature (or more wimpy) than those of previous years.

On Cinco de Mayo a few years ago .. which fell on a Thursday ... I actually paid a visit to a neighbor who lived in the one-floor apartment complex just over my back fence.  There were teenagers dancing in the parking lot, fighting, the doors to the 'host' apartment were wide open and the music was playing at full volume.  Mariachi music .. unsafe at any speed!

I found the host; he was a patriotic Mexican citizen and about twice my size.  Also, very drunk.  When I identified myself as his neighbor, and asked him to PLEASE quiet down the party because I had to be at work the morning (and I needed some sleep!), he started puffing up.  He looked like he was going to throw a punch, until his girl-friend pointed out that I was paying him the courtesy of asking him, instead of just phoning the police.   She talked him down, the party went back inside, and although it was still loud the noise was at least muffled.  I could live with that.
 
There was a moment there when I actually regretted my decision NOT  to carry when I went to 'visit my neighbor'.  (Two days later he woke up the neighborhood at 5am playing "El Deguello".  I ignored it.  He moved out the next month, at the end of the term.   Too much partying to maintain his GPA?  I never knew.)

That was the last time I ever actually paid a call on my neighbors.  I realized that when a party gets that far out of control, a Good Neighbor policy isn't always appreciated.

In fact, this town has a separate phone number for 'loud party' calls, just to keep their 911 line clear.

Judging from this article, I'm not the only resident who has learned that it's better to call the police than to be what might be considered "confrontational".  Perhaps we permanent residents are just getting old.  Or wiser.

(Actually, the police policy isn't all that strict. It's applied when a resident has a VERY loud party, they've been visited by the police more than once 'recently' for similar reasons, and there are extenuating factors such as minors present ... especially if the minors are drinking.  Then the hosts are billed for police salaries, use of police cars, and other city services.)
__________________________________________________

I DO remember when I was one of those students who were either hosting or attending parties.  It was a long time ago.  Great memories of young girls dancing The Frug and vomiting on the patio while people were jumping full-dressed into the pool.  My landlady wasn't happy with me, but I did clean up the mess in the morning and the neighbors didn't complain.  Maybe I was a wimpy student?

But it was a learning experience for me.
I haven't mixed soft drinks with alcohol since 1967.  I had thought it would keep me from getting drunk; instead, it just made me sick to my stomach.  Any drink that tastes better going down than it does coming back up is A Bad Idea.

I know:  Too Much Information.

Mayan Joke

One Mayan shows another his new batch of tequila and encourages him to drop what he's doing and drink some.

 

The other Mayan says, "Sure - I guess if I don't finish this calendar it won't be the end of the world..."

(Thanks and a HatTip to The G-Man)

Whew!
So .. I guess 2012 really IS only the end of the Mayan calendar, and not necessarily TEOTWAWKI.

The good news is ... well, see above.

The bad news is .. I hope nobody ever actually DRANK the kool-aid!

(Ordinarily, this would be a cue for me to research and write a Geek-Length essay about people who suicided based on their doomsday beliefs.  EG: Johnstown  and those flying-saucer believers.   But then I found that the "Heaven's Gate" webpage is still active online, and I decided that I'll just let you go there if you want to.)

For myself, I've always wanted to know what tomorrow brings, and I can't wait to see it.

On these days when the world does NOT end .. wow!  I'm really pleased about this.  I actually bought the movie 2012 to see what it might look like, and discovered that the first part is much more interesting than the last part.

CAMDEN, N.J. - Is the Latest City Asking Its Residents to Voluntarily Surrender Their Firearms for Cash | TheBlaze.com

This Is the Latest City Asking Its Residents to Voluntarily Surrender Their Firearms for Cash | TheBlaze.com:

TheBlaze previously reported on the gun buyback program conducted by the city of Camden, N.J., where residents turned in about 1,137 guns — a new record for the city. Now, in New York, the Ithaca Police Department and Tompkins County Sheriff’s Office are asking their residents to give up their guns to decrease the number of guns on the streets, the Post-Standard reports.

“The goal of the program is to remove unwanted guns from our community before they fall into the hands of those that may do harm,” a law enforcement source said.
The purpose of the buyback program is apparently to encourage Americans to voluntarily surrender their guns in exchange for immediate cash, including as much as $200 for some semi-automatic rifles.

 Oh, DO go to the comments section to see what people in the area think about this!  My own personal take is .. oh dear, are you next going to give up your right to write letters to your grandchildren?

People who think that the Second Amendment should be abrogated .. or outright deleted .. would be "Up In Arms" if the same restrictions were applied to their right to SPEAK. 

Oh, but "Up In Arms" wouldn't be valid any more, would it?

I guess most folks don't realize that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is supported .. and made feasible .. by the Second Amendment.

When I was a child, there was a movement (not locally, but it only affected me that way) for children to turn in  their comic books which were violent, in return for more "acceptable" books.  I tried to take advantage of the program (I've talked about this before) but unfortunately they were all out of dinosaur books so I took all my Rin Tin Tin and Roy Rogers comic books back home.  (I know, I have written about this before.)
 In later years, I bought my OWN fricking Rinny and Roy books .. and kept the comic books I already owned.  Some of them .. like the Lone Ranger comics .. had been given to me by my sister for Christmas.  In later years, I lost track of them; but I never lost track of how glad I was that I didn't give them up for some stupid dinosaurs who didn't do nothing!

This 'gun trade-in for toaster ovens' movement is nothing better.  Some people decided that what I had wasn't politically acceptable, so they offer valueless trivia from China in return for .... whatever.  When I was a child, comic books were as valuable to me as firearms are today.  Junkers, or important tools; a part of American History or stuff that I didn't really want or need any more.  It's all the same.  It's more valuable to ME than it is to them, except for the 'this is bad stuff' iconicism to which they ascribe my 'stuff'.

I fell for it fifty years ago (okay, a little bit further back than fifty years), but I couldn't be persuaded today.

I can't tell you how  the families of New Jersey are responding to this offer, but I strongly advise you to go look at the comments.  Most of the folks talking about this are from "out of town".  Still, their voice needs to be heard:

"The goal of the program is to remove unwanted guns from our community before they fall into the hands of those that may do harm,””……I call B.S….The goal is to disarm the public PERIOD…"

and ...
 

This is all I need to know about gun control: our FOUNDERS were FOR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS – TYRANTS AND DESPOTS Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Obama ARE AGAINST. I don’t own a gun, don’t want a gun – but I darn sure want every law abiding citizen to be able to fully exercise their right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Constitution.
The left has an agenda to drive this culture in a direction designed to destroy it. Gun control is just one of their weapons. The cadre of intellectuals that have trained Gramsci shock troops of teachers and media hacks to take this which was a Judeo/Chrsitan culture down from within…
Things are much more duplicitous then either you know or you admit:

and ....

Ummm. Prosecution from what? They could turn their guns in without fear of prosecution? Sounds like a call to criminals. Yep. You get a pass on murder. You got a gun you killed someone with? No Problem! We’ll take care of it for you! We don’t want you, we want responsible gun owners. They scare us!… Gird your loins, people. Take on the armor of God. These people are nuts

and ..
  

They state the guns owned by law abiding citizens will eventually end up in the hands of criminals. The only way mine will is if I’m dead. I guess they believe the criminals are going to prevail. Hunh. Think about that.

Yup, this sounds like a successful gun buy-back program; just like every other "successful gun buy-back program" ever promulgated in the most sorrowful states.

This sounds SO "progressive" to the Liberals, but they don't have a clue how it looks to the participants. Got a murder gun?  Sell it!  Got Papa's old POS pistol?  Sell it.  It's not like they will ever be used again, and nobody is about to track the tuns anyway.   Don't have a gun? Steal one!  Sell it. No pain; you'll steal two and sell one.  Piece of cake!

I swear, these people just don't have a single clue about how the Real World works.  They have these pie-in-the-sky notions, and they think that everybody is honest.  "It's my grandfather's gun" they claim ... and they are believed.

Yeah, like your grandfather bought that Glock 17 because it was a War Memorial.

What a bunch of maroons!

Obama gun ban list leaked

Report: Obama gun ban list leaked - Virginia Beach Conservative | Examiner.com:

On Monday, Alan Korwin, 2nd Amendment activist and author of Gun Laws of America, published a preliminary list of firearms and firearms accessories to be included in the yet-to-be announced, but much anticipated new version of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban.

The chief sponsor of the last ban, Sen. Diane Feinstein is said to be crafting new legislation now, which, if passed, President Obama would undoubtedly sign.

(The list is published as part of the original Virginia Beach Conservative article ... see the link at the beginning of this post.   Korwin's "Gun Laws of America" is available from Amazon here. )

In the immortal words of William Bendix, in "The Life Of Riley" television show in the 1960's:

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

This is not entirely a surprise, of course, to those of us who never expected anything less from this administration.

Oh the other hand, the word is that (in at least early versions), is that there will be no "Grandfather Clause".  It won't be "you can't buy these guns", but "you can't OWN these guns". Or magazine, ammunition, accessories  .. whatever.

For IPSC competitors, for example, it might be "no compensators".  Never mine magazine capacity over 10 rounds.   Any gun that can take a compensator might be modified to take a 'silencer'.

Compensation for confiscated firearms?  We can hope for the best, but expect the worst.  As Canada has already demonstrated, it's a multi-BILLION dollar proposition to compensate owners for confiscated firearms.   It would be "in the best interest of the American economy" to refuse compensation for confiscated guns.  (Not that this administration has demonstrated much respect for National Indebtedness .. witness the Health Care Bill ... but if this is accomplished by fiat there is no reason why the the general American Public wouldn't consider this sort of draconian measure to be "more acceptable" if they were sure it wouldn't cost them anything.)

Don't worry any more about The Gun Show Loophole; no "private-to-private" transfers; that's on the block.  No 'giving' guns to your children.

I hope that I'm being unnecessarily phobic here, but the sad fact is that Business in America  (I'm not talking about "Big Business"; the small businesses have been threatened even more by an erratic Federal leadership) has learned that we cannot rely on a reasonable, consistent administration of Federal regulations. Not for the next four years, at least.   I was never all that fond of Mitt Romney, but at least if he had been elected we wouldn't have been forced to cope with an out-of-control, Lame Duck President.

Who knows what tomorrow will bring?  I sure don't  It's a sad commentary when we no longer distrust our government.  Today, too many Americans fear our government.

PS:  
Oh, you think maybe I AM being too negative?  Take a look at this video!   The liberals .. and I'm talking about Members of Congress ... are gloating over the prospect of imposing "REASONABLE Gun Controls"!  



And they're not at all worried about .. or listening to ... any introduction of a contradictory point of view.

Still not convinced that the Gun Grabbers are determined to take these recent tragedies and run with them?

Even on Conservative news panels, there is emphatic, sincere, emotional controversy:
It's a joy to me, to watch calm, measured discussion on a topic which has such a powerful effect on our nation. Fortunately, we have George Will .. to whom nobody actually listens. It's sad, when one quiet man can calmly observe that (regardless of the good will of the common man): "Things like this are going to happen."




Not that I believe he will influence anyone who doesn't already believe as he does.

The War On Guns .. ho hum

I have to admit, sometimes I get SO tired about writing about Second Amendment Issues.  The liberal left is tireless ... how can one grizzled old gun nut keep up with them?   They keep talking about "Common Sense" gun laws ... as if we don't already have enough of them.   And we're all so darned serious about it?

Don't get me wrong.  I don't think it's not serious (which is probably why I keep writing this tired old blog).  It's just that 'they' combine "Serious" with "Concerned" and "Reason", and seemingly seem to expect that if they can just be sufficiently sincere, their lack of logic can be overlooked.

 Fortunately, once in a while, we find a public figure who can take a lighter (or at least less determined) approach.  Maybe we can watch this kind of thing from time to time, and learn to laugh about how the folly of our fatuous passion.

 Chuck Woolery on Assault Weapons - YouTube



The interesting thing is, this guy (I understand he's an ex-game show host ... but I haven't had a cable connection to my TV for a decade and a half, so I don't know) ... somehow he seems to project just the right note of "Why So Serious" to appeal to my dark-side sense of humor.

I did, however, become sufficiently re-invigorated to look at some of the recent commentary about the issue, and I found some fascinating viewpoints which you may find as interesting as I did.  This is going to be a gallop-through of several links.  You will forgive me if I just point you in various directions, perhaps make a few descriptive comments about the content,, add a quote here and there.  You can decide what you want to do with the variety of perspectives.  Okay?

Here we go:

The Blaze: December 19, 2012:  CNN host Piers Morgan on a panel discussion (about recent massacres ... assume this is the subject in most of the reference you will see here, if only tangentally) takes on John Lott and attempts to turn the entire controversy on the point of "how many bullets can an AR15 fire in one second?".   Personally, my best split-time with a handgun is 0.13 seconds, with absolutely unreliable accuracy.  I do 0.18 seconds with faith that I'm close enough to the target that I wild get some cardboard.  Most of my split times, though, are 0.25 - 0.35 seconds. when I'm hurrying.  Morgan says "four to six shots per second", though, and I'm sure that's not an unreasonable figure.   Not that it matters, because I can get the same split-times with a revolver ... if I don't expect to be accurate.  Lott refuses to respond to the question because it's not salient to the issue.  In a word, Morgan is losing the debate so he chooses to obfuscate the issues by focusing on an insignificant side-issue.

Washington Post "WonkBlog", December 14, 2012:  under the title "Twelve facts about guns and mass shooting in the United States" (sic),  Ezra Klein starts out with a homily about "politicizing the tragedy".  He seems to think that is A Bad Thing.  Then he spends hours to build a presentation based on 12 talking points, at least as many graphs, and a sad picture to propose that when people shoot people, that is indeed A Bad Thing.  We can agree that both politicization and shooting are Bad Things.  Not sure about his conclusions, though.  His arguments are weak, his citations from singularly skewed sources (eg: Duke University, Harvard University), his conclusions have been made before he wrote the article:

Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. “Too soon,” howl supporters of loose gun laws. But as others have observed, talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t “too soon.” It’s much too late.

 "Supporters of loose gun laws" ... gee, that sounds like a fore-gone conclusion to me.

 In a December 26 "Wonkblog", Klien continues to beat the same dead horse; he has found another graph!  Oh Frabujous Joy!  ("Guns kill people, in one chilling graph"):

No money quote: here is the entire text of the article:

You know that line, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people?” It’s true, so far as it goes. But in the United States, when people decide to kill people, or kill themselves, they typically reach for a gun.

Never let it be said that I didn't present both sides of the argument.  And I didn't even have to pick and choose .. both citations were picked at random.  I guess some people just get a lot of press.

WONKBLOG December 23, 2012:  Same place, different writer.  John Sides contributes to the Christmas Spirit with "Gun owners vs. the NRA: What the polling shows".

You guessed it: another graph.   These guys love graphs; they represent statistics!  You know the old saying: "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics!".

The statistics were a bit vague, but not as vague as the conclusions reached by the author.

NRA members were also different politically even from gun owners who weren’t in the NRA.  For example, 70 percent of gun owners who were NRA members called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative.”  Only 44 percent of gun owners who weren’t NRA members said that.  And while gun ownership has become increasingly confined to Republicans, there are still big differences in terms of party identification even among gun owners.  The vast majority of NRA members (73 percent) identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party.  But among gun owners who weren’t in the NRA, only 49 percent were Republicans; more than a third (35 percent) were actually Democrats.  

 I'm not sure what the author's point was, but it seems that he's surprised  (disappointed?  outraged?) that NRA members and/or gun owners were not entirely conservative men.  Some gun owners, some NRA members, "were actually Democrats"!  Imagine that?

Fear not.  By the time he ran out of steam, he had proved conclusively (?) that Guns Are Bad, and All Right-Thinking Americans Know That.

Actually, there are a still a few Americans who don't agree with that.  The Washington Post would probably not be surprised (or disappointed) to learn that some of those deluded people are [gasp] Jews.

 "We Know How To Stop School Shootings" (Front Page Magazine; December 20, 2012; by Ann Coulter)

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.

 I love Ann Coulter.  I want to bear her child. It seems impossible for her not to bait the gun-grabbers at every opportunity,  She pisses them off with every word she speaks; she can rarely actually GIVE a talk to a University audience, because the students (and often the faculty) end up spitting at her, throwing chairs, attacking campus police, and other variations of rioting, mob rule, and ... well, generally speaking, what passes for 'decorum' under the definitions of Liberal Society.  This is not all that bad for her; the university hires her to give a talk, and the student body (sometimes even members of the faculty) make the environment unsafe.  She still gets the 'honorarium' (which is the only honor the place actually offers).  Fortunately, most universities which schedule her talks are governmentally funded, and we all know that the government spares no expense to allow their students to listen to new ideas and expand their knowledge and ability to reason dispassionately.

I actually learned something from reading this article which I have NEVER seen reported by any other MSM pundit:

If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that’s because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

[If I may add a minor comment, apropos of absolutely nothing at all:  I can speak from experience that it's not always intuitively obvious that virtually all malls in Oregon are "Gun Free Zone".  I have several friends  experience a similar cognitive incongruity when entering places designated as "Gun Free Zones".   Not that I actually ever carry a concealed weapon there, nor do my friends.  Still, it's easy to understand that this may happen from time to time.]

Anyway ... if the MSM never reports this, did it happen?  If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, is there a sound?

I'll look for other references:
KGW TV December 17, 2012:  Clackamas Mall Shooter Faced Man With Concealed Weapon;

MSNNow December 16, 2012:  Armed Civilian at Clackamas Mall Shooting Thought about Firing at Gunman"

EXAMINER, December 15, 2012: "Media Blackout: Oregon mall shooting was stopped by an armed citizen"

(worth a quote here:)

While reports of Tuesday's shooting at the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Oregon, dominated the national media, until Friday's horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, one very important detail has been repeatedly (and intentionally) left out of the MSM's coverage.
The shooter, Jacob Tyler Roberts, was confronted with an armed citizen, at which time he ran away and shot himself. By the time police arrived on the scene, Roberts was already dead.
That armed man was 22-year-old Nick Meli, who was at the mall shopping with a young woman who was babysitting her friend's baby.

 There's a link to the KGW report embedded; read it, too.

And on YouTube:
Oregon Mall Shooting stopped by licensed Gun Carrier

It appears that there was an armed civilian there.  Why didn't anyone notice?  Perhaps one person noticed; the shooter.  That seems to have been the only one who mattered, and  apparently it mattered a great deal.

SO ....   EVERYBODY HAS BEEN FOCUSING ON THE SHOOTER!
Nobody is paying attention to the man who may have been the crucial factor in the shooter's decision to kill himself, at that moment instead of other innocents.

Pay attention to this name:  Nick Meli

I think we all get the message, and hey!  If you ever get to meet Nick Meli?  I've got a Bronze Star from Vietnam sitting on my mantel.  Please tell him that I would be homered if it was sitting on Mr. Meli's mantel, instead.   He's done more to earn it than I ever did.

And that's all I have to say about it.

Ho Ho Ho!

Open letter from the Congress of the United States of America:
Hello Boys and Girls, this is Santa Claus coming to you directly from the North Pole! Ho Ho Ho!

I bring you joys and toys for all girls and boys. And Good News! The Kyoto Treaty has died the death of inevitability .. nobody really wants it.   We didn't have to vote on it, so it's Not Our Fault.


Oh, and (ho ho ho!) That thing about the United Nations Small Arms Treaty? Sorry, that was just a joke left over from April Fool's Day. Nobody wants to take your guns. Ho Ho Ho! You're so gullible, Santa LOVES to mess with your minds.


 Carolyn McCarthy's recent bill to reincarnate the (already failed, 'cause it is a piece of crap that didn't work) Assault Weapons Ban? Not a happening thing.

Nobody in the House OR the Senate wants to sign on to it; they know as well as we do that she's a dingus, a doofus, and a melt-down just waiting for the correct juxtaposition of the stars. We just let her introduce any bill which strikes her as 'appropriate' so we look good to the press.   God forbid it should come down to a vote;  y'all might get the impression that WE aren't comfortable with you having guns that we can't control.

Funny thing ... she has introduced the same bill every year for the past ten years, and everyone has ignored it every year. You would think that she would get the hang of it, but Nooooooooo, If she had any friends in the house, you would think that at least one of them would mention the "beating a dead horse" thingie to her. But .... NOOoooooooo! Sorry, Carolyn; you're a self-absorbed twit, a one-note samba, an ignoramus who can see the signs but can't read them. So; this year, as we have done for so MANY years, we're going to ignore you again. You're an idiot, but you're OUR idiot.

Besides,  Carolyn ....your ideologically inane political priorities are obviously  idiotic, but the fact that we continue to let you present the SAME bill for so many years, and we pretend to take you seriously, makes us look good to the other asshats in your party. So .. keep up the good work, Carolyn. Every time you do the same old thing in the same old way, and expect different results, you reconfirm our definition of insanity. You Go, Girl! (Please!)

 Looking to the new year, we see other idiots who think the best way to stop people from massacring their neighbors in shopping malls and schools is to keep sane people from being allowed to protect themselves while they're in ... well .... shopping malls and schools.  And churches.  You know, the kind of places where people ask you:  "Why do you want to carry a gun in a CHURCH?  That's a Peaceful Place!  (As if .. RTFM, Folks.)  Gee, that's tough on the people who frequent shopping malls and schools.  But what the heck .. we're elected by the same constituency every year, and as long as they don't seem to have a problem with their neighbors being killed while we continue to introduce bills to keep honest folks from having guns, is there really a problem here?  We don't think so.

In the mean time, we'll   have our chauffeurs and Nanny, our aides and our secretaries, do our Christmas shopping for us.  We are too busy to keep track of what our families want .. hell, we're too busy to know what our constituents want! .  So we'll just keep on making meaningless policy statements on television, and will ALWAYS keep our $400 haircuts au courant.  It doesn't matter what we do, as long as we look good; right?  In the meantime, we're in our offices at least 3 or four hours a day, so keep those cards and letters coming, People.  Our aides need the traffic to keep them busy and to justify their employment .. which you pay for.

Y'all folks have fun doing your Christmas Shopping, okay?  Don't expect to meet us in the malls, though.  Santa may have an AK, but he isn't as devoted to our personal protection as we would wish him to be.

{signed}  Your Congressman

Goofy Internet

First, I apologise for the crappy soundtrack which inundates the website today ( and for the past week).  It's part of the  post which addressed the Portland, Oregon Mall Shooting.  I can't stop it, so let it go for a couple of more days and it will eventually archive its ass out of here.

Second, I note that the both the internet and cell-phone texts seem to be less than 100% reliable.  I don't know why this is.  I'm just saying that if you're having problems with these two communications modes (some folks are, some folks aren't) .. it's probably not your fault.

It's either The End Of The World As We Know It (TEOTWAWK) or we have suddenly developed a cultural  dysfunction with no discernible cause.


For myself?  I figure I forgot how to send a text message.  Merry Christmas!

Pistol Competition: Draw, Fire and Reload by Max Michel

Max Michel Shooting Tips - Tip #2 - Drawing From a Holster & Speed Reloads With a Pistol - YouTube It's time to get back to the Bete Noir of this website: competition skills. I've had a lot of emails and personal questions from people who are trying to get up to speed in IPSC competition. We need to remember that the three basic principles of IPSC (USPSA) competition are:

• Speed
• Power
• Accuracy

In the original design of this article, we defined ACCURACY and POWER first.  But that's not why you're reading this, so we're going to talk first about SPEED, and then if you're still interested you can read about the other ' not very interesting, but necessary ' parts later:

SPEED!

SPEED is all about getting the shots off in the shortest possible time.
Right?
Wrong!

SPEED is all about getting the job done in the shortest possible time, without giving up POWER and ACCURACY.

The reason POWER is important is that with Major Power Loads, it takes you hundredths of a second more to recover for the second shot when you're double-tapping a target.

The reason ACCURACY is important is two-parted:

1. you get more points with more accurate hits;
2. it takes you tenths of a second longer to get more accurate hits

The reason SPEED is important is ... the formula for stage points is:

POINTS less PENALTIES divided by SPEED

Assuming you don't get any penalties (misses, procedural penalties, etc.), it's really great to get a lot of points but if you take a LOT of time to get those points ..  you get burned if your trying to be 'Competitive'.

Let's look at the numbers:

Take for example an "El Presidente" stage where there are sixty points possible over three targets (shoot 3 targets twice each, reload, shoot the same 3 targets twice each).  "
Virginia Count", 12 shots,60 points possible.

Shooter 01 gets all A-zone hits .. doesn't matter what his power factor is (as long as it's at least minor power) he gets sixty points. He does it in 10 seconds.

His Stage Factor is Points less Penalties, divided by time: 60 - 0 / 10 = 60/10 = 6.000

Shooter 02 gets (of the 12 shots (six A-zone, six C-zone, shooting MAJOR) in 11 seconds)
His  score is 54 points divided by 10 seconds; Stage Factor is  (54/10) 5.40.

Shooter 03 gets 8 A-zone hits and 4 C-zone hits, in 8 seconds, shooting MINOR.  
His score is (8x5) + (4x3) = 40 + 13 = 54 points.

Divided by 8 seconds, his Stage Factor is (54/8) = 6.750

The winner?  Shooter 03.  Even though he's shooting MINOR and gets less points for 'near misses' (C-zone hits), and even though he got as many points as Shooter 01 .. he did the same job faster, so he wins the stage by a wide margin.

From this (obviously contrived) example, you're probably thinking WOW  ALL I GOTTA DO IS SHOOT FASTER AND I WIN!!!!!

Well, it's not that easy.  Actually, there are TWO parts of this exercise/stage that you need to control

  First is the "Facing uprange, wrists above shoulders, on signal turn and draw and ...: yadda yadda yadda,

This is important, and it's really hard, right?

Right?

Wrong!  I know it's not something you do all the time, but geez, how hard can it be?  Turn ... THEN draw?  That's all you have to know.

(Yes, I've seen Grand Masters muck this up at National Matches.  That's "Match Nerves" .. has nothing to do with you.  Ignore it; it's easy.)

That was a trick.

Here's the 'important' (not hard, just important) parts:

Part 1: The Draw (and first hit on the target)
You got to get that first hit.  Make it good, make it solid, make it smooth and OWN it.  It builds confidence, sets you up for the second shot (double-tap?) and all you have to do is get the same sight picture on every target during the rest of the stage.  Make it solid, make it good, make it be your ideal.  Take enough time to GET that first show.  Know it; own it.  Do it 11 more times.  Piece of cake.

Part 2: The Reload
Oh, you didn't notice that you had to do a reload?  You didn't notice?  Gee, you had the (link to) the Stage Procedures ...you didn't know?  Here's the rule: if the stage procedures require you to do a mandatory reload, you're penalized 10 points for each shot fired after the mandatory reload and until you (eventually, maybe) DO the reload.  If you don't reload at all, that's six shots for sixty points, which means *(DUH!)* YOU ZEROED THE STAGE.

Geez, it took us a LONG time to get to the point of the lesson, but I hadda sneak up on ya, didn't I?

The thing is, you don't get to be FAST by shooting fast.  You still need to get the sight picture, squeeze the trigger, do your double-tap thingie (which does NOT mean instinctively pulling-the-trigger-as-fast-as-you-can twice .. but we'll talk about that later.)  What you do have to do is know when to cut down your time  .. and when to make the time work for you.

Essentially, make the time work for you by getting a good sight picture, sight alignment, and trigger pull.

Don't make your time up by cutting down on ANY of these essential elements of shooting!

Emphasize with lots more exclamation marks:  !!!!!!  Do not do not do NOT!!!!!

Make your stage faster by cutting down on the three time-wasters of IPSC:

1. Movement
2. Draw/First Show
3. Reloads

We'll talk about 'Movement' some other time, so let's just focus on draw and reloads for now, shall we?  Max Michell has a lovely video to help you see this, and you'll see  the value of it I'm sure.

So, here's the lesson, courtesy of Max Michell:




ACCURACY
The third principle is Accuracy.  That means hitting the target.  Preferably in the "A-Zone"  .. the highest scoring area of the target.  If you can do that, it means that you are awarded five (5) points for each hit.  That's the maximum number of scoring points you can get.

POWER
The second principle is Power.  If you are shooting a low-recoil caliber (such as the 9mm), you will probably be shooting 'Minor Power'.  Compare this with, for example, the .45 ACP cartridge.  Typically, this is defined as 'Major Power'.  The difference is defined by the momentum of the bullet.  If you have a heavy bullet (eg: .45ACP, 230 grains traveling  at a speed of 800 feet per second).

Here's where it gets complicated.
"Power" is determined by weighing the bullet, then shooting the ammunition (same bullet, different cartridge but with the same gun and amount of gunpowder) over a "Chronograph".  This is a device which meaures the speed of the bullet when fired from 'your' gun.  The bullet (or a typical sample) is also measured, by weighing it on a scale which measures the weight in grains within one one-thousandths of a grain.  That's 1/1000 grain.

A 230 grain bullet, then, would measure out as 'something close to' 230.000" grains.

The .45ACP (.45 caliber, Automatic Colt Pistol) round was MILSPEC (Military Specifications) assumed to be shooting a 230 grain bullet at a velocity of 800 Feet Per Second (FPS).

There is a formula for determining what is called the POWER FACTOR.  Essentially, a 230 grain bullet shout travel at about 800 FPS.  This gives a POWER FACTOR (PF) of about 174.

Here's the formula for determining POWER FACTOR:

PF = M V / 1000

That is: Mass (230 grains) times VELOCITY (800 FPC)  = PF.
For simplicity, you divide that quantity by 1000 to get the PF.

Here, that PF Calculation would look like this:

230 grains x 800 feet per second =  17,400

Divide that by 1,000, and you get a PF of (17,400 / 1,000) 174.

Now, the current regulations of USPSA define two different Power Factors  *:

Major Power:
Minor Power:

According to the USPSA.ORG rule book a pistol/ammunition must meet or exceed 170 PF to be rated as MAJOR POWER
And a pistol/ammunition must meet or exceed 128 PF to be rated as MINOR POWER.

*    Power factors lower than Minor Power may still compete, but their scores are not recorded and the are not eligible for competitive placement.)

(Note that these Power Factor Ratings have been adjusted from year to year .. check your current rule book at  under "RULES" at USPSA.ORG)

Why should you care?
The score for each scoring zone (other than the A-zone) differ whether you are shooting a firearm/ammunition combination which is rated as MAJOR or MINOR power

Here's the break-down:
MAJOR POWER:

• A-Zone: 5 points
• B-Zone: 4 points
• C-zone:  4 points
• D-Zone: 2 points

MINOR POWER:

• A-Zone: 5 points
• B-Zone: 3 points
• C-Zone: 3 points
• D-Zone: 1 point

Note that the A-zone hit ALWAYS scores 5 points; but the other scoring zones allocate one less point for Minor power than for Major power.  That's because the minor-power situation provides for much easier control of the firearm .. with a penalty of much less 'stopping power'.

SO .. IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO SHOOT A GUN/AMMO COMBINATION AT MAJOR POWER?

(We'll leave this subject for discussion in a future post.  Just now, we're merely telling you about the rules, not the tactics.)

With a Major Power rating,

Be Ready For Bullets: Mindset for the Nation?

How prepared can we be if evil strikes again?:

Perhaps I'm not The Only One who is trying to get the message out.  It appears that some people aren't willing to accept the flawed premise that: "It's Okay For Us To Be Sheep; We Have A SHEEPDOG!"

(The "Sheepdog:" is the police; their job is to call the ambulances ... and the coroner.)

Here is a short article which examines the alternate reality:  What if a school (or other institution) actually trains their charges in the most likely effective responses to an attack?

Even as we struggle to figure out what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School — who did what and why — the sad frequency of attacks by men with guns is creating a growing school of thought based on a simple premise: Be ready for the bullets. These mass shootings, but also bombings and terror attacks, have fueled a need, rational or not, to be prepared for the worst in whatever form it may come and know how to act when it does.

Chances are, if you are in Ground Zero of a terrorist attack (doesn't matter if it's a 'disturbed' young American, that's what this shit is), if you're not armed the best way to avoid being injured ... or killed .. is to 'not be there'.

If you're a sheep, you'll just follow the herd.  Most of the herd is standing in one place, facing the door, wondering WTF is happening?

But there is a sub-group in that herd who Has A Clue.  Those individuals know that their best chance of surviving the next few moments is to be among the folks who have decided to 'not be there'.

Why are they 'not there'?  Because they are Ready for Bullets.  They don't expect the worst, they're just ready for it.  And so they have already decided that it's better to go away and later feel foolish, than to stick around and be cool .. as in, room temperature.

... while nothing can ever prepare children for what happened at Sandy Hook, having a specific procedure to follow probably did help keep the youngsters calm and focused — and could potentially minimize the effects of the trauma down the road, said Stephen Brock, a professor of school psychology at California State University, Sacramento.

Here are the Three Laws of Survivor Thermodynamics:

1. Those who have a plan, have a chance
2. "Pure Thoughts" are good to have at the last moments of your life; but they don't necessarily extend your Life Expectancy
3. Be Ready For Bullets

I just made them up.   We're all open to suggestions for improvement.   If it saves just one child ....

More guns mean more guns?

Connecticut shootings conspiracy - Philadelphia Relationships | Examiner.com:

This video is one of the less extreme discussions on the subject which I've seen recently:

(I don't agree with much that is said, but it at least seems more balanced .. although not very balanced .. than most MSM discussions.)

The accompanying commentary, however, seems a bit over the top.   It's a Conspiracy Theory, and frankly it sounds .... to be kind ... stupid.

It's a Conspiracy Theory, and here's the Money Quote:

It is not a coincidence of circumstances of the tragedy as concerns the upcoming UN small arms treaty and gun control. Adam Lanza used legally registered weapons to perform a mass murder. Could this horrific event have been planned to get the UN Small Arms Treaty signed?

The article is poorly written, and the premise is absurd.  It's full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Conspiracy?  Who planned this?

In this country, the premier Conspiracy Theorist is The Federal Government of the United States of America.

The Feds did this?

Don't make me laugh!  (maniacal laughter)

The Feds .. especially the office of the President of the United States (POTUS) couldn't successfully engineer and keep secret a conspiracy.  Remember Watergate?

The Feds couldn't conspire a wet dream.   Remember Fellatio-Gate Lewensky?


I'm not saying that there are NOT people in this country who would like to United States to sign on to the United Nations Small Arms Treaty (UNSAT)

Oh, by the way?  UNSAT PASSED!  All nations signed it on September 20, 2012.  Apparently that includes the United States.

However, the U.S. Senate has not yet ratified the treaty.  That means, POTUS (Obama) directed his ambassador to the United Nations to sign the treaty.  But POTUS doesn't have the power to demand that it be ratified by the senate.

Apparently, this is the crisis point at which some folks think a conspiracy may have 'engineered' an 'event' to put the American people behind a drive which will do an end-run around the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

What if the treaty (this case, UNSAT) runs counter to the U.S. Constitution?    I've talked a little bit about this kind of contretemps before, and I just went back and revisited the "Treaty Clause"  (Article II of the Constitution) question here.

I'm not going to make any decision for myself at this point, because I'm not a constitutional scholar .. and neither is Wikipedia.  Just .. consider this an 'overview' presented for your consideration.

It's controversial, it's scary, and it's hard to get any idea about how America will jump vis a vis the UNSAT treaty.

The point of this discussion, however, is whether the Connecticut school shooting was engineered to sway public opinion toward adoption and acceptance of UNSAT.

I don't believe it.  One of the reasons, I don't believe it is that there have been enough Mass Murders in this country in the past 30 years that another one is just not necessary.

And THAT consideration is the reason I'm not going to get much sleep tonite.

In the word of John Lennon (perhaps slightly perverted here) ... I'm not the only one.

It is time for a national conversation

The Sandy Hook shootings: It is time for a national conversation | Washington Times Communities

I know, you're tired of reading my 'slanted' opinions vis a vis gun control vs "do it for the children". Still, I think it's worth one more SMALL effort to exemplify the way the left is politicizing this tragedy.   This little bit is in response to, and generally formated as the author of, this Washington Times Communities opinion article (see link above).

In the wake of the tragic slaughter of innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, it is not too soon for a national conversation about guns. The biggest question before us is why such horrible weapons of mass violence such as the Glock 9mm and the Sig Sauer are sold to the public. Guns like this make it easier and faster to kill lots of people with just one gun; think then of the damage two assault weapons can inflict. Already the country is talking about gun control and putting teeth into our existing laws. It is time for politicians to quit being ostriches and confront this important national issue. And it’s time for President Obama to step up and lead the way. This is the time for responsible gun owners to stand up for real licensing requirements. 

 Nice Lady, we have already had a National Conversation About Guns.  We called it "The Constitutional Convention".  During that process the autocratic impulses of reigning politics were hamstrung by a people who didn't want their government telling them how to live their day-to-day lives.   The results of that National Conversation was that We The People didn't like it when King George locked up their firearms in an armory.   So if you want a national conversation about private ownership of firearms, you need to accept that many participants are going to vehemently disagree with your opinion. 

Here's my contribution to the Conversation:

"Horrible weapons of mass violence"?  When you say that, I think "Crack Cocaine".  I think about automobiles which kill tens of thousands of people a year ... and I imagine the violence that alcohol addiction imposes on families, and I think about Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

I think about Cancer,  to whom I lost my Significant Other; I think about Heart Disease, to whom I lost my father.  I think about surgical procedures gone wrong, to whom I lost my Mother..  I think about nine-eleven, and wars, and occasionally (and most recently) I think about the mental disease which has become so terribly prevalent in our country since we closed all the mental hospitals and turned those crazy people out in the streets to beg on the corners of our urban centers with their cardboard signs and their stored hatred.  I think about street gangs, drugs, racial hatred.  I think about welfare, socialism which reduces Good People to governmental dependency just to feed their children.

Gird your armor and talk about the random violence, the disintegration of socity and of families caused by all of these societal ills.  THEN compare them to the 'gun violence' which is practiced by people who are NOT part of those 'communities'.

I think you are aiming your vitriol against (what you may perceive as) a relatively small 'community' of people who don't think that "Guns Are Evil"  And I think about the Second Amendment is NOT about "hunting" but about "Defense".

"Defense" includes not only defending your home, your family and your possessions against the predations of "anti-social predators", but against "all enemies foreign and domestic".  In 1968, a week after I was married, I took an oath to protect my country against those entities.  I've completed my military service, but my oath still stands.  Have you taken such an oath?  If not, then perhaps your moral ascendency is slightly tarnished.

And YOU have the nerve to suggest that I should be deprived of the means to defend my home?

I don't think much about the Glock; and although the Sig Sauer is a fine pistol, I don't choose to own one.  And no, I don't own The Evil AR15.  I do, however, own several pistols, rifles and shotguns.  None of them have EVER been pointed at a person, and most of them have never been pointed at anything more offensive than a paper or cardboard target.  In fact, I've almost given up hunting;  I can buy beef at 10% per pound of the price of a deer hunt, and since I'm old and lazy, hunting has not the same appeal to me as it once did.

So most of my firearms are memorabilia of a more active period in my life.  I have them to remind myself of when I was younger, and more active; and I also keep them out of respect both for the fine machinery, and for my father who built many of my firearms from "common clay".  (He was a craftsman as a stock maker and a gunsmith.)

And YOU have the nerve to suggest that I should give up these sentimental, these historic firearms?

Lately, which is to say for the past 20 years, I've been amusing myself by competing in pistol competition.  Even after all these years of practice, I admit that I'm still not very good at it.  But it provides me some time to meet with my friends (who share my perverse choice of amusement) and the sheer joy of trying to hit the center of a cardboard target 'at speed" is .. while rarely rewarding in terms if "bragging rights", is still high in the adrenalin rush of an old man who wants to prove to himself that he 'still has it'.  (Even if we all know he really doesn't.)

And YOU have the nerve to suggest that I should give up one of the last physical activities, and social events, which are still available to me?

One of these days, I will die.  When that happens, my children and their spouses will have to decide who gets what.  I derive some pleasure in imagining how they will fight over the .22-250 Varmint Rifle with the Oregon Rock Maple Stock, and the STI Edge 10mm Pistol with the 18-round magazines, and even the lowly Taurus  Model 85 in .38 Special, and the upper-end Taurus Model 65 in .357 magnum with the four inch barrel.  I spend my idle moments (not that frequently, but occasionally) thinking of my Navy son and his irish brother in law arguing about who gets what ... and the daughter and the step-daughter breaking in to say that the 85 or the P3-AT are "just right for them".  And I laugh, because I know that the odds that I can look down from heaven and enjoy their good-natured conflict.


And YOU have the unmitigated gall to suggest that this small, simple pleasure of an old man should become nothing more than a pipe dream?


While I do realize, and accept, that all of these concepts of firearms being both an intensely personal relationship (yes, I know, you think I'm just another "Gun Nut" ... my father taught me 40 years ago to understand that this is not a term of approbation, but an honor) are anathema to you, I don't think that YOU understand that YOUR attitude is equally distasteful and insulting to me.

You seem to believe that no man or woman can own a woman and not succumb to the succubus of slaughter which is incarnate in The Evil Gun.

You seem to believe that anyone who would willingly say, in the face of Modern Media Coverage, that "I Love My Guns", is some sort of deranged Neanderthal.  You think that I consider my firearms an extension of my penis, and that my entire being (including 'sexual') is wrapped up in my guns.  It's like owning a big car .. it must be some kind of some kind of compensation for having a small penis, plus I can't get girls.  My late Significant Other must also have penis envy, because she enjoyed shooting pistols in competition, also.

The point is, you have no idea what variety of ways are available to people who enjoy the shooting sports.  Competition, plinking, hunting ... all are common means by which people (not just the perverts and wanna-be assassins  which you seem to imagine populate the gun owners of America) have made firearms ownership a billion dollar industry in this country.

All you see is a sick obsession with firearms.  And you immediately and unthinkingly conflate that enjoyment with the sick f*cks who break into a school and kill little children.

Shame on you.

Shame on you for making the 'intuitive' connection.  You didn't think it through.  You see the Gun; you don't see the people.

You see the potential for violence; you don't see the people. Sane,  down-home people who just want to have fun with their friends.  Without drinking, without anger,  Just clean, SAFE competition .. or hunting, of course.

Most of my friends have guns, and they use them to hunt, in competition or just to plink at tin cans.  When they shoot, they don't see "people".  They don't want to hurt anyone.  They just enjoy that shooting guns at targets is liking throwing darts at a target; only without the intoxicants, but usually with the bonhomerie of sharing an amusement with friends.

Well, there's the loud noises, of course; you don't get that with Darts.  Bud DAMN!  It's not often that you have to wear earmuffs when you're throwing darts!

I look forward to your next article, when you skewer tavern dart-throwers because they obviously have 'skewer issues' and other forms of penis envy.



Oh, by the way; this is what I all "a national conversation".

" some gun control, less media coverage"

David Brooks calls for some gun control, less media coverage in wake of Sandy Hook shooting 

The mass-shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which left 20 children and six adults dead, is an important opportunity to reconsider the role of both the media and gun control policy, New York Times columnist David Brooks argued on Friday.

Brooks, speaking on PBS’s “NewsHour,” suggested that people with certain mental health conditions should be denied access to guns, before urging the media not to inadvertently glorify the suspected shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza.

“I think it would be helpful in the media if we did not publicize these people, especially if they have committed suicide,” he said. “Don’t put them on the cover of magazines. Don’t put their faces on TV. Don’t release their names. I somehow think that would diminish some of the perverse heroism of them.”

(David Brooks is a political and cultural commentator who writes for The New York Times. He worked as an editorial writer and film reviewer for the Washington Times; a reporter and later op-ed editor .)

As awkward as I feel agreeing with a Columnist for the New York Times, I can't help aggreeing with Mr. Brooks, at least in part.

Well .. let me see:  Disallowing firearms ownership to people with "certain mental health conditions"?   Gee, the last time I bought a firearm, I had to answer "NO" to the question about "Are You A Loony?"  (nb: not a direct quote .. but that was the crux of the question.)  Apparently the Federal government already has that "Gun Nut Loophole" firmly covered.

The part about not publicizing the PERSON?  Yeah, I can support that.  Brooks argues that is important "...especially if they have committed suicide".   That's okay; God forbid we should embarrass them in public, but since they're already dead ... oh, wait.  The don't care.  Hmmm .. I guess I don't really understand the distinction.

I think am pretty sure that Brooks is suggesting that we shouldn't "glorify" the madmen.  In my mind, that concept is A Good Idea whether they commit suicide or not.  But how about if they are killed by a crazed saloon killer while being transferred from their jail cell ... is that okay?  That's what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald ... and so far (knock on wood) that hasn't led to the further assassination of American presidents; I think (let me do the math: 2012 minus 1963...) 49 years of "No Wanna-Be's" suggests that it's okay to publish the assassin's name if he's killed by a crazed saloon killer.

So .. I guess he's saying that if they're gone, we ought to just fagettaboutit.  If they're still alive, of course we'll have the media reporting on their  capture, trial, sentence, yadda yadda yadda.  (Sorry; all I know about how New Yorkers talk is what I read in The Times.)   So if we try to keep their names out of the papers, it would constitute an infringement on The First Amendment.  Not on the madman's rights but the Fourth Estate.

Perhaps I'm not totally sold on the DETAILS, but I'm pretty sure I agree on one thing:

... we're never going to 'understand' these Evil Doers.  Maybe it doesn't require that we 'understand' them.  So why do we need to know more about them except that some asshole shot up some good people?

Maybe there are other assholes out there, who see the media frenzy and think:

 "Hey, I'm a worthless asshole; but if I go shoot up some good people then people will get to know my name and I'll be famous.  People will remember my name!  Gee, it worked for Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark David Chapman and ... well, who knows?  And if I blow off my freakin' head when I'm done, people will know that at heart I'm really a Sensitive guy!   But I sure don't want to get shot by some cop like Charles Whitman was done in at the Texas Tower in '66.   On the other hand, that guy who shot up Luby's Restaurant in Texas and then (you guessed it) shot himself in the head?  Almost nobody remembers his name, 'cause it was only mentioned once and then quickly forgotten."

So okay, I think it's a good idea; let's all agree to forget these worthless assholes immediately.  Deny them the fruits of their madness, as intangible and illogical as they may seem.  Let's wipe their names off the face of the earth, and insure that they will achieve none of the goals of which they dreamed.  It's the least we can do, and perhaps it's the most we can do.  Nothing will be sufficient, of course, to express our contempt for their acts.

 Nothing

We won't forget the people they killed. 

But we will know one thing for sure.  We'll know that they died for NOTHING! 

To my mind, that's the most shameful, the most ignominious, the most insulting end of all.   To die for NOTHING!   If I'm murdered, I don't want the asshole to say "nothing personal".  At least, I would want to know that I'm dying for some reason which is more important than the pitiful self-aggrandizement of some loony-bin asshole. 

I hate it that all of those children, and their heroic teachers and principle, died at Sandy Hook.  But that they died for nothing?  That's the most despicable act of all.

Another massacre ... in Connecticut

Elementary school massacre: 20 children among 28 killed in Connecticut slaughter - U.S. News: A teacher's son, clad in black and carrying two 9mm pistols, rampaged through a Connecticut elementary school Friday, killing 20 small children and six adults, a tragedy President Barack Obama said had broken the hearts of America.

Damn, I am getting so freaking TIRED of this!

I don't know about you, but I feel like a tether-ball being bounced back and forth on what seems to be a daily basis.

When I wrote about the most recent Mall shooting, in Oregon, I found it easy to blame that part of the American Culture which wants to ban all guns and let the Government take care of us.   But guns are still also a part of that culture, and nothing will stop a madman (I've decided to let the "Sick Fuck" nomenclature be a term which you will automatically translate the word "madman" to mean) who will steal a gun or two or three.

And of course merely making guns illegal, and confiscating all private firearms, will not stop this.  Australia and England have thoroughly proven that THIS is not a workable solution.  Even the nullification of the Second Amendment would stop this kind of senseless slaughter.

No more workable are all of the restrictions which America has tried to impose ... most notoriously in the 10-year 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" which "sunsetted" because it had proved that restricting access had no demonstrable effect on "gun violence" except to make it harder for sane, honest citizens to defend themselves.

Once again, we're reduced to trivia and tears: trivia, because you can't legislate effectively against violence especially by 'restricting' the means to impose the violence;  tears, because when even the most well-intended governmental restrictions don't work we weep from both grief and frustration.

Because we cannot even defend our children.

I was a child during the Truman and Eisenhower years, and I recall as a ten-year-old being worried about some kind of nameless threat.  I worried that someone would try to hurt me; in retrospect, I think it was because my fourth-grade teacher Mr. Gorman had teased us with imaginary tells of the "Sherwood Slaughterer" who would creep though our bedroom windows and night and steal us away, never to be seen again ... alive.

Then I reasoned:  "I'm only a little boy.  Why would anyone want to hurt me?  And I found comfort in  that pre-pubescent syllogism.

Now I realize that my fears were not entirely irrational.  Oh, perhaps they weren't so immediate during the mid-1950's, but today I wonder that all of our children are at risk from the day they are born.

Suddenly we're back to the Thirty Years War.   During that dark period of the 17h century, no man, woman or child was safe against the predation of English, French, Spanish, German .. all of the (essentially "mercenary") ... armies which roamed across the face of Europe; the populace was the source of food, supplies, and 'entertainment' by the all-but-leaderless armies whose commanders worried only about defeating their enemies and feeding their armies.  They had little or no concern for 'protecting the people'.

Today, our governments are all about "The People" .. but they still cannot provide the internal security against this new breed of 'mercenaries'.  We have our own 'predators', but we call them 'madmen'.  (see definition, above).

Here is a Sixty-Minutes look at the .. event:

Perhaps one 'answer' ... or at least part of the answer ...may be found here.

Or another viewpoint here.


What is the source of these 'madmen'?  Are they all psychotic?  We would like to think they are.  I know that *_I_*  prefer to think of them as such.  Who else would slaughter innocents with such apparent gay abandon?  And they almost invariably climax their attacks with self-immolation (usually with the now-classic "self-administered gunshot to the head).  It's almost as if they believe, somehow, that their willingness to take their own life will be understood as their own personal acknowledgment that they know they did something unforgivably wrong, and they are willing to take responsibility for their actions.  So, that makes everything okay, right?

 I don't really think so.

In Dante's "Inferno", he describes nine circles of hell.  Essentially, each circle is reserved for violators of one of the Seven Deadly Sins.   It seems to me that these madmen are candidates for at least five of the nine circles, and I personally hope that they serve subsequent, rather than concurrent terms in HELL for the evil which they do.

We can just forget about our concerns for their mental states.   There is more than hormonal imbalances involved here.  These people are not just sick.  They are evil.  Some of our religions advise us to hate the sin, and forgive the sinners.

This particular bunch of sinners are exceedingly hard to forgive.   It's easy for us to take this approach, if our religion advocates that philosophy.   Even for those who make it almost impossible for us to forgive then;  after all,  if they were truly evil, would they then suicide when they realized that they had done the evil?

I am not that religious.   These attacks, however, make it much more attractive for me to to believe in Heaven, for if there is a Heaven, there must also be a Hell.

I very much hope there must be a Hell.  And tonite, Satan must be feasting and doing the Macarena because his new Best Boy is roasting.  Appropriately named ... Adam.

Hopefully, for all of eternity.

Bon Appetite, Satan.